# Senate (GOP) rejects amendment to build border fence



## tyroneweaver

Senate rejects amendment to build border fence | The Daily Caller


and you rino's thought voters sat home during Romney, you ain't seen nothing yet.


----------



## daveman

Note to the GOP:

We already have one liberal party.  We don't need two.  Cut that stupid shit out.

Signed,
American Conservatives


----------



## Dugdale_Jukes

Even nutball scum bumble into daylight once in a while. 

The only way to stop illegal immigration is to prosecute corporations hiring illegals. 

For what it's worth, when the fence IS built, it will be as much to keep people in as out.


----------



## daveman

Dugdale_Jukes said:


> Even nutball scum bumble into daylight once in a while.
> 
> The only way to stop illegal immigration is to prosecute corporations hiring illegals.
> 
> For what it's worth, when the fence IS built, it will be as much to keep people in as out.



You seem to be forgetting deportation of the illegals themselves, Jughead.


----------



## bripat9643

Dugdale_Jukes said:


> Even nutball scum bumble into daylight once in a while.
> 
> The only way to stop illegal immigration is to prosecute corporations hiring illegals.



Wrong.  Furthermore, Democrats have no interest in cutting illegal immigration, so why would Obama bother prosecuting employers?  He can do that right now.



Dugdale_Jukes said:


> For what it's worth, when the fence IS built, it will be as much to keep people in as out.



Yeah, right.  That's because so many Americans are dying to move to Mexico!


----------



## bripat9643

daveman said:


> Note to the GOP:
> 
> We already have one liberal party.  We don't need two.  Cut that stupid shit out.
> 
> Signed,
> American Conservatives



Every Republican who voted against that Amendment needs to get his ass primaried.


----------



## Vox

Dugdale_Jukes said:


> Even nutball scum bumble into daylight once in a while.
> 
> The only way to stop illegal immigration is to prosecute corporations hiring illegals.
> 
> For what it's worth, when the fence IS built, it will be as much to keep people in as out.



Corporations are not hiring illegals. Illegals mostly work for cash in the lowest segment of the workforce. and have nothing to do with any established companies.
The ones which are hired by corporations are smart enough to transfer to H1B pretty quick - it is quite possible even under current immigration system


----------



## LoneLaugher

Go nutters! Go! 

Primary all of them with Allen Wests and Michell Bachmann's! Go, baby, go!


----------



## Dugdale_Jukes

Vox said:


> Dugdale_Jukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even nutball scum bumble into daylight once in a while.
> 
> The only way to stop illegal immigration is to prosecute corporations hiring illegals.
> 
> For what it's worth, when the fence IS built, it will be as much to keep people in as out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Corporations are not hiring illegals. Illegals mostly work for cash in the lowest segment of the workforce. and have nothing to do with any established companies.
> The ones which are hired by corporations are smart enough to transfer to H1B pretty quick - it is quite possible even under current immigration system
Click to expand...


Can anyone be this clueless? 
-Pros Ranch Markets...In May 2010, An Immigration and Customs  Enforcement audit of Pros Ranch Markets in Phoenix, resulted in the  firing of 300 illegal aliens. The federal audit discovered that 20  percent of the companys workforce were living and working in the  country illegally.

-*Koch* Foods...In February 2010, it was announced that Koch Foods was  forced to pay a fine of $536,046, after a 2007 Immigrations and Customs  Enforcement raid turned up 161 illegal aliens working in their  Fairfield, OH plant.

- Krispy Kreme Doughnuts Inc...In July 2009, U.S. Immigration and Customs  Enforcement announced that Krispy Kreme agreed to pay a $40,000 fine for  hiring illegal aliens, after an inspection by ICE discovered the  company had hired dozens of illegal workers at their Cincinnati, OH  factory.

-American Apparel...A 2009 investigation uncovered 1,800 illegal alien  workers, using fraudulent documents. The company, located in Los Angeles  is the nations largest clothing manufacturer, and the 1,800 illegal  workers represented a third of their workforce. The owners of American  Apparel have been outspoken proponents of an amnesty plan for this  nations illegal alien population.​Wal Mart, MacDonalds, Agriprocessors, Smithfield Foods, Verizon, Del Monte... dozens more Fortune 500 corporations paid fines to avoid conviction. 

Was there something else?


----------



## velvtacheeze

For six nightmare years the GOP held unified power in DC and they didn't pay for a fence then, so why do we have to do it now?  They had their chance during the Bush years and blew it. It's their own damn fault.


----------



## Avatar4321

Why do we need an amendment to build a border fence? It's already the Law of the land to build the border fence. We passed it back in the Bush administration.

The problem is neither the Bush or Obama administrations have obeyed the law and built the fence. 

What's this one going to do? "Build a border fence and we reallly really mean it this time"

This is freakin ridiculous.


----------



## OriginalShroom

velvtacheeze said:


> For six nightmare years the GOP held unified power in DC and they didn't pay for a fence then, so why do we have to do it now?  They had their chance during the Bush years and blew it. It's their own damn fault.



Pelosi defunded the fence..

But you knew that already, didn't you?


----------



## velvtacheeze

Pelosi defunded it? Good. 

The GOP had six years before Pelosi was Speaker to build it. Six years of GOP White House, Senate and House of Reps.  Conservatives should have built the fence then.  They didn't.  They screwed up the country and go replaced by Democrats.  BLAME THE GOP FOR NOT DOING WHAT YOU WANT WHEN THEY HAD THE POWER.  

This is not difficult to grasp.  Blaming Democrats for not implementing conservative policies is silly. You need to start blaming the Republicans for not implementing conservative polices when they could have.  They had their chance to build a wall from 2001 to 2007, and didn't take advantage of it. Be mad at the GOP for once.


----------



## Trajan

Dugdale_Jukes said:


> Even nutball scum bumble into daylight once in a while.
> 
> The only way to stop illegal immigration is to prosecute corporations hiring illegals.
> 
> For what it's worth, when the fence IS built, it will be as much to keep people in as out.



 keep people IN? up your drip dude...


----------



## Trajan

velvtacheeze said:


> Pelosi defunded it? Good.
> 
> The GOP had six years before Pelosi was Speaker to build it. Six years of GOP White House, Senate and House of Reps.  Conservatives should have built the fence then.  They didn't.  They screwed up the country and go replaced by Democrats.  BLAME THE GOP FOR NOT DOING WHAT YOU WANT WHEN THEY HAD THE POWER.
> 
> This is not difficult to grasp.  Blaming Democrats for not implementing conservative policies is silly. You need to start blaming the Republicans for not implementing conservative polices when they could have.  They had their chance to build a wall from 2001 to 2007, and didn't take advantage of it. Be mad at the GOP for once.



oh so thats how it is? I see... revisionist much?


----------



## Trajan

Avatar4321 said:


> Why do we need an amendment to build a border fence? It's already the Law of the land to build the border fence. We passed it back in the Bush administration.
> 
> The problem is neither the Bush or Obama administrations have obeyed the law and built the fence.
> 
> What's this one going to do? "Build a border fence and we reallly really mean it this time"
> 
> This is freakin ridiculous.



as far as the senate goes this bill has been planned and cooked  by the 'gang of 8' and will pass.....and the senate gop? unreal.....murderers of their own posterity.


----------



## velvtacheeze

Trajan said:


> velvtacheeze said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pelosi defunded it? Good.
> 
> The GOP had six years before Pelosi was Speaker to build it. Six years of GOP White House, Senate and House of Reps.  Conservatives should have built the fence then.  They didn't.  They screwed up the country and go replaced by Democrats.  BLAME THE GOP FOR NOT DOING WHAT YOU WANT WHEN THEY HAD THE POWER.
> 
> This is not difficult to grasp.  Blaming Democrats for not implementing conservative policies is silly. You need to start blaming the Republicans for not implementing conservative polices when they could have.  They had their chance to build a wall from 2001 to 2007, and didn't take advantage of it. Be mad at the GOP for once.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oh so thats how it is? I see... revisionist much?
Click to expand...


The GOP had six years of unified power to build a fence and failed to do so.  You forgive them for it, and then hold a pity party when Democrats refuse to build a fence instead.  Unreal. No wonder the country go worse under GOP rule. No wonder Obama won so easily twice. Conservatives are just not very smart people.


----------



## Trajan

velvtacheeze said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> velvtacheeze said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pelosi defunded it? Good.
> 
> The GOP had six years before Pelosi was Speaker to build it. Six years of GOP White House, Senate and House of Reps.  Conservatives should have built the fence then.  They didn't.  They screwed up the country and go replaced by Democrats.  BLAME THE GOP FOR NOT DOING WHAT YOU WANT WHEN THEY HAD THE POWER.
> 
> This is not difficult to grasp.  Blaming Democrats for not implementing conservative policies is silly. You need to start blaming the Republicans for not implementing conservative polices when they could have.  They had their chance to build a wall from 2001 to 2007, and didn't take advantage of it. Be mad at the GOP for once.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oh so thats how it is? I see... revisionist much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The GOP had six years of unified power to build a fence and failed to do so.  You forgive them for it, and then hold a pity party when Democrats refuse to build a fence instead.  Unreal. No wonder the country go worse under GOP rule. No wonder Obama won so easily twice. Conservatives are just not very smart people.
Click to expand...


and what happened between 1986 ( when Reagan signed an amnesty) and 1994? or 2007 to 2010? and the supra majority in 2009? stop being selective and cherry picking,  you look stupid.


----------



## Crackerjaxon

A fence is a really stupid idea that caters to people with double-digit IQs.  Hell, why not just put up a sign?  It would be equally effective and much cheaper.

I'm glad common sense prevailed.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

In addition to being idiocy, a border fence simply would not have worked.


----------



## Avatar4321

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> In addition to being idiocy, a border fence simply would not have worked.



Would you prefer a great wall?


----------



## TemplarKormac

Avatar4321 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> In addition to being idiocy, a border fence simply would not have worked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you prefer a great wall?
Click to expand...


He would rather them all get welfare checks.


----------



## Beachboy

All along Republicans have been saying that before anything happens on  Immigration Reform, the border needs to be secure.  Today, Speaker of  the House John Boehner told NBC that the Immigration Reform Bill's  reinforcement of the U. S. border with Mexico was "laughable."  Remember  it is up to the Speaker to decide if a vote is held on anything in the  House.  Boehner plans to keep Immigration Reform off the House docket.   From what I am reading, it looks like Republicans will keep Immigration  Reform off in 2013.

Based on the election promises made to Hispanics by President Obama, it  has been reported that the president is furious.  This will be the  president's second broken promise to Hispanics on immigration.




​ 
Yes, there are outlying areas where this is all the fencing 
between the United States and Mexico.​


----------



## OKTexas

None of this really matters, the house will never pass the senate bill.


----------



## Trajan

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> In addition to being idiocy, a border fence simply would not have worked.



really , where did you get that? 

and let me stipulate now so you don't get silly, I'll take fecne that 80% effective....


----------



## Avatar4321

OKTexas said:


> None of this really matters, the house will never pass the senate bill.



If all the democrats vote for it and a number of Republican dupes agree, they sure will.

Congress was never going to pass Obamacare either. They still deemed it passed and pushed it through.


----------



## Geaux4it

Nah, can't build a fence. We don't have the skilzz or the nads.

Lock and load- You're going to need it.

-Geaux

[youtube]OS4GDtXVnKs[/youtube]


----------



## Sarah G

tyroneweaver said:


> Senate rejects amendment to build border fence | The Daily Caller
> 
> 
> and you rino's thought voters sat home during Romney, you ain't seen nothing yet.



Thank goodness, it was a stupid and very expensive idea.


----------



## Avatar4321

Sarah G said:


> tyroneweaver said:
> 
> 
> 
> Senate rejects amendment to build border fence | The Daily Caller
> 
> 
> and you rino's thought voters sat home during Romney, you ain't seen nothing yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank goodness, it was a stupid and very expensive idea.
Click to expand...


Yeah making sure our borders are secure so drug lords cant come over the border and kill our citizens is a stupid expensive idea.


----------



## WillowTree

tyroneweaver said:


> Senate rejects amendment to build border fence | The Daily Caller
> 
> 
> and you rino's thought voters sat home during Romney, you ain't seen nothing yet.



They called my home today wanting me to help them rid the Senate of Harry Reid. They went away with a scalded ass.


----------



## Sarah G

Avatar4321 said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tyroneweaver said:
> 
> 
> 
> Senate rejects amendment to build border fence | The Daily Caller
> 
> 
> and you rino's thought voters sat home during Romney, you ain't seen nothing yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank goodness, it was a stupid and very expensive idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah making sure our borders are secure so drug lords cant come over the border and kill our citizens is a stupid expensive idea.
Click to expand...


We could never build a fence high enough to keep them out if they want to get here bad enough.  Back to the drawing board.


----------



## Geaux4it

Sarah G said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank goodness, it was a stupid and very expensive idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah making sure our borders are secure so drug lords cant come over the border and kill our citizens is a stupid expensive idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We could never build a fence high enough to keep them out if they want to get here bad enough.  Back to the drawing board.
Click to expand...


Put reserve troops and drones on the border. Also, new blimp technology can assign a transponder 'squawk' code to a person and follow these guys no matter where they travel.

It's just we don't want too

-Geaux


----------



## Pheonixops

tyroneweaver said:


> Senate rejects amendment to build border fence | The Daily Caller
> 
> 
> and you rino's thought voters sat home during Romney, you ain't seen nothing yet.



I didn't read the article, but was there something else attached to that amendment that they were objecting to?


----------



## Avatar4321

Sarah G said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank goodness, it was a stupid and very expensive idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah making sure our borders are secure so drug lords cant come over the border and kill our citizens is a stupid expensive idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We could never build a fence high enough to keep them out if they want to get here bad enough.  Back to the drawing board.
Click to expand...


Yeah we could. We put a man on the moon. You think we cant build a freakin fence that works?


----------



## tyroneweaver

Good fences make good neighbors.


----------



## Geaux4it

Avatar4321 said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah making sure our borders are secure so drug lords cant come over the border and kill our citizens is a stupid expensive idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We could never build a fence high enough to keep them out if they want to get here bad enough.  Back to the drawing board.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah we could. We put a man on the moon. You think we cant build a freakin fence that works?
Click to expand...


Charge it with some serious amps and they will only try to climb it once.

-Geaux


----------



## Sarah G

Geaux4it said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah making sure our borders are secure so drug lords cant come over the border and kill our citizens is a stupid expensive idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We could never build a fence high enough to keep them out if they want to get here bad enough.  Back to the drawing board.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Put reserve troops and drones on the border. Also, new blimp technology can assign a transponder 'squawk' code to a person and follow these guys no matter where they travel.
> 
> It's just we don't want too
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


So you realize that the fence isn't a viable option then?  We need updated ideas and the GOP doesn't seem to be forthcoming.  You all want safer borders, stop the partisan bullshit and get to work.


----------



## Katzndogz

-





Dugdale_Jukes said:


> Even nutball scum bumble into daylight once in a while.
> 
> The only way to stop illegal immigration is to prosecute corporations hiring illegals.
> 
> For what it's worth, when the fence IS built, it will be as much to keep people in as out.



Corporations seldom, if ever, hires illegals.  It's the little guy.  The gardening service,  construction company,  neighborhood restaurant, a busy person looking for a nanny or housekeeper.  Fortune 500  companies don't.  Farmer's hire field workers.  Bring back the bracero program.


----------



## Geaux4it

Sarah G said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> We could never build a fence high enough to keep them out if they want to get here bad enough.  Back to the drawing board.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Put reserve troops and drones on the border. Also, new blimp technology can assign a transponder 'squawk' code to a person and follow these guys no matter where they travel.
> 
> It's just we don't want too
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you realize that the fence isn't a viable option then?  We need updated ideas and the GOP doesn't seem to be forthcoming.  You all want safer borders, stop the partisan bullshit and get to work.
Click to expand...


Why is it not a viable option? Don't get the safer border comment

-Geaux


----------



## Avatar4321

Sarah G said:


> So you realize that the fence isn't a viable option then?  We need updated ideas and the GOP doesn't seem to be forthcoming.  You all want safer borders, stop the partisan bullshit and get to work.



There is absolutely nothing unviable about it. The fact that we realize we need to do more than just that doesn't mean we think it's unviable.

Right now, people can just walk across the border. A fence would make that more difficult. There may be some peopel who still find a way to get through, but making it so people have to think creatively to get through will deter more people. So will making legal immigration easier.


----------



## Vandalshandle

So the republicans want to spend X billion dollars on border security, virtually all of which can be defeated with a shovel or a ladder....in spit of the fact that 50% of illegal immigrants came into the country legally, and simply overstayed their visa's:

"Illegal entry[edit]

*Main article: Illegal entry#United States* 
The Pew Hispanic Center estimates that 6&#8211;7 million illegal immigrants came to the United States via illegal entry, accounting for probably a little over half of the total population.[21] There are an estimated half million illegal entries into the United States each year.[21][23]

A common means of border crossing is to hire professionals who smuggle illegal immigrants across the border for pay. Those operating on the US-Mexico border are known informally as "coyotes".[23]

*Visa overstay[edit]* 
According to Pew, between 4 and 5.5 million illegal immigrants entered the United States with a legal visa, accounting for between 33&#8211;50% of the total population.[21] A tourist or traveler is considered a "visa overstay" once he or she remains in the United States after the time of admission has expired. The time of admission varies greatly from traveler to traveler depending on what visa class into which they were admitted. Visa overstays tend to be somewhat more educated and better off financially than those who entered the country illegally.[24]   

To help track visa overstayers the US-VISIT (United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology) program collects and retains biographic, travel, and biometric information, such as photographs and fingerprints, of foreign nationals seeking entry into the United States. It also requires electronic readable passports containing this information.

Visa overstayers mostly enter with tourist or business visas.[21] In 1994, more than half[25] of illegal immigrants were Visa overstayers whereas in 2006, about 45% of illegal immigrants were Visa overstayers.[26]

Those who leave the United States after overstaying their visa for more than 180 days but less than one year and then attempt to re-enter on a new visa will face a three year penalty which will not allow them to re-enter the U.S. for that period.

*Border Crossing Card violation[edit]
*A smaller number of illegal immigrants entered the United States legally using the Border Crossing Card, a card that authorizes border crossings into the U.S. for a set amount of time. Border Crossing Card entry accounts for the vast majority of all registered non-immigrant entry into the United States &#8211; 148 million out of 179 million total &#8211; but there is little hard data as to how much of the illegal immigrant population entered in this way. The Pew Hispanic Center estimates the number at around 250,000&#8211;500,000.[21]"

*WIKI*

Given this fact, we can safely assume that, should the fence be built, about 40% that presently cross illegally will simply start getting visa's and overstaying them as well. Meantime, the country is spending billions of dollars every year chasing deer and coyotes which wander into the electronic motion detectors, and replacing camera lesns that are shot out by 22 rifles. At this point, we can expect the Republicans to figure out a way to blame the problems of illegals overstaying their visa's on democrats. However, down here in the border area, our economy is booming at taxpayer expense, because we have built a white elephant that requires constant feeding and maintenance.

(


----------



## bripat9643

Sarah G said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank goodness, it was a stupid and very expensive idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah making sure our borders are secure so drug lords cant come over the border and kill our citizens is a stupid expensive idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We could never build a fence high enough to keep them out if they want to get here bad enough.  Back to the drawing board.
Click to expand...


Wrong.  If the Israelis can do it, we can do it.


----------



## Geaux4it

Vandalshandle said:


> So the republicans want to spend X billion dollars on border security, virtually all of which can be defeated with a shovel or a ladder....in spit of the fact that 50% of illegal immigrants came into the country legally, and simply overstayed their visa's:
> 
> "Illegal entry[edit]
> 
> *Main article: Illegal entry#United States*
> The Pew Hispanic Center estimates that 6&#8211;7 million illegal immigrants came to the United States via illegal entry, accounting for probably a little over half of the total population.[21] There are an estimated half million illegal entries into the United States each year.[21][23]
> 
> A common means of border crossing is to hire professionals who smuggle illegal immigrants across the border for pay. Those operating on the US-Mexico border are known informally as "coyotes".[23]
> 
> *Visa overstay[edit]*
> According to Pew, between 4 and 5.5 million illegal immigrants entered the United States with a legal visa, accounting for between 33&#8211;50% of the total population.[21] A tourist or traveler is considered a "visa overstay" once he or she remains in the United States after the time of admission has expired. The time of admission varies greatly from traveler to traveler depending on what visa class into which they were admitted. Visa overstays tend to be somewhat more educated and better off financially than those who entered the country illegally.[24]
> 
> To help track visa overstayers the US-VISIT (United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology) program collects and retains biographic, travel, and biometric information, such as photographs and fingerprints, of foreign nationals seeking entry into the United States. It also requires electronic readable passports containing this information.
> 
> Visa overstayers mostly enter with tourist or business visas.[21] In 1994, more than half[25] of illegal immigrants were Visa overstayers whereas in 2006, about 45% of illegal immigrants were Visa overstayers.[26]
> 
> Those who leave the United States after overstaying their visa for more than 180 days but less than one year and then attempt to re-enter on a new visa will face a three year penalty which will not allow them to re-enter the U.S. for that period.
> 
> *Border Crossing Card violation[edit]
> *A smaller number of illegal immigrants entered the United States legally using the Border Crossing Card, a card that authorizes border crossings into the U.S. for a set amount of time. Border Crossing Card entry accounts for the vast majority of all registered non-immigrant entry into the United States &#8211; 148 million out of 179 million total &#8211; but there is little hard data as to how much of the illegal immigrant population entered in this way. The Pew Hispanic Center estimates the number at around 250,000&#8211;500,000.[21]"
> 
> *WIKI*
> 
> Given this fact, we can safely assume that, should the fence be built, about 40% that presently cross illegally will simply start getting visa's and overstaying them as well. Meantime, the country is spending billions of dollars every year chasing deer and coyotes which wander into the electronic motion detectors, and replacing camera lesns that are shot out by 22 rifles. At this point, we can expect the Republicans to figure out a way to blame the problems of illegals overstaying their visa's on democrats. However, down here in the border area, our economy is booming at taxpayer expense, because we have built a white elephant that requires constant feeding and maintenance.
> 
> (



So, we actually know how many illegal alien, law violators, come across the border? Yea, the Hispanic group has good data. lol

-Geaux


----------



## boedicca

The border is close to 2,000 long.  So the GOP opposed protecting only a third of it.

Sounds rational to me.


----------



## Avatar4321

boedicca said:


> The border is close to 2,000 long.  So the GOP opposed protecting only a third of it.
> 
> Sounds rational to me.



Except they've already got a law that says we do the entire border and it still hasnt been built. How is passing a law saying we have to do less than that a victory for the right?


----------



## Geaux4it

Avatar4321 said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> The border is close to 2,000 long.  So the GOP opposed protecting only a third of it.
> 
> Sounds rational to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except they've already got a law that says we do the entire border and it still hasnt been built. How is passing a law saying we have to do less than that a victory for the right?
Click to expand...


For real- Let's just pile on law after law we will not enforce. 

Hey on that note, add gun control to the list. We need more laws. We need them because they make us safer

Snarf

-Geaux


----------



## Vandalshandle

So, we actually know how many illegal alien, law violators, come across the border? Yea, the Hispanic group has good data. lol

-Geaux[/QUOTE]

This is not rocket science. They ask every deportee if he came in on a visa or not, and the deportee knows that if he does not show his visa, he will be considered to have crossed the border by the use of a "coyote". BP policy is that they never return a border violater to the place where he came from, if he used a coyote, because they want to break that connection. Therefore, if the deportee shows his expired visa card, he gets deported back to where he came across. If not, he will be sent to a place at random. For example, if he came over in El Paso, he may be deported through San Diego.


----------



## Beachboy

OKTexas said:


> None of this really matters, the house will never pass the senate bill.



Practical politics emphasizes that your post is correct.  Here is NBC's take on things yesterday.

CBO releases report on Senate immigration reform bill - Video on NBCNews.com​ 
This story makes me unhappy, but it appears well researched.  If you are seriously interested in Immigration Reform, this news report will bring you up-to-date.  It is estimated that the failure of Immigration Reform will cost American taxpayers $197,000,000 over the next five years alone.  I thought they had settled the guest worker aspect to the satisfaction of business and labor, but it looks like that is gone too.


----------



## Synthaholic

daveman said:


> Note to the GOP:
> 
> We already have one liberal party.  We don't need two.  Cut that stupid shit out.
> 
> Signed,
> American Conservatives


You big spending wingnuts can't wait to spend even more taxpayer money, can you?

Wasn't the creation of a new massive bureaucracy (Homeland Security), Medicare D, and two failed wars enough for you?


----------



## EriktheRed

LoneLaugher said:


> Go nutters! Go!
> 
> Primary all of them with Allen Wests and Michell Bachmann's! Go, baby, go!





^^^^^^^^^^^

This.


----------



## Synthaholic

daveman said:


> Dugdale_Jukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even nutball scum bumble into daylight once in a while.
> 
> The only way to stop illegal immigration is to prosecute corporations hiring illegals.
> 
> For what it's worth, when the fence IS built, it will be as much to keep people in as out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be forgetting deportation of the illegals themselves, Jughead.
Click to expand...



*As of July, Obama deported 1.4 million illegal immigrants since the beginning of his administration &#8212; that&#8217;s 1.5 times more immigrants on average than Bush deported  every month*, according to official numbers from the Department of  Homeland Security*. But that&#8217;s only part of Obama&#8217;s deportation  strategy: The administration&#8217;s stated goal is to prioritize the  deportation of criminal, dangerous illegal immigrants. And it&#8217;s promised  to make a new program called Secure Communities mandatory  by 2013, which would force local law enforcement to share fingerprints  of those arrested with the Department of Homeland Security, which has  immigration records, through the FBI.


Obama is deporting immigrants faster than Bush. Republicans don?t think that?s enough.


----------



## squeeze berry

Dugdale_Jukes said:


> Even nutball scum bumble into daylight once in a while.
> 
> The only way to stop illegal immigration is to prosecute corporations hiring illegals.
> 
> For what it's worth, when the fence IS built, it will be as much to keep people in as out.



let's prosecute everyone that breaks the law


----------



## Synthaholic

Vox said:


> Dugdale_Jukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even nutball scum bumble into daylight once in a while.
> 
> The only way to stop illegal immigration is to prosecute corporations hiring illegals.
> 
> For what it's worth, when the fence IS built, it will be as much to keep people in as out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Corporations are not hiring illegals. Illegals mostly work for cash in the lowest segment of the workforce. and have nothing to do with any established companies.
> The ones which are hired by corporations are smart enough to transfer to H1B pretty quick - it is quite possible even under current immigration system
Click to expand...

Fruit/vegetable/agriculture isn't controlled by corporations? 

Dole is laughing.  So is Archer-Daniels.  So is Del Monte.  So am I.


----------



## Synthaholic

velvtacheeze said:


> For six nightmare years the GOP held unified power in DC and they didn't pay for a fence then, so why do we have to do it now?  They had their chance during the Bush years and blew it. It's their own damn fault.


Yup.  Same with abortion.


----------



## squeeze berry

Sarah G said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank goodness, it was a stupid and very expensive idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah making sure our borders are secure so drug lords cant come over the border and kill our citizens is a stupid expensive idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We could never build a fence high enough to keep them out if they want to get here bad enough.  Back to the drawing board.
Click to expand...


we could always tax the living fuck out of them.

33%


----------



## JohnL.Burke

Dugdale_Jukes said:


> Even nutball scum bumble into daylight once in a while.
> 
> The only way to stop illegal immigration is to prosecute corporations hiring illegals.
> 
> For what it's worth, when the fence IS built, it will be as much to keep people in as out.



Oh my! You better leave the US while you still have a chance!


----------



## Synthaholic

Avatar4321 said:


> Why do we need an amendment to build a border fence? It's already the Law of the land to build the border fence.* We passed it back in the Bush administration.
> *
> The problem is neither the Bush or Obama administrations have obeyed the law and built the fence.
> 
> What's this one going to do? "Build a border fence and we reallly really mean it this time"
> 
> This is freakin ridiculous.




Which bill was that in?  Link?


----------



## JohnL.Burke

Crackerjaxon said:


> A fence is a really stupid idea that caters to people with double-digit IQs.  Hell, why not just put up a sign?  It would be equally effective and much cheaper.
> 
> I'm glad common sense prevailed.



If fences are a really stupid idea then what is that thing around the White House?


----------



## Synthaholic

Trajan said:


> velvtacheeze said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> oh so thats how it is? I see... revisionist much?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The GOP had six years of unified power to build a fence and failed to do so.  You forgive them for it, and then hold a pity party when Democrats refuse to build a fence instead.  Unreal. No wonder the country go worse under GOP rule. No wonder Obama won so easily twice. Conservatives are just not very smart people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and what happened between 1986 ( when Reagan signed an amnesty) and 1994? or 2007 to 2010? and the supra majority in 2009? stop being selective and cherry picking,  you look stupid.
Click to expand...

Why should Democrats enact Republican policies?


----------



## Beachboy

Synthaholic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dugdale_Jukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even nutball scum bumble into daylight once in a while.
> 
> The only way to stop illegal immigration is to prosecute corporations hiring illegals.
> 
> For what it's worth, when the fence IS built, it will be as much to keep people in as out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be forgetting deportation of the illegals themselves, Jughead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *As of July, Obama deported 1.4 million illegal immigrants since the beginning of his administration &#8212; that&#8217;s 1.5 times more immigrants on average than Bush deported  every month*, according to official numbers from the Department of  Homeland Security*. But that&#8217;s only part of Obama&#8217;s deportation  strategy: The administration&#8217;s stated goal is to prioritize the  deportation of criminal, dangerous illegal immigrants. And it&#8217;s promised  to make a new program called Secure Communities mandatory  by 2013, which would force local law enforcement to share fingerprints  of those arrested with the Department of Homeland Security, which has  immigration records, through the FBI.
> 
> 
> Obama is deporting immigrants faster than Bush. Republicans don?t think that?s enough.
Click to expand...


In all fairness to Republicans, they have consistently said the same thing in every immigration debate.  "Nothing happens until our borders are secure."  Just yesterday, John Boehner said that Obama version of securing the border was almost "laughable."  Here is the video of John Boehner's own words.  Looks like the end of Immigration Reform in 2013.

​


----------



## Synthaholic

OKTexas said:


> None of this really matters, the house will never pass the senate bill.


Correct.

Just like the Senate will never pass the House's repeal of Obamacare.

But the House has still spent over $55 million on symbolic votes.

Republicans love to waste taxpayer money.


----------



## Synthaholic

Avatar4321 said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of this really matters, the house will never pass the senate bill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If all the democrats vote for it and a number of Republican dupes agree, they sure will.
> 
> *Congress was never going to pass Obamacare either.* They still deemed it passed and pushed it through.
Click to expand...


Except, Congress DID pass Obamacare, dope.  

And then the Supreme Court validated it as the law of the land.

Sux being a wingnut these days, eh?


----------



## Synthaholic

Avatar4321 said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tyroneweaver said:
> 
> 
> 
> Senate rejects amendment to build border fence | The Daily Caller
> 
> 
> and you rino's thought voters sat home during Romney, you ain't seen nothing yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank goodness, it was a stupid and very expensive idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah making sure our borders are secure so drug lords cant come over the border and kill our citizens is a stupid expensive idea.
Click to expand...

So you want to build one along the Canadian border, also?


Just how much taxpayer money do you wingnuts want to waste, anyway?


----------



## JohnL.Burke

Big and small businesses want cheap labor. Republicans want the border protected before enacting immigration reform for illegals. Democrats like the idea of a new underclass being cultivated to vote democrat. If hispanic communities tended to overwhelmingly vote republican then we would see the republicans talking like democrats and the democrats talking like republicans. 
 In the end though, nothing will happen. This is all smoke and mirrors and rhetoric and hypocrisy in the form of political jousting.
  Enforcing the laws that we already have in terms of hiring illegal aliens and paying under the table while constructing a fence buttressed by cameras and more border agents would solve the problem. Neither side wants to really solve any problem though. This is about votes and one-upmanship. Not about principle and fixing an economy.


----------



## Trajan

Synthaholic said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of this really matters, the house will never pass the senate bill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If all the democrats vote for it and a number of Republican dupes agree, they sure will.
> 
> *Congress was never going to pass Obamacare either.* They still deemed it passed and pushed it through.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except, Congress DID pass Obamacare, dope.
> 
> And then the Supreme Court validated it as the law of the land.
> 
> Sux being a wingnut these days, eh?
Click to expand...


they validated it as a tax, the one thing obama refused to call it.....sux to be a sycophantic sheep eh?


----------



## Trajan

now, as to the topic, the house will pass it, you heard it here first (?)....they will take it up, vote their own changes then conference it, then  boehner will cave and let it come up for a vote again even knowing that a majority of republicans won't vote for it, it'll be 30 or so of them and all the dems, ....the senate will only need a simple majority then, and, there it is.


----------



## daveman

Synthaholic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Note to the GOP:
> 
> We already have one liberal party.  We don't need two.  Cut that stupid shit out.
> 
> Signed,
> American Conservatives
> 
> 
> 
> You big spending wingnuts can't wait to spend even more taxpayer money, can you?
> 
> Wasn't the creation of a new massive bureaucracy (Homeland Security), Medicare D, and two failed wars enough for you?
Click to expand...

I'd tell you to think before you post, but hey -- why start now, right?

As usual, you're conflating Republicans with conservatives.  The actions of the GOP prove they're not guided by conservative principles...hence the note I wrote.

You're really not very smart.


----------



## Sarah G

bripat9643 said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah making sure our borders are secure so drug lords cant come over the border and kill our citizens is a stupid expensive idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We could never build a fence high enough to keep them out if they want to get here bad enough.  Back to the drawing board.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.  If the Israelis can do it, we can do it.
Click to expand...


Well, we're not doing it.  How about that.

You wingnuts just don't know when you are doing nothing but spinning your wheels.  Stfu already, it's done.


----------



## daveman

Synthaholic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dugdale_Jukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even nutball scum bumble into daylight once in a while.
> 
> The only way to stop illegal immigration is to prosecute corporations hiring illegals.
> 
> For what it's worth, when the fence IS built, it will be as much to keep people in as out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be forgetting deportation of the illegals themselves, Jughead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *As of July, Obama deported 1.4 million illegal immigrants since the beginning of his administration  thats 1.5 times more immigrants on average than Bush deported  every month*, according to official numbers from the Department of  Homeland Security*. But thats only part of Obamas deportation  strategy: The administrations stated goal is to prioritize the  deportation of criminal, dangerous illegal immigrants. And its promised  to make a new program called Secure Communities mandatory  by 2013, which would force local law enforcement to share fingerprints  of those arrested with the Department of Homeland Security, which has  immigration records, through the FBI.
> 
> 
> Obama is deporting immigrants faster than Bush. Republicans don?t think that?s enough.
Click to expand...

Obviously, it's NOT enough.

You like to believe that Obama is doing something about illegal immigration.  He is, actually.  He's refusing to enforce Federal immigration laws, he's suing states who attempt to enforce Federal immigration laws, he's extending government benefits to illegals, and he's releasing illegal immigrants with criminal records. 

Obama is encouraging illegal immigration.  He puts his party's power before the security of the United States.  This is undeniable.

You will, predictably, try to deny it, but you won't do so credibly.


----------



## RandallFlagg

Vox said:


> Dugdale_Jukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even nutball scum bumble into daylight once in a while.
> 
> The only way to stop illegal immigration is to prosecute corporations hiring illegals.
> 
> For what it's worth, when the fence IS built, it will be as much to keep people in as out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Corporations are not hiring illegals. Illegals mostly work for cash in the lowest segment of the workforce. and have nothing to do with any established companies.
> The ones which are hired by corporations are smart enough to transfer to H1B pretty quick - it is quite possible even under current immigration system
Click to expand...




Sorry, but at least in my case, you are full of bull. My company (retired now), one of the largest grocery wholesalers in the nation hires them by the boatload. ICE once did an "unannounced" inspection at the corporate offices and found 27 employees with the same SSN. The penality? $20,000. That was some 10 years ago and ICE has never returned. Those illegals make $22.00 per hour.

Until we pass legislation making it a hefty fine per occurrence (for example $50,000 for each illegal hired) and then hire all these unemployed vets to serve as inspectors, we will NEVER stop illegals from doing what they do.

"Pathway to Citizenship" is the biggest crock of crap that the American people have ever been fed.


----------



## daveman

JohnL.Burke said:


> Crackerjaxon said:
> 
> 
> 
> A fence is a really stupid idea that caters to people with double-digit IQs.  Hell, why not just put up a sign?  It would be equally effective and much cheaper.
> 
> I'm glad common sense prevailed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If fences are a really stupid idea then what is that thing around the White House?
Click to expand...

That's different.  Somehow.  It just is.  You racist!!

There, did I get that right, USMB lefties?


----------



## daveman

Synthaholic said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> velvtacheeze said:
> 
> 
> 
> The GOP had six years of unified power to build a fence and failed to do so.  You forgive them for it, and then hold a pity party when Democrats refuse to build a fence instead.  Unreal. No wonder the country go worse under GOP rule. No wonder Obama won so easily twice. Conservatives are just not very smart people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and what happened between 1986 ( when Reagan signed an amnesty) and 1994? or 2007 to 2010? and the supra majority in 2009? stop being selective and cherry picking,  you look stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why should Democrats enact Republican policies?
Click to expand...

Dunno.  Why do you keep bitching that Republicans don't rubber-stamp Obama's policies?


----------



## Beachboy

JohnL.Burke said:


> Big and small businesses want cheap labor. Republicans want the border protected before enacting immigration reform for illegals. Democrats like the idea of a new underclass being cultivated to vote democrat. If hispanic communities tended to overwhelmingly vote republican then we would see the republicans talking like democrats and the democrats talking like republicans.
> In the end though, nothing will happen. This is all smoke and mirrors and rhetoric and hypocrisy in the form of political jousting.
> Enforcing the laws that we already have in terms of hiring illegal aliens and paying under the table while constructing a fence buttressed by cameras and more border agents would solve the problem. Neither side wants to really solve any problem though. This is about votes and one-upmanship. Not about principle and fixing an economy.



I was with you up until the end.  Republicans can clearly see, (especially after the demographics of the Romney loss) that they MUST control how many illegal immigrants can vote.  My guess is they are willing to let big business absorb the higher costs of labor to regain their cultural strength in winning elections.

Unless you could supply a link to the contrary, I do not think the ego factor of one-upsmanship is at play here.  I think it is the savings of $197,000,000 over the next five that puts illegal aliens onto the tax rolls.

This is a very difficult issue because of its complexity, and the fact that 12,000,000 illegals are already in the United States.  I recall what NBC said.  Most Republican members of Congress are from districts without Hispanic voters.  These Republicans are relatively certain of re-election, and apparently have constituents who do not want more Hispanics in the United States.

I can not help but hope the migrant farm worker issue, which was negotiated months ago between business and labor will pass.  Businesses would be required to pick up the green carded workers at the border, and return them when the season is done.  They would be required to sign off any rights for themselves or their family in the United States.  Failure to do something here will not only effect immigrants, but produce prices, the availability of fresh produce, and the agriculture business that is already under siege with fires, floods, and drought.  It would be nice if they could just fix this aspect separately.


----------



## JohnL.Burke

Beachboy said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> Big and small businesses want cheap labor. Republicans want the border protected before enacting immigration reform for illegals. Democrats like the idea of a new underclass being cultivated to vote democrat. If hispanic communities tended to overwhelmingly vote republican then we would see the republicans talking like democrats and the democrats talking like republicans.
> In the end though, nothing will happen. This is all smoke and mirrors and rhetoric and hypocrisy in the form of political jousting.
> Enforcing the laws that we already have in terms of hiring illegal aliens and paying under the table while constructing a fence buttressed by cameras and more border agents would solve the problem. Neither side wants to really solve any problem though. This is about votes and one-upmanship. Not about principle and fixing an economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was with you up until the end.  Republicans can clearly see, (especially after the demographics of the Romney loss) that they MUST control how many illegal immigrants can vote.  My guess is they are willing to let big business absorb the higher costs of labor to regain their cultural strength in winning elections.
> 
> Unless you could supply a link to the contrary, I do not think the ego factor of one-upsmanship is at play here.  I think it is the savings of $197,000,000 over the next five that puts illegal aliens onto the tax rolls.
> 
> This is a very difficult issue because of its complexity, and the fact that 12,000,000 illegals are already in the United States.  I recall what NBC said.  Most Republican members of Congress are from districts without Hispanic voters.  These Republicans are relatively certain of re-election, and apparently have constituents who do not want more Hispanics in the United States.
> 
> I can not help but hope the migrant farm worker issue, which was negotiated months ago between business and labor will pass.  Businesses would be required to pick up the green carded workers at the border, and return them when the season is done.  They would be required to sign off any rights for themselves or their family in the United States.  Failure to do something here will not only effect immigrants, but produce prices, the availability of fresh produce, and the agriculture business that is already under siege with fires, floods, and drought.  It would be nice if they could just fix this aspect separately.
Click to expand...


 I cannot provide a link to the motives of the left and right when it comes to the immigration bill. It's simply my opinion formed after sitting through the same immigration arguments for the past thirty years.


----------



## Geaux4it

Build the fence. Seal the border whatever it takes

Some things are worth paying for

-Geaux


----------



## kiwiman127

Avatar4321 said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tyroneweaver said:
> 
> 
> 
> Senate rejects amendment to build border fence | The Daily Caller
> 
> 
> and you rino's thought voters sat home during Romney, you ain't seen nothing yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank goodness, it was a stupid and very expensive idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah making sure our borders are secure so drug lords cant come over the border and kill our citizens is a stupid expensive idea.
Click to expand...


Do you actually believe a fence is going to stop Drug Lords?


----------



## bripat9643

kiwiman127 said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank goodness, it was a stupid and very expensive idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah making sure our borders are secure so drug lords cant come over the border and kill our citizens is a stupid expensive idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you actually believe a fence is going to stop Drug Lords?
Click to expand...


If it was done right it would certainly cramp their efforts.  However, I have little confidence that Congress can manage to do it right.


----------



## JohnL.Burke

kiwiman127 said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank goodness, it was a stupid and very expensive idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah making sure our borders are secure so drug lords cant come over the border and kill our citizens is a stupid expensive idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you actually believe a fence is going to stop Drug Lords?
Click to expand...


Is anybody suggesting that adding just a fence is the solution? The fence would just be part of the solution. Doesn't matter though, it's not about to happen. We're going to be having the same conversation in 30 years. IMHO


----------



## RandallFlagg

JohnL.Burke said:


> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah making sure our borders are secure so drug lords cant come over the border and kill our citizens is a stupid expensive idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you actually believe a fence is going to stop Drug Lords?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is anybody suggesting that adding just a fence is the solution? The fence would just be part of the solution. Doesn't matter though, it's not about to happen. We're going to be having the same conversation in 30 years. IMHO
Click to expand...



I concur. The only exception that I would have is that in another 30 years, most of the major metropolitan cities in the US, Americans will be the minorities. Then we'll know what it's like to be in Britian. We've brought this on ourselves.


----------



## Synthaholic

Trajan said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If all the democrats vote for it and a number of Republican dupes agree, they sure will.
> 
> *Congress was never going to pass Obamacare either.* They still deemed it passed and pushed it through.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except, Congress DID pass Obamacare, dope.
> 
> And then the Supreme Court validated it as the law of the land.
> 
> Sux being a wingnut these days, eh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> they validated it as a tax, the one thing obama refused to call it.....sux to be a sycophantic sheep eh?
Click to expand...

Semantics.

But if it makes you feel better to call it a tax, that's fine.

Either way, it's the law of the land.


----------



## Synthaholic

daveman said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Note to the GOP:
> 
> We already have one liberal party.  We don't need two.  Cut that stupid shit out.
> 
> Signed,
> American Conservatives
> 
> 
> 
> You big spending wingnuts can't wait to spend even more taxpayer money, can you?
> 
> Wasn't the creation of a new massive bureaucracy (Homeland Security), Medicare D, and two failed wars enough for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'd tell you to think before you post, but hey -- why start now, right?
> 
> As usual, you're conflating Republicans with conservatives.  The actions of the GOP prove they're not guided by conservative principles...hence the note I wrote.
> 
> You're really not very smart.
Click to expand...



Yet, all you wingnuts vote for the Republican, and are here every day to defend them.

Very generous of you toward people who do not uphold your...um..."values".


----------



## Synthaholic

daveman said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be forgetting deportation of the illegals themselves, Jughead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *As of July, Obama deported 1.4 million illegal immigrants since the beginning of his administration  thats 1.5 times more immigrants on average than Bush deported  every month*, according to official numbers from the Department of  Homeland Security*. But thats only part of Obamas deportation  strategy: The administrations stated goal is to prioritize the  deportation of criminal, dangerous illegal immigrants. And its promised  to make a new program called Secure Communities mandatory  by 2013, which would force local law enforcement to share fingerprints  of those arrested with the Department of Homeland Security, which has  immigration records, through the FBI.
> 
> 
> Obama is deporting immigrants faster than Bush. Republicans don?t think that?s enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obviously, it's NOT enough.
> 
> You like to believe that Obama is doing something about illegal immigration.  He is, actually.  He's refusing to enforce Federal immigration laws, he's suing states who attempt to enforce Federal immigration laws, he's extending government benefits to illegals, and he's releasing illegal immigrants with criminal records.
> 
> Obama is encouraging illegal immigration.  He puts his party's power before the security of the United States.  This is undeniable.
> 
> You will, predictably, try to deny it, but you won't do so credibly.
Click to expand...

He's deporting more than Bush did, he's concentrating on the violent and the criminal over the ones who are here to work for corporations, and he is upholding the Constitution by fighting against un-Constitutional laws like Alabama has enacted.

His success really bothers you, so I'm happy.


----------



## Synthaholic

daveman said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> and what happened between 1986 ( when Reagan signed an amnesty) and 1994? or 2007 to 2010? and the supra majority in 2009? stop being selective and cherry picking,  you look stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> Why should Democrats enact Republican policies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dunno.  Why do you keep bitching that Republicans don't rubber-stamp Obama's policies?
Click to expand...

I don't.  Show me where I do.


----------



## Synthaholic

JohnL.Burke said:


> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah making sure our borders are secure so drug lords cant come over the border and kill our citizens is a stupid expensive idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you actually believe a fence is going to stop Drug Lords?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is anybody suggesting that adding just a fence is the solution? The fence would just be part of the solution. Doesn't matter though, it's not about to happen. *We're going to be having the same conversation in 30 years.* IMHO
Click to expand...


In Spanish?


----------



## daveman

Synthaholic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You big spending wingnuts can't wait to spend even more taxpayer money, can you?
> 
> Wasn't the creation of a new massive bureaucracy (Homeland Security), Medicare D, and two failed wars enough for you?
> 
> 
> 
> I'd tell you to think before you post, but hey -- why start now, right?
> 
> As usual, you're conflating Republicans with conservatives.  The actions of the GOP prove they're not guided by conservative principles...hence the note I wrote.
> 
> You're really not very smart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, all you wingnuts vote for the Republican, and are here every day to defend them.
> 
> Very generous of you toward people who do not uphold your...um..."values".
Click to expand...

It's funny the way you think you know our voting records.  

Retard.


----------



## Synthaholic

daveman said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd tell you to think before you post, but hey -- why start now, right?
> 
> As usual, you're conflating Republicans with conservatives.  The actions of the GOP prove they're not guided by conservative principles...hence the note I wrote.
> 
> You're really not very smart.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, all you wingnuts vote for the Republican, and are here every day to defend them.
> 
> Very generous of you toward people who do not uphold your...um..."values".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's funny the way you think you know our voting records.
> 
> Retard.
Click to expand...

I know your posting history.  Why shouldn't I believe your voting record corresponds?


If I tried to tell you I don't vote for the Democrat, would you believe it?  Of course not.

But you expect me to.

So maybe you're the retard.  (and you better watch out:  Mama Grizzly will be upset with you for using that word!)


----------



## daveman

Synthaholic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> *As of July, Obama deported 1.4 million illegal immigrants since the beginning of his administration  thats 1.5 times more immigrants on average than Bush deported  every month*, according to official numbers from the Department of  Homeland Security*. But thats only part of Obamas deportation  strategy: The administrations stated goal is to prioritize the  deportation of criminal, dangerous illegal immigrants. And its promised  to make a new program called Secure Communities mandatory  by 2013, which would force local law enforcement to share fingerprints  of those arrested with the Department of Homeland Security, which has  immigration records, through the FBI.
> 
> 
> Obama is deporting immigrants faster than Bush. Republicans don?t think that?s enough.
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously, it's NOT enough.
> 
> You like to believe that Obama is doing something about illegal immigration.  He is, actually.  He's refusing to enforce Federal immigration laws, he's suing states who attempt to enforce Federal immigration laws, he's extending government benefits to illegals, and he's releasing illegal immigrants with criminal records.
> 
> Obama is encouraging illegal immigration.  He puts his party's power before the security of the United States.  This is undeniable.
> 
> You will, predictably, try to deny it, but you won't do so credibly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's deporting more than Bush did, he's concentrating on the violent and the criminal over the ones who are here to work for corporations, and he is upholding the Constitution by fighting against un-Constitutional laws like Alabama has enacted.
> 
> His success really bothers you, so I'm happy.
Click to expand...

You didn't even look at the links, did you?

Such a mindless sheep you are.


----------



## daveman

Synthaholic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, all you wingnuts vote for the Republican, and are here every day to defend them.
> 
> Very generous of you toward people who do not uphold your...um..."values".
> 
> 
> 
> It's funny the way you think you know our voting records.
> 
> Retard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know your posting history.  Why shouldn't I believe your voting record corresponds?
> 
> 
> If I tried to tell you I don't vote for the Democrat, would you believe it?  Of course not.
> 
> But you expect me to.
> 
> So maybe you're the retard.  (and you better watch out:  Mama Grizzly will be upset with you for using that word!)
Click to expand...

I'll vote for a Democrat if I believe he or she is the best candidate for the job.

I really can't believe that you'd do the same for a Republican.  You're far too partisan.  Look at the way you suck Obama's ass.  Anyone who's drunk that much Kool-Aid is beyond hope.


----------



## Synthaholic

daveman said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously, it's NOT enough.
> 
> You like to believe that Obama is doing something about illegal immigration.  He is, actually.  He's refusing to enforce Federal immigration laws, he's suing states who attempt to enforce Federal immigration laws, he's extending government benefits to illegals, and he's releasing illegal immigrants with criminal records.
> 
> Obama is encouraging illegal immigration.  He puts his party's power before the security of the United States.  This is undeniable.
> 
> You will, predictably, try to deny it, but you won't do so credibly.
> 
> 
> 
> He's deporting more than Bush did, he's concentrating on the violent and the criminal over the ones who are here to work for corporations, and he is upholding the Constitution by fighting against un-Constitutional laws like Alabama has enacted.
> 
> His success really bothers you, so I'm happy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn't even look at the links, did you?
> 
> Such a mindless sheep you are.
Click to expand...

Yes I did.  I even commented on your Alabama link.

You're kind of slow.  Maybe you should go back into hiding.


----------



## Synthaholic

daveman said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's funny the way you think you know our voting records.
> 
> Retard.
> 
> 
> 
> I know your posting history.  Why shouldn't I believe your voting record corresponds?
> 
> 
> If I tried to tell you I don't vote for the Democrat, would you believe it?  Of course not.
> 
> But you expect me to.
> 
> So maybe you're the retard.  (and you better watch out:  Mama Grizzly will be upset with you for using that word!)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I'll vote for a Democrat if I believe he or she is the best candidate for the job.*
Click to expand...


Bullshit.  You're a terrible liar.



> I really can't believe that you'd do the same for a Republican.  You're far too partisan.  Look at the way you suck Obama's ass.  Anyone who's drunk that much Kool-Aid is beyond hope.



I would vote for Republican Michael Bloomberg.  There are a few others.

But, predictably, you will just claim that he and anyone else I would name are not Republicans, so why bother?


----------



## daveman

Synthaholic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's deporting more than Bush did, he's concentrating on the violent and the criminal over the ones who are here to work for corporations, and he is upholding the Constitution by fighting against un-Constitutional laws like Alabama has enacted.
> 
> His success really bothers you, so I'm happy.
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't even look at the links, did you?
> 
> Such a mindless sheep you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes I did.  I even commented on your Alabama link.
> 
> You're kind of slow.  Maybe you should go back into hiding.
Click to expand...

Of course, you're just as contemptuous of American freedom and democracy as Obama is, so you see his putting the Dem Party over the nation as a good thing.

Not at all surprising.  You serve your masters well, and you will be rewarded.  Sucker!!


----------



## daveman

Synthaholic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know your posting history.  Why shouldn't I believe your voting record corresponds?
> 
> 
> If I tried to tell you I don't vote for the Democrat, would you believe it?  Of course not.
> 
> But you expect me to.
> 
> So maybe you're the retard.  (and you better watch out:  Mama Grizzly will be upset with you for using that word!)
> 
> 
> 
> *I'll vote for a Democrat if I believe he or she is the best candidate for the job.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  You're a terrible liar.
Click to expand...

Note:  Saying something you disagree with is not a lie.

But then, I don't expect progressives to use the accepted meanings of words, so we'll just say what you really mean:

"I don't LIKE it, so it CAN'T be true!!  Waaaaaaaahh!!"


Synthaholic said:


> I really can't believe that you'd do the same for a Republican.  You're far too partisan.  Look at the way you suck Obama's ass.  Anyone who's drunk that much Kool-Aid is beyond hope.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would vote for Republican Michael Bloomberg.  There are a few others.
> 
> But, predictably, you will just claim that he and anyone else I would name are not Republicans, so why bother?
Click to expand...

Oh, I have no doubt you'd vote for Bloomberg.  He's a nanny-state advocate, and you want the government to tell you how to live.  

Pathetic, really.


----------



## Synthaholic

daveman said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I'll vote for a Democrat if I believe he or she is the best candidate for the job.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  You're a terrible liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Note:  Saying something you disagree with is not a lie.
> 
> But then, I don't expect progressives to use the accepted meanings of words, so we'll just say what you really mean:
> 
> "I don't LIKE it, so it CAN'T be true!!  Waaaaaaaahh!!"
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I really can't believe that you'd do the same for a Republican.  You're far too partisan.  Look at the way you suck Obama's ass.  Anyone who's drunk that much Kool-Aid is beyond hope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would vote for Republican Michael Bloomberg.  There are a few others.
> 
> But, predictably, you will just claim that he and anyone else I would name are not Republicans, so why bother?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, I have no doubt you'd vote for Bloomberg.  He's a nanny-state advocate, and you want the government to tell you how to live.
> 
> Pathetic, really.
Click to expand...



Like I said, your posting history is not in doubt.  

So don't try to tell everyone on this board that you post like a wingnut, yet vote like a moderate.  

Why are Republicans voting for nannies to lead them?


----------



## RoadVirus

Synthaholic said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of this really matters, the house will never pass the senate bill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If all the democrats vote for it and a number of Republican dupes agree, they sure will.
> 
> *Congress was never going to pass Obamacare either.* They still deemed it passed and pushed it through.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except, Congress DID pass Obamacare, dope.
Click to expand...


A *Democrat-controlled* Congress. Not one Republican voted for it. Not one.


----------



## RoadVirus

Synthaholic said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank goodness, it was a stupid and very expensive idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah making sure our borders are secure so drug lords cant come over the border and kill our citizens is a stupid expensive idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you want to build one along the Canadian border, also?
> 
> 
> Just how much taxpayer money do you wingnuts want to waste, anyway?
Click to expand...


So you think border fences/walls are a waste of money?


----------



## RoadVirus

Geaux4it said:


> Build the fence. Seal the border whatever it takes
> 
> Some things are worth paying for
> 
> -Geaux



Dumbos like Sythaholic thinks it's "a waste of money".


----------



## Google

I'm sure it's already been said, but Congress already passed a bill requiring the construction of 700 miles of the Mexican-American border, that said bill was signed by the president and became law.  

This amendment was simply reenforcing a law that is already on the books.  This is why conservatives are so skeptical at these dubious efforts by the left to coax Senate republicans into supporting this bill--which is utterly unpopular among the American public.

Why the republicans can not take advantage of the tremendous amount of public support for border security is beyond me.  

Like so many other issues, the left simply acts as if they are the main stream and majority.

And also, like so many other laws this administration simply ignores them.


----------



## RoadVirus

kiwiman127 said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank goodness, it was a stupid and very expensive idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah making sure our borders are secure so drug lords cant come over the border and kill our citizens is a stupid expensive idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you actually believe a fence is going to stop Drug Lords?
Click to expand...


You think it won't work? Oh...well i guess we should just give up then! To hell with *trying* to make it work. Let in everyone! Come one, come all! Uneducated Latinos...murderous Drug Cartels...Middle Eastern Terrorists...it don't matter! You're all welcome cuz we don't give a shit anymore!


----------



## RoadVirus

RandallFlagg said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you actually believe a fence is going to stop Drug Lords?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is anybody suggesting that adding just a fence is the solution? The fence would just be part of the solution. Doesn't matter though, it's not about to happen. We're going to be having the same conversation in 30 years. IMHO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I concur. The only exception that I would have is that in another 30 years, most of the major metropolitan cities in the US, Americans will be the minorities. Then we'll know what it's like to be in Britian. We've brought this on ourselves.
Click to expand...


Foreigners in our own country. That is how Britain is and how America will be. All because our politicians love the taste of Mexican dick and cum on their chins.


----------



## Google

RoadVirus said:


> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah making sure our borders are secure so drug lords cant come over the border and kill our citizens is a stupid expensive idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you actually believe a fence is going to stop Drug Lords?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think it won't work? Oh...well i guess we should just give up then! To hell with *trying* to make it work. Let in everyone! Come one, come all! Uneducated Latinos...murderous Drug Cartels...Middle Eastern Terrorists...it don't matter! You're all welcome cuz we don't give a shit anymore!
Click to expand...


These are the same people ridiculing missile defense, saying it is sci-fi pie-in-the-sky nonsense that will never work.  Yet, we now have missile defense.  

Since this administration's efforts to hinder drug cartels, by providing them with assault weapons, failed perhaps we should try another approach.


----------



## Google

RoadVirus said:


> RandallFlagg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is anybody suggesting that adding just a fence is the solution? The fence would just be part of the solution. Doesn't matter though, it's not about to happen. We're going to be having the same conversation in 30 years. IMHO
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I concur. The only exception that I would have is that in another 30 years, most of the major metropolitan cities in the US, Americans will be the minorities. Then we'll know what it's like to be in Britian. We've brought this on ourselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Foreigners in our own country. That is how Britain is and how America will be. All because our politicians love the taste of Mexican dick and cum on their chins.
Click to expand...


Jesus Christ man, calm down.  Mexicans are not coming here and strapping bombs to themselves and blowing school children up.  I've worked with Mexicans my entire life, and don't disparage them for coming here and working whatever jobs they can to provide their children with a better life.  

I do believe there needs to be a solution, but the first step has got to ensure that we are not going to be in the same situation in another two decades.  This is the past repeating itself again.  We got snookered under Reagan, and apparently Rubio, McCain, ect. are going to simply ignore the lessons of the past.


----------



## RoadVirus

Google said:


> RoadVirus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RandallFlagg said:
> 
> 
> 
> I concur. The only exception that I would have is that in another 30 years, most of the major metropolitan cities in the US, Americans will be the minorities. Then we'll know what it's like to be in Britian. We've brought this on ourselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foreigners in our own country. That is how Britain is and how America will be. All because our politicians love the taste of Mexican dick and cum on their chins.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jesus Christ man, calm down.  Mexicans are not coming here and strapping bombs to themselves and blowing school children up.
Click to expand...


No they aren't. They are driving vehicles drunk, raping, killing and stealing. Shit...they might as well be strapping bombs to themselves, considering the number of Americans dying at the hands of Mexican nationals in the US.


----------



## Google

RoadVirus said:


> Google said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoadVirus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Foreigners in our own country. That is how Britain is and how America will be. All because our politicians love the taste of Mexican dick and cum on their chins.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus Christ man, calm down.  Mexicans are not coming here and strapping bombs to themselves and blowing school children up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they aren't. They are driving vehicles drunk, raping, killing and stealing. Shit...they might as well be strapping bombs to themselves, considering the number of Americans dying at the hands of Mexican nationals in the US.
Click to expand...


Agreed.  It is a problem, and the solution must begin with border security.  We have an administration that is hindering the deportation process, or in many cases removing the deportation process--in direct violation of federal immigration laws.  But blacks are committing violent crimes in much higher frequency than hispanics.  

I honestly don't see any resolution in the foreseeable future.


----------



## JohnL.Burke

Synthaholic said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you actually believe a fence is going to stop Drug Lords?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is anybody suggesting that adding just a fence is the solution? The fence would just be part of the solution. Doesn't matter though, it's not about to happen. *We're going to be having the same conversation in 30 years.* IMHO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In Spanish?
Click to expand...


LOL! Si!


----------



## Beachboy

Google said:


> RoadVirus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Google said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus Christ man, calm down.  Mexicans are not coming here and strapping  bombs to themselves and blowing school children up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No they aren't. They are driving vehicles drunk, raping, killing and  stealing. Shit...they might as well be strapping bombs to themselves,  considering the number of Americans dying at the hands of Mexican  nationals in the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed.  It is a problem, and the solution must begin with border  security.  We have an administration that is hindering the deportation  process, or in many cases removing the deportation process--in direct  violation of federal immigration laws.  But blacks are committing  violent crimes in much higher frequency than hispanics.
> 
> I honestly don't see any resolution in the foreseeable future.
Click to expand...


I keep posting that Immigration Reform is a game of "smoke and mirrors."   I would like to see a source that verifies that Obama is "hindering  deportation."  Fact is President Obama has deported more illegals than  all previous presidents before 1997.  The figure is expected to pass  2,000,000 by the end of 2014.  Obama Deportation Toll Could Pass 2 Million At Current Rates  Has it occurred to anyone here that Blacks do not see Mexicans as allies, they see them as competitors?

CBS News referred to a "chance for citizenship" in their coverage rather  than their usual phrase "pathway to citizenship."  We need to listen  very carefully to the words selected in the news media on the issue of  Immigration Reform.  Whatever is really going on here, I don't think  anyone knows for certain.  We need to judge actions not words.  My guess  is Republicans, (and some quiet Democrats), want to seriously secure  the border and will promise anything.  I think the "pathway to  citizenship" is a carrot dangling to secure the border.  Once that is  achieved, I think that will be the end of Immigration Reform.  Do we  really believe that Republicans are just going to let 12,000,000  Hispanics have a vote?  Call this a reality check.  I believe powerful  forces want Hispanics out of the United States, but I can not give you  fact links to prove it.  Ask yourself this, "other than illegal aliens,  some Mexican-Americans, and Democrats who wants to see more Mexicans  voting in the United States?

I think the deck is stacked on the issue of Immigration Reform.  All I  ever hoped for was a fair and reasonable solution to Immigration Reform.


----------



## daveman

Synthaholic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  You're a terrible liar.
> 
> 
> 
> Note:  Saying something you disagree with is not a lie.
> 
> But then, I don't expect progressives to use the accepted meanings of words, so we'll just say what you really mean:
> 
> "I don't LIKE it, so it CAN'T be true!!  Waaaaaaaahh!!"
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would vote for Republican Michael Bloomberg.  There are a few others.
> 
> But, predictably, you will just claim that he and anyone else I would name are not Republicans, so why bother?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, I have no doubt you'd vote for Bloomberg.  He's a nanny-state advocate, and you want the government to tell you how to live.
> 
> Pathetic, really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, your posting history is not in doubt.
Click to expand...

Given your tendency to read what you want something to say instead of what it actually says, what you say can in no way be considered accurate.


Synthaholic said:


> So don't try to tell everyone on this board that you post like a wingnut, yet vote like a moderate.
> 
> Why are Republicans voting for nannies to lead them?


They shouldn't be.  Like I said, we have one liberal party.  We don't need two.  Throw all the bums out.  

Conservatism is the only thing that will save this nation from the historically-failed cancer of progressivism.


----------



## daveman

RoadVirus said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If all the democrats vote for it and a number of Republican dupes agree, they sure will.
> 
> *Congress was never going to pass Obamacare either.* They still deemed it passed and pushed it through.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except, Congress DID pass Obamacare, dope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A *Democrat-controlled* Congress. Not one Republican voted for it. Not one.
Click to expand...


Synthia thinks that GOP Congressmen should ignore what their constituents want and rubber-stamp Obama's agenda.


----------



## Papageorgio

Synthaholic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kooshdakhaa said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I don't consider it to be any different. * Oh, you forgot "valley trash."  The Palins settled in the Matanuska Valley, and there seems to be a high proportion of Lower 48ers of questionable repute moving up here and living in that area of the state.  And meth-heads and other undesirables.  Thus, valley trash. It doesn't really apply to a lot of the people living out there, but the term came into use for good reason.
> 
> What I don't understand is why those CONSERVATIVES on that other forum believed they had every right to call  those little girls nappy-headed pickaninnys, and tore me to ribbons for objecting, but the CONSERVATIVES here don't think anyone has the right to call Palin's little white retarded kid... retarded?
> 
> I'm asking why the CONSERVATIVES think that way.  This isn't about me.  Don't deflect the question by trying to make it about me.  We can talk about me later, if you want.
> 
> 
> 
> *Each of us is responsible ONLY for the things we say.  If you want to blame me for what somebody else said, it may be emotionally satisfying for you, but I can't unsay something I never said to begin with.
> *
> Hope that helps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you just said this:
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's funny the way you think you know our voting records.
> 
> *Retard*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet, here you are, trashing Bill Maher for using that word.
> 
> If wingnuts couldn't say hypocritical things, they would have nothing to say!
Click to expand...


You are one wingnut that proves your theory, you are top notch hypocrite.


----------



## RoadVirus

Google said:


> RoadVirus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Google said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus Christ man, calm down.  Mexicans are not coming here and strapping bombs to themselves and blowing school children up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No they aren't. They are driving vehicles drunk, raping, killing and stealing. Shit...they might as well be strapping bombs to themselves, considering the number of Americans dying at the hands of Mexican nationals in the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I honestly don't see any resolution in the foreseeable future.
Click to expand...

I don't either. Sessions just said that the "20,000 new border agents" won't take effect until 2017. Kinda makes one wonder about all that talk about securing the border before granting amnesty.


----------



## Geaux4it

The bill is dead. Rightfully so

Move along

Nothing to see here

-Geaux


----------



## Beachboy

Geaux4it said:


> The bill is dead. Rightfully so
> 
> Move along
> 
> Nothing to see here
> 
> -Geaux



Twentyfour hours ago, I would have agreed with you.  Now out of the United States Senate pops a $30,000,000 Border Surge plan.  http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/21/u...border-security-plan.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

This is a major committment to the border, ($42,000,000 was the amount  to be saved with the sequester).  When Republicans put that much money  on the table I would call them "serious."  I would now define the  situation as going from "certain defeat" to "let's see where the chips  fall."

Tell you what though, I would not make any bets on how this could turn out.






The E-Verify Program  Vilifying E-Verify?The ACLU's Campaign To Break The Only Unbroken Part Of Our "Broken Immigration System" | VDARE.com​ 
 The federal                                                  E-Verify program  is a free, easy to use on-line                          system that  provides US employers with a way to verify                          the  employment eligibility of all new hires. It has the                           potential to end the illicit                          US                          jobs magnet, making it the                                                  America's best hope for solving the problem of                          illegal immigration.
                         E-Verify is also popular. More than                          70 thousand employers                          already use the voluntary program, and another                          thousand are signing up every week. [_Statement                          for the Record: E-Verify_, USCIS.gov]
                         E-Verify is                          quick and  easy to use. Participating employers simply go                           online and compare the information new hires have                           entered on their I-9 forms with hundreds of millions of                           records in federal databases.*                          "Results are returned within seconds." *[_E-Verify                          Program Highlights_, USCIS.gov] 
                         E-Verify is                          accurate  and unobtrusive. Nearly one hundred percent                           (99.5%) of new hires who are not illegal aliens are                           verified instantly. 
                         E-Verify is                          fair. A new hire whose                          employment eligibility cannot  be instantly verified                          is given ample  opportunity to demonstrate eligibility.                         
                         E-Verify is effective. Among those                           new hires receiving a tentative non-confirmation, only                           half of those who even bother to contest that  result are                          ultimately found to be authorized to  work in the United States.                         
                         In other words, E-Verify is a                          success.


----------



## Intense

*Moved to Immigration/Illegal Immigration*


----------



## Synthaholic

RoadVirus said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If all the democrats vote for it and a number of Republican dupes agree, they sure will.
> 
> *Congress was never going to pass Obamacare either.* They still deemed it passed and pushed it through.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except, Congress DID pass Obamacare, dope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A *Democrat-controlled* Congress. Not one Republican voted for it. Not one.
Click to expand...

Tough shit!

Doesn't affect the law in any way.


----------



## Synthaholic

RoadVirus said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah making sure our borders are secure so drug lords cant come over the border and kill our citizens is a stupid expensive idea.
> 
> 
> 
> So you want to build one along the Canadian border, also?
> 
> 
> Just how much taxpayer money do you wingnuts want to waste, anyway?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think border fences/walls are a waste of money?
Click to expand...

Yes.  They don't work.

And they are a complete waste of money during a time of very low illegal immigration and when there are other priorities.

This shows that the Right is full of shit about wanting to cut spending and reduce the debt.  It's just a talking point to do away with earned benefits and Medicare and Medicaid.


----------



## Synthaholic

daveman said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Note:  Saying something you disagree with is not a lie.
> 
> But then, I don't expect progressives to use the accepted meanings of words, so we'll just say what you really mean:
> 
> "I don't LIKE it, so it CAN'T be true!!  Waaaaaaaahh!!"
> 
> Oh, I have no doubt you'd vote for Bloomberg.  He's a nanny-state advocate, and you want the government to tell you how to live.
> 
> Pathetic, really.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, your posting history is not in doubt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Given your tendency to read what you want something to say instead of what it actually says, what you say can in no way be considered accurate.
Click to expand...


Then come up with some posts of yours singing the praises of some Democrat(s).

Bonus points for a post advocating a Democrat over a Republican.

I'm not holding my breath, partisan wingnut.  



> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So don't try to tell everyone on this board that you post like a wingnut, yet vote like a moderate.
> 
> Why are Republicans voting for nannies to lead them?
> 
> 
> 
> They shouldn't be.  Like I said, we have one liberal party.  We don't need two.  Throw all the bums out.
> 
> Conservatism is the only thing that will save this nation from the historically-failed cancer of progressivism.
Click to expand...



Progressive/Liberalism has not failed in the U.S.

It has been wildly successful.  It pulled us out of the depression.


----------



## RoadVirus

Synthaholic said:


> RoadVirus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you want to build one along the Canadian border, also?
> 
> 
> Just how much taxpayer money do you wingnuts want to waste, anyway?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you think border fences/walls are a waste of money?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.  They don't work.
> 
> And they are a complete waste of money during a time of very low illegal immigration and when there are other priorities.
Click to expand...


So you think we should just let everyone in unrestricted...including potential terrorists?


----------



## whitehall

The border fence is already law. Republicans don't want to vote on a silly amendment because they don't want the original bill.


----------



## daveman

Synthaholic said:


> And they are a complete waste of money during a time of very low illegal immigration and when there are other priorities.



Like multi-million-dollar vacations for your King and Queen.


----------



## daveman

Synthaholic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, your posting history is not in doubt.
> 
> 
> 
> Given your tendency to read what you want something to say instead of what it actually says, what you say can in no way be considered accurate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then come up with some posts of yours singing the praises of some Democrat(s).
> 
> Bonus points for a post advocating a Democrat over a Republican.
> 
> I'm not holding my breath, partisan wingnut.
Click to expand...

I praised Obama for his handling of the Somali pirates, and for keeping Gitmo open.

Predictably, you'll whine about that, too.

Tough shit.


Synthaholic said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So don't try to tell everyone on this board that you post like a wingnut, yet vote like a moderate.
> 
> Why are Republicans voting for nannies to lead them?
> 
> 
> 
> They shouldn't be.  Like I said, we have one liberal party.  We don't need two.  Throw all the bums out.
> 
> Conservatism is the only thing that will save this nation from the historically-failed cancer of progressivism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Progressive/Liberalism has not failed in the U.S.
> 
> It has been wildly successful.  It pulled us out of the depression.
Click to expand...

It prolonged the Depression.  WWII pulled us out.  

But amazingly distorted history is about all one can expect from a prog.


----------



## daveman

RoadVirus said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoadVirus said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you think border fences/walls are a waste of money?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  They don't work.
> 
> And they are a complete waste of money during a time of very low illegal immigration and when there are other priorities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think we should just let everyone in unrestricted...including potential terrorists?
Click to expand...

As long as they vote Democrat -- yes.

Right, Synthia?


----------



## Synthaholic

RoadVirus said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoadVirus said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you think border fences/walls are a waste of money?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  They don't work.
> 
> And they are a complete waste of money during a time of very low illegal immigration and when there are other priorities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think we should just let everyone in unrestricted...including potential terrorists?
Click to expand...

No.  But a wall is ridiculously stupid.

What's wrong with 24 hour a day drone surveillance?


----------



## Synthaholic

daveman said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> And they are a complete waste of money during a time of very low illegal immigration and when there are other priorities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like multi-million-dollar vacations for your King and Queen.
Click to expand...

It's already been shown that Bush took many more trips than Obama, at the same costs or more, hypocrite.

Try to keep up, Slingblade.


----------



## Synthaholic

daveman said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given your tendency to read what you want something to say instead of what it actually says, what you say can in no way be considered accurate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then come up with some posts of yours singing the praises of some Democrat(s).
> 
> Bonus points for a post advocating a Democrat over a Republican.
> 
> I'm not holding my breath, partisan wingnut.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I praised Obama for his handling of the Somali pirates, and for keeping Gitmo open.
> 
> Predictably, you'll whine about that, too.
> 
> Tough shit.
Click to expand...


Praising a specific action doesn't equate to supporting the candidate.

I praised Bush's Africa works, too.  What the fuck does that matter.

You can no longer keep up with me in a debate.  Because you never rely on logic or facts, just your pure wingnut emotion.




> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They shouldn't be.  Like I said, we have one liberal party.  We don't need two.  Throw all the bums out.
> 
> Conservatism is the only thing that will save this nation from the historically-failed cancer of progressivism.
> 
> 
> 
> Progressive/Liberalism has not failed in the U.S.
> 
> It has been wildly successful.  It pulled us out of the depression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *It prolonged the Depression.*  WWII pulled us out.
> 
> But amazingly distorted history is about all one can expect from a prog.
Click to expand...



Your failed talking points are still failing.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

RoadVirus said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoadVirus said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you think border fences/walls are a waste of money?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  They don't work.
> 
> And they are a complete waste of money during a time of very low illegal immigration and when there are other priorities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think we should just let everyone in unrestricted...including potential terrorists?
Click to expand...


Why would you jump to such a moronic conclusion? 

Being opposed to a border fence is perfectly appropriate, given the fact it wont work. It doesnt mean one advocates unrestricted access.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Dugdale_Jukes said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dugdale_Jukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even nutball scum bumble into daylight once in a while.
> 
> The only way to stop illegal immigration is to prosecute corporations hiring illegals.
> 
> For what it's worth, when the fence IS built, it will be as much to keep people in as out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Corporations are not hiring illegals. Illegals mostly work for cash in the lowest segment of the workforce. and have nothing to do with any established companies.
> The ones which are hired by corporations are smart enough to transfer to H1B pretty quick - it is quite possible even under current immigration system
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can anyone be this clueless?
> -Pros Ranch Markets...In May 2010, An Immigration and Customs  Enforcement audit of Pros Ranch Markets in Phoenix, resulted in the  firing of 300 illegal aliens. The federal audit discovered that 20  percent of the companys workforce were living and working in the  country illegally.
> 
> -*Koch* Foods...In February 2010, it was announced that Koch Foods was  forced to pay a fine of $536,046, after a 2007 Immigrations and Customs  Enforcement raid turned up 161 illegal aliens working in their  Fairfield, OH plant.
> 
> - Krispy Kreme Doughnuts Inc...In July 2009, U.S. Immigration and Customs  Enforcement announced that Krispy Kreme agreed to pay a $40,000 fine for  hiring illegal aliens, after an inspection by ICE discovered the  company had hired dozens of illegal workers at their Cincinnati, OH  factory.
> 
> -American Apparel...A 2009 investigation uncovered 1,800 illegal alien  workers, using fraudulent documents. The company, located in Los Angeles  is the nations largest clothing manufacturer, and the 1,800 illegal  workers represented a third of their workforce. The owners of American  Apparel have been outspoken proponents of an amnesty plan for this  nations illegal alien population.​Wal Mart, MacDonalds, Agriprocessors, Smithfield Foods, Verizon, Del Monte... dozens more Fortune 500 corporations paid fines to avoid conviction.
> 
> Was there something else?
Click to expand...


The problem maybe the fines.  Business leaders, CEO's and HR management ought to face time in Federal Prison for (payroll) tax evasion/fraud.  Contractors who hire off the lot of Home Depot out to have their license suspended, pay a fine and serve some time in the county jail for the same crimes.


----------



## Synthaholic

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> RoadVirus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  They don't work.
> 
> And they are a complete waste of money during a time of very low illegal immigration and when there are other priorities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you think we should just let everyone in unrestricted...including potential terrorists?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would you jump to such a moronic conclusion?
> 
> Being opposed to a border fence is perfectly appropriate, given the fact it wont work. It doesnt mean one advocates unrestricted access.
Click to expand...

He's a wingnut who can't keep anything except extreme choices in his pea-brain.


----------



## RandallFlagg

Wry Catcher said:


> Dugdale_Jukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> Corporations are not hiring illegals. Illegals mostly work for cash in the lowest segment of the workforce. and have nothing to do with any established companies.
> The ones which are hired by corporations are smart enough to transfer to H1B pretty quick - it is quite possible even under current immigration system
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can anyone be this clueless?
> -Pros Ranch Markets...In May 2010, An Immigration and Customs  Enforcement audit of Pros Ranch Markets in Phoenix, resulted in the  firing of 300 illegal aliens. The federal audit discovered that 20  percent of the companys workforce were living and working in the  country illegally.
> 
> -*Koch* Foods...In February 2010, it was announced that Koch Foods was  forced to pay a fine of $536,046, after a 2007 Immigrations and Customs  Enforcement raid turned up 161 illegal aliens working in their  Fairfield, OH plant.
> 
> - Krispy Kreme Doughnuts Inc...In July 2009, U.S. Immigration and Customs  Enforcement announced that Krispy Kreme agreed to pay a $40,000 fine for  hiring illegal aliens, after an inspection by ICE discovered the  company had hired dozens of illegal workers at their Cincinnati, OH  factory.
> 
> -American Apparel...A 2009 investigation uncovered 1,800 illegal alien  workers, using fraudulent documents. The company, located in Los Angeles  is the nations largest clothing manufacturer, and the 1,800 illegal  workers represented a third of their workforce. The owners of American  Apparel have been outspoken proponents of an amnesty plan for this  nations illegal alien population.​Wal Mart, MacDonalds, Agriprocessors, Smithfield Foods, Verizon, Del Monte... dozens more Fortune 500 corporations paid fines to avoid conviction.
> 
> Was there something else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem maybe the fines.  Business leaders, CEO's and HR management ought to face time in Federal Prison for (payroll) tax evasion/fraud.  Contractors who hire off the lot of Home Depot out to have their license suspended, pay a fine and serve some time in the county jail for the same crimes.
Click to expand...


Agreed. The problem, at least as I see it, is with the corporations and not necessarily with the illegals. Illegals come here NOT to be citizens (they couldn't care less), but to make money to send back to their families in Mexico, or to support the families they brought here.

As I have stated previously, I worked for a company that when I first started in 1986, had zero illegals working there. In 2011, when I retired, nearly 100% of the warehouse personnel were illegals. They were inspected by ICE, found to have 27 people with the same SSN and they received a small ($20,000) fine. ICE has never returned for follow up inspections.

My solution? Hire 20,000 recently discharged Veterans to serve as Inspectors. Let them begin inspections of companies on a routine basis. For each illegal found, the company pays a $50,000 fine. For the next inspection, each illegal would cost the company $100,000. For the final inspection, one illegal would cost the company that particular business. It would be shut down and auctioned off.

The problems with illegals (and American unemployment) would disappear within a year.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Wry Catcher said:


> Dugdale_Jukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> Corporations are not hiring illegals. Illegals mostly work for cash in the lowest segment of the workforce. and have nothing to do with any established companies.
> The ones which are hired by corporations are smart enough to transfer to H1B pretty quick - it is quite possible even under current immigration system
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can anyone be this clueless?
> -Pros Ranch Markets...In May 2010, An Immigration and Customs  Enforcement audit of Pros Ranch Markets in Phoenix, resulted in the  firing of 300 illegal aliens. The federal audit discovered that 20  percent of the companys workforce were living and working in the  country illegally.
> 
> -*Koch* Foods...In February 2010, it was announced that Koch Foods was  forced to pay a fine of $536,046, after a 2007 Immigrations and Customs  Enforcement raid turned up 161 illegal aliens working in their  Fairfield, OH plant.
> 
> - Krispy Kreme Doughnuts Inc...In July 2009, U.S. Immigration and Customs  Enforcement announced that Krispy Kreme agreed to pay a $40,000 fine for  hiring illegal aliens, after an inspection by ICE discovered the  company had hired dozens of illegal workers at their Cincinnati, OH  factory.
> 
> -American Apparel...A 2009 investigation uncovered 1,800 illegal alien  workers, using fraudulent documents. The company, located in Los Angeles  is the nations largest clothing manufacturer, and the 1,800 illegal  workers represented a third of their workforce. The owners of American  Apparel have been outspoken proponents of an amnesty plan for this  nations illegal alien population.​Wal Mart, MacDonalds, Agriprocessors, Smithfield Foods, Verizon, Del Monte... dozens more Fortune 500 corporations paid fines to avoid conviction.
> 
> Was there something else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem maybe the fines.  Business leaders, CEO's and HR management ought to face time in Federal Prison for (payroll) tax evasion/fraud.  Contractors who hire off the lot of Home Depot out to have their license suspended, pay a fine and serve some time in the county jail for the same crimes.
Click to expand...


Not disagreeing. 

But Business leaders, CEO's, and HR management would argue hiring only US citizens and LPRAs would cut into profits, resulting in higher prices and likely job losses. 

Undocumented workers not subject to wage or working condition regulations and requirements is corporate Americas dirty little not so secret to maximizing profit.


----------



## daveman

Synthaholic said:


> RoadVirus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  They don't work.
> 
> And they are a complete waste of money during a time of very low illegal immigration and when there are other priorities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you think we should just let everyone in unrestricted...including potential terrorists?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  But a wall is ridiculously stupid.
> 
> What's wrong with 24 hour a day drone surveillance?
Click to expand...

Armed drones?


----------



## daveman

Synthaholic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> And they are a complete waste of money during a time of very low illegal immigration and when there are other priorities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like multi-million-dollar vacations for your King and Queen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's already been shown that Bush took many more trips than Obama, at the same costs or more, hypocrite.
> 
> Try to keep up, Slingblade.
Click to expand...

And yet, oddly, you condemned Bush for his vacations -- and give Obama a free pass for his.  Just like the media.

And now you say there are greater priories than securing the nation's borders.

And apparently, Obama's vacations are one of them.


----------



## daveman

Synthaholic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then come up with some posts of yours singing the praises of some Democrat(s).
> 
> Bonus points for a post advocating a Democrat over a Republican.
> 
> I'm not holding my breath, partisan wingnut.
> 
> 
> 
> I praised Obama for his handling of the Somali pirates, and for keeping Gitmo open.
> 
> Predictably, you'll whine about that, too.
> 
> Tough shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Praising a specific action doesn't equate to supporting the candidate.
> 
> I praised Bush's Africa works, too.  What the fuck does that matter.
> 
> You can no longer keep up with me in a debate.  Because you never rely on logic or facts, just your pure wingnut emotion.
Click to expand...

The only way I could keep up with you in a debate is to undergo voluntary massive head trauma.

The survival instinct kicks in, however.  Oh well.


Synthaholic said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Progressive/Liberalism has not failed in the U.S.
> 
> It has been wildly successful.  It pulled us out of the depression.
> 
> 
> 
> *It prolonged the Depression.*  WWII pulled us out.
> 
> But amazingly distorted history is about all one can expect from a prog.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your failed talking points are still failing.
Click to expand...

Yes, I did indeed fail.  I realize actual historical facts have no chance of displacing your programming.  

Just keep repeating to yourself, "All good things come from liberalism.  All bad things come from conservatism"...and you'll stop whimpering soon.


----------



## daveman

Wry Catcher said:


> Dugdale_Jukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> Corporations are not hiring illegals. Illegals mostly work for cash in the lowest segment of the workforce. and have nothing to do with any established companies.
> The ones which are hired by corporations are smart enough to transfer to H1B pretty quick - it is quite possible even under current immigration system
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can anyone be this clueless?
> -Pros Ranch Markets...In May 2010, An Immigration and Customs  Enforcement audit of Pros Ranch Markets in Phoenix, resulted in the  firing of 300 illegal aliens. The federal audit discovered that 20  percent of the companys workforce were living and working in the  country illegally.
> 
> -*Koch* Foods...In February 2010, it was announced that Koch Foods was  forced to pay a fine of $536,046, after a 2007 Immigrations and Customs  Enforcement raid turned up 161 illegal aliens working in their  Fairfield, OH plant.
> 
> - Krispy Kreme Doughnuts Inc...In July 2009, U.S. Immigration and Customs  Enforcement announced that Krispy Kreme agreed to pay a $40,000 fine for  hiring illegal aliens, after an inspection by ICE discovered the  company had hired dozens of illegal workers at their Cincinnati, OH  factory.
> 
> -American Apparel...A 2009 investigation uncovered 1,800 illegal alien  workers, using fraudulent documents. The company, located in Los Angeles  is the nations largest clothing manufacturer, and the 1,800 illegal  workers represented a third of their workforce. The owners of American  Apparel have been outspoken proponents of an amnesty plan for this  nations illegal alien population.​Wal Mart, MacDonalds, Agriprocessors, Smithfield Foods, Verizon, Del Monte... dozens more Fortune 500 corporations paid fines to avoid conviction.
> 
> Was there something else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem maybe the fines.  Business leaders, CEO's and HR management ought to face time in Federal Prison for (payroll) tax evasion/fraud.  Contractors who hire off the lot of Home Depot out to have their license suspended, pay a fine and serve some time in the county jail for the same crimes.
Click to expand...


So what do you want to do with the illegals?  Because, you know, they broke the law, too.


----------



## RandallFlagg

daveman said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dugdale_Jukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can anyone be this clueless?
> -Pros Ranch Markets...In May 2010, An Immigration and Customs  Enforcement audit of Pros Ranch Markets in Phoenix, resulted in the  firing of 300 illegal aliens. The federal audit discovered that 20  percent of the companys workforce were living and working in the  country illegally.
> 
> -*Koch* Foods...In February 2010, it was announced that Koch Foods was  forced to pay a fine of $536,046, after a 2007 Immigrations and Customs  Enforcement raid turned up 161 illegal aliens working in their  Fairfield, OH plant.
> 
> - Krispy Kreme Doughnuts Inc...In July 2009, U.S. Immigration and Customs  Enforcement announced that Krispy Kreme agreed to pay a $40,000 fine for  hiring illegal aliens, after an inspection by ICE discovered the  company had hired dozens of illegal workers at their Cincinnati, OH  factory.
> 
> -American Apparel...A 2009 investigation uncovered 1,800 illegal alien  workers, using fraudulent documents. The company, located in Los Angeles  is the nations largest clothing manufacturer, and the 1,800 illegal  workers represented a third of their workforce. The owners of American  Apparel have been outspoken proponents of an amnesty plan for this  nations illegal alien population.​Wal Mart, MacDonalds, Agriprocessors, Smithfield Foods, Verizon, Del Monte... dozens more Fortune 500 corporations paid fines to avoid conviction.
> 
> Was there something else?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem maybe the fines.  Business leaders, CEO's and HR management ought to face time in Federal Prison for (payroll) tax evasion/fraud.  Contractors who hire off the lot of Home Depot out to have their license suspended, pay a fine and serve some time in the county jail for the same crimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what do you want to do with the illegals?  Because, you know, they broke the law, too.
Click to expand...


Indeed. However, the illegals prime motivating factor for being here is money. Take their ability to live away from them and they will move on to.....I dunno.....Canada?


----------



## LilOlLady

Before another amnesty we should enforce the 1986 immigration law and secure the border and go after businesses that hire illegal aliens thus fixing the broken immigration system and they will all self-deport.


----------



## RandallFlagg

LilOlLady said:


> Before another amnesty we should enforce the 1986 immigration law and secure the border and go after businesses that hire illegal aliens thus fixing the broken immigration system and they will all self-deport.



Well, you know the way politics works in this country.....these clowns LOVE to try to make the American people believe that need to have "comprehensive immigration reform" which is nothing more than code for "we haven't done our jobs for the last 40 years so this will make it look like we are actually EARNING the tens of millions that you idiots pay us each year".

There are laws on the books that take care of this problem already. We don't need "new laws" that are as impotent as the ones that we haven't enforced forever. It's a BS ruse that this trash is running on us.

And still, we send these idiots back to DC - over and over and over again....


----------



## daveman

RandallFlagg said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem maybe the fines.  Business leaders, CEO's and HR management ought to face time in Federal Prison for (payroll) tax evasion/fraud.  Contractors who hire off the lot of Home Depot out to have their license suspended, pay a fine and serve some time in the county jail for the same crimes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what do you want to do with the illegals?  Because, you know, they broke the law, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed. However, the illegals prime motivating factor for being here is money. Take their ability to live away from them and they will move on to.....I dunno.....Canada?
Click to expand...

Some may.  Some will turn to (more) crime.

Hey, I know!  How about we deport them when we find them?  If they want to get back in....tough.  We shouldn't allow criminals to come in with a visa.


----------



## RandallFlagg

daveman said:


> RandallFlagg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what do you want to do with the illegals?  Because, you know, they broke the law, too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed. However, the illegals prime motivating factor for being here is money. Take their ability to live away from them and they will move on to.....I dunno.....Canada?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some may.  Some will turn to (more) crime.
> 
> Hey, I know!  How about we deport them when we find them?  If they want to get back in....tough.  We shouldn't allow criminals to come in with a visa.
Click to expand...



Haven't you heard? It's IMPOSSIBLE to deport the border jumpers!! It's just not feasible to "round them up" and "send them packing"......All our politicians tell us that.

Do I buy that?? Of course not!

However, the one thing I'm fairly certain of is that if they can't make a living, and they can't obtain "gubmit handouts", they will NOT hang around.


----------



## Wry Catcher

daveman said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dugdale_Jukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can anyone be this clueless?
> -Pro&#8217;s Ranch Markets...In May 2010, An Immigration and Customs  Enforcement audit of Pro&#8217;s Ranch Markets in Phoenix, resulted in the  firing of 300 illegal aliens. The federal audit discovered that 20  percent of the company&#8217;s workforce were living and working in the  country illegally.
> 
> -*Koch* Foods...In February 2010, it was announced that Koch Foods was  forced to pay a fine of $536,046, after a 2007 Immigrations and Customs  Enforcement raid turned up 161 illegal aliens working in their  Fairfield, OH plant.
> 
> - Krispy Kreme Doughnuts Inc...In July 2009, U.S. Immigration and Customs  Enforcement announced that Krispy Kreme agreed to pay a $40,000 fine for  hiring illegal aliens, after an inspection by ICE discovered the  company had hired dozens of illegal workers at their Cincinnati, OH  factory.
> 
> -American Apparel...A 2009 investigation uncovered 1,800 illegal alien  workers, using fraudulent documents. The company, located in Los Angeles  is the nation&#8217;s largest clothing manufacturer, and the 1,800 illegal  workers represented a third of their workforce. The owners of American  Apparel have been outspoken proponents of an amnesty plan for this  nation&#8217;s illegal alien population.​Wal Mart, MacDonalds, Agriprocessors, Smithfield Foods, Verizon, Del Monte... dozens more Fortune 500 corporations paid fines to avoid conviction.
> 
> Was there something else?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem maybe the fines.  Business leaders, CEO's and HR management ought to face time in Federal Prison for (payroll) tax evasion/fraud.  Contractors who hire off the lot of Home Depot out to have their license suspended, pay a fine and serve some time in the county jail for the same crimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what do you want to do with the illegals?  Because, you know, they broke the law, too.
Click to expand...


That's a fair question.  The answer depends on the Congress and what they plan to do about immigration reform.  If Congress does nothing - something they're very good at - I would require the business to make restitution to Medicare and Social Security for all monies they saved in payroll taxes and a penalty assessment on any fine imposed for the fraud, sufficient to deport the illegal worker back to his native county.

BTW, I still support putting the business owner and personnel manager in jail, or in egregious cases, Federal Prison.


----------



## daveman

RandallFlagg said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RandallFlagg said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed. However, the illegals prime motivating factor for being here is money. Take their ability to live away from them and they will move on to.....I dunno.....Canada?
> 
> 
> 
> Some may.  Some will turn to (more) crime.
> 
> Hey, I know!  How about we deport them when we find them?  If they want to get back in....tough.  We shouldn't allow criminals to come in with a visa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Haven't you heard? It's IMPOSSIBLE to deport the border jumpers!! It's just not feasible to "round them up" and "send them packing"......All our politicians tell us that.
> 
> Do I buy that?? Of course not!
> 
> However, the one thing I'm fairly certain of is that if they can't make a living, and they can't obtain "gubmit handouts", they will NOT hang around.
Click to expand...

I don't buy it either.  It's not like we'd find all 12 million criminals at once.

Deport them when they're found.  Hold 'em for a week, and if they can't provide proper authorization for their presence, back to the old country.  See yah.  Don't come back, we know who you are.

Unfortunately, not all those who are thrown off the employment gravy train will leave.  Some will turn to more crime.

I would like to see wire transfers of money overseas prohibited without proof of legal presence, too.  That would eliminate much of the attraction right there.


----------



## daveman

Wry Catcher said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem maybe the fines.  Business leaders, CEO's and HR management ought to face time in Federal Prison for (payroll) tax evasion/fraud.  Contractors who hire off the lot of Home Depot out to have their license suspended, pay a fine and serve some time in the county jail for the same crimes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what do you want to do with the illegals?  Because, you know, they broke the law, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a fair question.  The answer depends on the Congress and what they plan to do about immigration reform.  If Congress does nothing - something they're very good at - I would require the business to make restitution to Medicare and Social Security for all monies they saved in payroll taxes and a penalty assessment on any fine imposed for the fraud, sufficient to deport the illegal worker back to his native county.
> 
> BTW, I still support putting the business owner and personnel manager in jail, or in egregious cases, Federal Prison.
Click to expand...


Okay.  I support punishing those who knowingly hire illegals as well.

But what do you want to do with the illegals?  I think it's a travesty that we could even consider rewarding their criminality with a path to citizenship.  The most I would consider would be a path to permanent guest worker status.  But I will not support rewarding them with citizenship and the right to vote.  Period.


----------



## RandallFlagg

daveman said:


> RandallFlagg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some may.  Some will turn to (more) crime.
> 
> Hey, I know!  How about we deport them when we find them?  If they want to get back in....tough.  We shouldn't allow criminals to come in with a visa.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Haven't you heard? It's IMPOSSIBLE to deport the border jumpers!! It's just not feasible to "round them up" and "send them packing"......All our politicians tell us that.
> 
> Do I buy that?? Of course not!
> 
> However, the one thing I'm fairly certain of is that if they can't make a living, and they can't obtain "gubmit handouts", they will NOT hang around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't buy it either.  It's not like we'd find all 12 million criminals at once.
> 
> Deport them when they're found.  Hold 'em for a week, and if they can't provide proper authorization for their presence, back to the old country.  See yah.  Don't come back, we know who you are.
> 
> Unfortunately, not all those who are thrown off the employment gravy train will leave.  Some will turn to more crime.
> 
> *I would like to see wire transfers of money overseas prohibited without proof of legal presence, too.  That would eliminate much of the attraction right there.*
Click to expand...



Excellent point! Hell, Supermarkets and Walmart have made 10s of millions off of illegals charging them to send money "home".

Look, there is no denying the fact that American corporations have turned the "illegal" situation into a money-making proposition for themselves. That, at least partially explains the reluctance of politicians to stop the gravy train for big business. Still, how the hell o they sleep at night knowing that some of their constituencies are on the public dole while Juan is making money (cash) and pays no taxes on it......


----------



## Wry Catcher

daveman said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what do you want to do with the illegals?  Because, you know, they broke the law, too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a fair question.  The answer depends on the Congress and what they plan to do about immigration reform.  If Congress does nothing - something they're very good at - I would require the business to make restitution to Medicare and Social Security for all monies they saved in payroll taxes and a penalty assessment on any fine imposed for the fraud, sufficient to deport the illegal worker back to his native county.
> 
> BTW, I still support putting the business owner and personnel manager in jail, or in egregious cases, Federal Prison.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay.  I support punishing those who knowingly hire illegals as well.
> 
> But what do you want to do with the illegals?  I think it's a travesty that we could even consider rewarding their criminality with a path to citizenship.  The most I would consider would be a path to permanent guest worker status.  But I will not support rewarding them with citizenship and the right to vote.  Period.
Click to expand...


Coming into the United States to work and sometimes support a family in their native land isn't a crime of violence, in many cases it's the only solution they may have to escape poverty and take care of their kids, siblings and/or parents.

To punish everyone who came into our country and secured employment with the same broad brush is expensive and callous.  As a rule, Americans have never been known to be callous.  Some illegal workers may have sponsors, some may have criminal records, some may have been here one year, some for decades, some may have children born here and some may own businesses.  

It's the job of Congress to decide who should be prosecuted and deported, who becomes a quest worker or who is put on a path to citizenship; sadly for all of us, the Americans serving in Congress seem to be the exception to the rule (Americans have never been callous).


----------



## RandallFlagg

Wry Catcher said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a fair question.  The answer depends on the Congress and what they plan to do about immigration reform.  If Congress does nothing - something they're very good at - I would require the business to make restitution to Medicare and Social Security for all monies they saved in payroll taxes and a penalty assessment on any fine imposed for the fraud, sufficient to deport the illegal worker back to his native county.
> 
> BTW, I still support putting the business owner and personnel manager in jail, or in egregious cases, Federal Prison.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay.  I support punishing those who knowingly hire illegals as well.
> 
> But what do you want to do with the illegals?  I think it's a travesty that we could even consider rewarding their criminality with a path to citizenship.  The most I would consider would be a path to permanent guest worker status.  But I will not support rewarding them with citizenship and the right to vote.  Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Coming into the United States to work and sometimes support a family in their native land isn't a crime of violence, in many cases it's the only solution they may have to escape poverty and take care of their kids, siblings and/or parents.
> 
> To punish everyone who came into our country and secured employment with the same broad brush is expensive and callous.  As a rule, Americans have never been known to be callous.  Some illegal workers may have sponsors, some may have criminal records, some may have been here one year, some for decades, some may have children born here and some may own businesses.
> 
> *It's the job of Congress to decide who should be prosecuted and deported, who becomes a quest worker or who is put on a path to citizenship; sadly for all of us, the Americans serving in Congress seem to be the exception to the rule (Americans have never been callous).*
Click to expand...



Actually, no it isn't. What I mean is that the laws are already there. It is the job of the politicians to make certain tht the laws (that THEY passed) are enforced. They have refused to for some 40 years choosing instead to put it off. Now, they have decided to, once again, hoodwink America by presenting a bill tht is as toothless as they are worthless.

The law VERY CLEARLY states that if you are here illegally, you are to be sent home IMMEDIATELY. Not given "faux citizenship" that illegals neither want,nor give a damn about.

We do NOT need new, feel good laws. We need ENFORCEMENT of EXISTING LAWS.


----------



## whitehall

The freaking fence would be up and running if it wasn't for Harry Reid and Barry Hussein. It's an insult to everybody's intelligence (except hard core liberals) that some republicans think they need to introduce the fence again in a bill that nobody wants.


----------



## daveman

RandallFlagg said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RandallFlagg said:
> 
> 
> 
> Haven't you heard? It's IMPOSSIBLE to deport the border jumpers!! It's just not feasible to "round them up" and "send them packing"......All our politicians tell us that.
> 
> Do I buy that?? Of course not!
> 
> However, the one thing I'm fairly certain of is that if they can't make a living, and they can't obtain "gubmit handouts", they will NOT hang around.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't buy it either.  It's not like we'd find all 12 million criminals at once.
> 
> Deport them when they're found.  Hold 'em for a week, and if they can't provide proper authorization for their presence, back to the old country.  See yah.  Don't come back, we know who you are.
> 
> Unfortunately, not all those who are thrown off the employment gravy train will leave.  Some will turn to more crime.
> 
> *I would like to see wire transfers of money overseas prohibited without proof of legal presence, too.  That would eliminate much of the attraction right there.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent point! Hell, Supermarkets and Walmart have made 10s of millions off of illegals charging them to send money "home".
> 
> Look, there is no denying the fact that American corporations have turned the "illegal" situation into a money-making proposition for themselves. That, at least partially explains the reluctance of politicians to stop the gravy train for big business. Still, how the hell o they sleep at night knowing that some of their constituencies are on the public dole while Juan is making money (cash) and pays no taxes on it......
Click to expand...

_Because they don't give a shit about their constituencies. _


----------



## daveman

Wry Catcher said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a fair question.  The answer depends on the Congress and what they plan to do about immigration reform.  If Congress does nothing - something they're very good at - I would require the business to make restitution to Medicare and Social Security for all monies they saved in payroll taxes and a penalty assessment on any fine imposed for the fraud, sufficient to deport the illegal worker back to his native county.
> 
> BTW, I still support putting the business owner and personnel manager in jail, or in egregious cases, Federal Prison.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay.  I support punishing those who knowingly hire illegals as well.
> 
> But what do you want to do with the illegals?  I think it's a travesty that we could even consider rewarding their criminality with a path to citizenship.  The most I would consider would be a path to permanent guest worker status.  But I will not support rewarding them with citizenship and the right to vote.  Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Coming into the United States to work and sometimes support a family in their native land isn't a crime of violence, in many cases it's the only solution they may have to escape poverty and take care of their kids, siblings and/or parents.
> 
> To punish everyone who came into our country and secured employment with the same broad brush is expensive and callous.  As a rule, Americans have never been known to be callous.  Some illegal workers may have sponsors, some may have criminal records, some may have been here one year, some for decades, some may have children born here and some may own businesses.
> 
> It's the job of Congress to decide who should be prosecuted and deported, who becomes a quest worker or who is put on a path to citizenship; sadly for all of us, the Americans serving in Congress seem to be the exception to the rule (Americans have never been callous).
Click to expand...


The guy who broke into your house only wanted your TV and BluRay because he doesn't have one himself.  He's only trying to entertain his family.  Why would you callously want to press charges?

Illegals are criminals.  Liberal hand-wringing helped in large part get us into this mess.  More liberal hand-wringing won't solve it.


----------



## daveman

RandallFlagg said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay.  I support punishing those who knowingly hire illegals as well.
> 
> But what do you want to do with the illegals?  I think it's a travesty that we could even consider rewarding their criminality with a path to citizenship.  The most I would consider would be a path to permanent guest worker status.  But I will not support rewarding them with citizenship and the right to vote.  Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coming into the United States to work and sometimes support a family in their native land isn't a crime of violence, in many cases it's the only solution they may have to escape poverty and take care of their kids, siblings and/or parents.
> 
> To punish everyone who came into our country and secured employment with the same broad brush is expensive and callous.  As a rule, Americans have never been known to be callous.  Some illegal workers may have sponsors, some may have criminal records, some may have been here one year, some for decades, some may have children born here and some may own businesses.
> 
> *It's the job of Congress to decide who should be prosecuted and deported, who becomes a quest worker or who is put on a path to citizenship; sadly for all of us, the Americans serving in Congress seem to be the exception to the rule (Americans have never been callous).*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, no it isn't. What I mean is that the laws are already there. It is the job of the politicians to make certain tht the laws (that THEY passed) are enforced. They have refused to for some 40 years choosing instead to put it off. Now, they have decided to, once again, hoodwink America by presenting a bill tht is as toothless as they are worthless.
> 
> The law VERY CLEARLY states that if you are here illegally, you are to be sent home IMMEDIATELY. Not given "faux citizenship" that illegals neither want,nor give a damn about.
> 
> We do NOT need new, feel good laws. We need ENFORCEMENT of EXISTING LAWS.
Click to expand...

I'm outta rep.  I owe you for this one.


----------



## boedicca

Wry Catcher said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem maybe the fines.  Business leaders, CEO's and HR management ought to face time in Federal Prison for (payroll) tax evasion/fraud.  Contractors who hire off the lot of Home Depot out to have their license suspended, pay a fine and serve some time in the county jail for the same crimes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what do you want to do with the illegals?  Because, you know, they broke the law, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a fair question.  The answer depends on the Congress and what they plan to do about immigration reform.  If Congress does nothing - something they're very good at - I would require the business to make restitution to Medicare and Social Security for all monies they saved in payroll taxes and a penalty assessment on any fine imposed for the fraud, sufficient to deport the illegal worker back to his native county.
> 
> BTW, I still support putting the business owner and personnel manager in jail, or in egregious cases, Federal Prison.
Click to expand...




Considering that the IRS pays out $$$millions to illegal aliens all living at a few addresses, the ability of illegals to get fake IDs and game the system makes business owners into hapless targets.   If the government can't properly identify them, criminalizing business owners is a bit much.


----------



## boedicca

whitehall said:


> The freaking fence would be up and running if it wasn't for Harry Reid and Barry Hussein. It's an insult to everybody's intelligence (except hard core liberals) that some republicans think they need to introduce the fence again in a bill that nobody wants.




If Reid gets his way, There Will Never Be A Fence. The latest amendment includes a loophole which allow Napolitano and her successors full discretion regarding building one (or not).


----------



## Synthaholic

daveman said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoadVirus said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you think we should just let everyone in unrestricted...including potential terrorists?
> 
> 
> 
> No.  But a wall is ridiculously stupid.
> 
> What's wrong with 24 hour a day drone surveillance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Armed drones?
Click to expand...

Why can't you answer a question honestly?


----------



## Synthaholic

daveman said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like multi-million-dollar vacations for your King and Queen.
> 
> 
> 
> It's already been shown that Bush took many more trips than Obama, at the same costs or more, hypocrite.
> 
> Try to keep up, Slingblade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *And yet, oddly, you condemned Bush for his vacations* -- and give Obama a free pass for his.  Just like the media.
> 
> And now you say there are greater priories than securing the nation's borders.
> 
> And apparently, Obama's vacations are one of them.
Click to expand...



No I didn't, you fucking liar.


----------



## daveman

Synthaholic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  But a wall is ridiculously stupid.
> 
> What's wrong with 24 hour a day drone surveillance?
> 
> 
> 
> Armed drones?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why can't you answer a question honestly?
Click to expand...

Why can't you?  Do you want the drones to be armed, or do you want them only so community organizers can locate the illegals crossing the border and hand them Dem Party voter registration cards?


----------



## daveman

Synthaholic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's already been shown that Bush took many more trips than Obama, at the same costs or more, hypocrite.
> 
> Try to keep up, Slingblade.
> 
> 
> 
> *And yet, oddly, you condemned Bush for his vacations* -- and give Obama a free pass for his.  Just like the media.
> 
> And now you say there are greater priories than securing the nation's borders.
> 
> And apparently, Obama's vacations are one of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No I didn't, you fucking liar.
Click to expand...

  Riiiiight.


----------



## RoadVirus

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> RoadVirus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  They don't work.
> 
> And they are a complete waste of money during a time of very low illegal immigration and when there are other priorities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you think we should just let everyone in unrestricted...including potential terrorists?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would you jump to such a moronic conclusion?
> 
> Being opposed to a &#8216;border fence&#8217; is perfectly appropriate, given the fact it won&#8217;t work.
Click to expand...


It'd work if you have the resources to keep it secure. The problem is the corrupt dingbats masquerading as "our representatives" don't want to pony up the money for those resources. They'd rather stay on their knees with a Latin American dick in their mouth.


----------



## RandallFlagg

RoadVirus said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoadVirus said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you think we should just let everyone in unrestricted...including potential terrorists?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you jump to such a moronic conclusion?
> 
> Being opposed to a border fence is perfectly appropriate, given the fact it wont work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It'd work if you have the resources to keep it secure. The problem is the corrupt dingbats masquerading as "our representatives" don't want to pony up the money for those resources. They'd rather stay on their knees with a Latin American dick in their mouth.
Click to expand...


And basically, that is the impetus for this NEW and IMPROVED IMMIGRATION REFORM LAW!!

It's nothing more than pandering to the illegals. Both sides have thrown in the towel. They are abject failures and we all know it. They refuse to enforce the immigration laws that have been on the books forever out of fear of alienating a "potential voting block".

Now, they are all jumping over each other to "show support" for this ridiculous trumped-up bullshit "law" that will do absolutely NOTHING except to provide the US with an endless supply of illegals standing outside Home Depot and Lowes. The CBO has even gone so far as to state this. ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION WILL NOT STOP.

The blame for this mess? Look no farther than Washington DC and the clowns that we have appointed as Kings and Queens, Lords and Ladies, Dukes and Earls. THEY have sold this country down the Rio Grande. THEY should be held accountable. But they won't. We, the people are too busy arguing over "politics".


----------



## Synthaholic

daveman said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Armed drones?
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't you answer a question honestly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why can't you?  Do you want the drones to be armed, or do you want them only so community organizers can locate the illegals crossing the border and hand them Dem Party voter registration cards?
Click to expand...

Why would they need to be armed?

And what does it have to do with employing drones instead of a fence?
_
Will the fence be armed????_

You're a moron.


----------



## Synthaholic

daveman said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> *And yet, oddly, you condemned Bush for his vacations* -- and give Obama a free pass for his.  Just like the media.
> 
> And now you say there are greater priories than securing the nation's borders.
> 
> And apparently, Obama's vacations are one of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I didn't, you fucking liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Riiiiight.
Click to expand...

As usual, you are talking out your ass, boy.


----------



## Synthaholic

Synthaholic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't you answer a question honestly?
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't you?  Do you want the drones to be armed, or do you want them only so community organizers can locate the illegals crossing the border and hand them Dem Party voter registration cards?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would they need to be armed?
> 
> And what does it have to do with employing drones instead of a fence?
> _
> Will the fence be armed????_
> 
> You're a moron.
Click to expand...

...and daveman runs away again.


----------



## daveman

Synthaholic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't you answer a question honestly?
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't you?  Do you want the drones to be armed, or do you want them only so community organizers can locate the illegals crossing the border and hand them Dem Party voter registration cards?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would they need to be armed?
> 
> And what does it have to do with employing drones instead of a fence?
> _
> Will the fence be armed????_
> 
> You're a moron.
Click to expand...

So, I was right.  You don't actually want illegals crossing the border to be stopped.


----------



## daveman

Synthaholic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I didn't, you fucking liar.
> 
> 
> 
> Riiiiight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As usual, you are talking out your ass, boy.
Click to expand...

Not really.  I could link to another message board, but that's not allowed.


----------



## Synthaholic

daveman said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't you?  Do you want the drones to be armed, or do you want them only so community organizers can locate the illegals crossing the border and hand them Dem Party voter registration cards?
> 
> 
> 
> Why would they need to be armed?
> 
> And what does it have to do with employing drones instead of a fence?
> _
> Will the fence be armed????_
> 
> You're a moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, I was right.  You don't actually want illegals crossing the border to be stopped.
Click to expand...

Will the fence be armed?


----------



## Synthaholic

daveman said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Riiiiight.
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, you are talking out your ass, boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not really.  I could link to another message board, but that's not allowed.
Click to expand...

It's allowed.  Show us all what you have - nothing!  

If you didn't lie, you would have nothing to say.


----------



## Vandalshandle

China has a wall for sale. They built it about 2,000 years ago. It didn't work, since the Monguls just bribed their way through, but that has never discouraged  those that have convinced themselves that people who are willing to walk across a rattlesnake infested desert in 112 degrees for 4 days without water would take one look at a fence and say to themselves, "Caramba! I am not going to tackle THAT problem!"


----------



## daveman

Synthaholic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would they need to be armed?
> 
> And what does it have to do with employing drones instead of a fence?
> _
> Will the fence be armed????_
> 
> You're a moron.
> 
> 
> 
> So, I was right.  You don't actually want illegals crossing the border to be stopped.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Will the fence be armed?
Click to expand...


So, you don't want the fence, and you don't want armed drones.

In truth, you have no desire at all to stop the flood of illegal immigrants crossing our southern border.

Not at all surprising, really.  All you care about is the Democratic Party.  You don't give a damn about national security or what's best for America.


----------



## Synthaholic

daveman said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, I was right.  You don't actually want illegals crossing the border to be stopped.
> 
> 
> 
> *Will the fence be armed?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you don't want the fence, and you don't want armed drones.
> 
> In truth, you have no desire at all to stop the flood of illegal immigrants crossing our southern border.
> 
> Not at all surprising, really.  All you care about is the Democratic Party.  You don't give a damn about national security or what's best for America.
Click to expand...


*Will the fence be armed?*


What a little bitch you are.


----------



## daveman

Synthaholic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, you are talking out your ass, boy.
> 
> 
> 
> Not really.  I could link to another message board, but that's not allowed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's allowed.  Show us all what you have - nothing!
> 
> If you didn't lie, you would have nothing to say.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I don't think I'll depend on you for the board rules.  

Since you seem to be having such a hissy fit, I'll just retract the claim.


----------



## daveman

Synthaholic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Will the fence be armed?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you don't want the fence, and you don't want armed drones.
> 
> In truth, you have no desire at all to stop the flood of illegal immigrants crossing our southern border.
> 
> Not at all surprising, really.  All you care about is the Democratic Party.  You don't give a damn about national security or what's best for America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Will the fence be armed?*
> 
> 
> What a little bitch you are.
Click to expand...

Not really, although I expect you feel all bowed up right now.  

I guess I hurt your widdle feewings with the correct statement of your views, huh?


----------



## Synthaholic

daveman said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not really.  I could link to another message board, but that's not allowed.
> 
> 
> 
> It's allowed.  Show us all what you have - nothing!
> 
> If you didn't lie, you would have nothing to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, I don't think I'll depend on you for the board rules.
> 
> Since you seem to be having such a hissy fit, *I'll just retract the claim*.
Click to expand...


Because you know it's a lie.


----------



## Synthaholic

daveman said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you don't want the fence, and you don't want armed drones.
> 
> In truth, you have no desire at all to stop the flood of illegal immigrants crossing our southern border.
> 
> Not at all surprising, really.  All you care about is the Democratic Party.  You don't give a damn about national security or what's best for America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Will the fence be armed?*
> 
> 
> What a little bitch you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not really, although I expect you feel all bowed up right now.
> 
> I guess I hurt your widdle feewings with the correct statement of your views, huh?
Click to expand...


*Will the fence be armed?*


----------



## daveman

Synthaholic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's allowed.  Show us all what you have - nothing!
> 
> If you didn't lie, you would have nothing to say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I don't think I'll depend on you for the board rules.
> 
> Since you seem to be having such a hissy fit, *I'll just retract the claim*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because you know it's a lie.
Click to expand...

No, because I'm not going to risk breaking the rules.

You gotta admit, the retraction puts me far ahead of you.  When you can't prove something, you just insist it's true anyway and pout.


----------



## daveman

Synthaholic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Will the fence be armed?*
> 
> 
> What a little bitch you are.
> 
> 
> 
> Not really, although I expect you feel all bowed up right now.
> 
> I guess I hurt your widdle feewings with the correct statement of your views, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Will the fence be armed?*
Click to expand...

It's funny, the way you think you have a point.


----------



## OnePercenter

Exactly how many trillions of dollars will it cost to build a fence on the border between Mexico and the United States?

Exactly how many trillions of dollars per year will it cost to maintain a fence on the border between the United States and Mexico?

Where exactly are we going to get the funding?


----------



## daveman

OnePercenter said:


> Exactly how many trillions of dollars will it cost to build a fence on the border between Mexico and the United States?
> 
> Exactly how many trillions of dollars per year will it cost to maintain a fence on the border between the United States and Mexico?
> 
> Where exactly are we going to get the funding?


Take away the illegals' public benefits.


----------



## OnePercenter

The concrete alone will cost $23 trillion dollars.


----------



## OnePercenter

daveman said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly how many trillions of dollars will it cost to build a fence on the border between Mexico and the United States?
> 
> Exactly how many trillions of dollars per year will it cost to maintain a fence on the border between the United States and Mexico?
> 
> Where exactly are we going to get the funding?
> 
> 
> 
> Take away the illegals' public benefits.
Click to expand...


Sure, and while were at it we can make Walmart pay for healthcare insurance for their employees which will save one billion per year in public benefits. Walmart ONLY made $16 billion in net profits for 2012. I think they can afford it.


----------



## OnePercenter

Then we have to place guard turrets every 100 feet. That's another $50 billion.

Border Patrol Agents for the towers 24/7/365 would be 800,000 Agents at $70,000.00/yr would be another $56 billion per year, plus the current employee cost. So what, $100 billion per year total?


----------



## OnePercenter

Reality sucks, doesn't it......


----------



## daveman

OnePercenter said:


> The concrete alone will cost $23 trillion dollars.



Do you have a link to back up this insane claim?


----------



## OnePercenter

*Lets build that wall!!!!!!!!​*


----------



## OnePercenter

daveman said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> The concrete alone will cost $23 trillion dollars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a link to back up this insane claim?
Click to expand...


You have a cement wall 50 feet high, 5 feet wide with a 25x25 foot base at $100 per yard delivered. Do the math, no need for a link.

Of course we haven't even begun construction yet.


----------



## daveman

OnePercenter said:


> Then we have to place guard turrets every 100 feet. That's another $50 billion.
> 
> Border Patrol Agents for the towers 24/7/365 would be 800,000 Agents at $70,000.00/yr would be another $56 billion per year, plus the current employee cost. So what, $100 billion per year total?





OnePercenter said:


> Reality sucks, doesn't it......


How would you know?


----------



## daveman

OnePercenter said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> The concrete alone will cost $23 trillion dollars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a link to back up this insane claim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have a cement wall 50 feet high, 5 feet wide with a 25x25 foot base at $100 per yard delivered. Do the math, no need for a link.
> 
> Of course we haven't even begun construction yet.
Click to expand...


Of course a link is required.  Where did you get the dimensions?


----------



## OnePercenter

daveman said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a link to back up this insane claim?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have a cement wall 50 feet high, 5 feet wide with a 25x25 foot base at $100 per yard delivered. Do the math, no need for a link.
> 
> Of course we haven't even begun construction yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course a link is required.  Where did you get the dimensions?
Click to expand...


You need a link? Are you not capable of self-thinking?

Our prisons are very good at keeping people in, so why not duplicate prison walls to keep people out. Nothing else is working.


----------



## daveman

OnePercenter said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have a cement wall 50 feet high, 5 feet wide with a 25x25 foot base at $100 per yard delivered. Do the math, no need for a link.
> 
> Of course we haven't even begun construction yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course a link is required.  Where did you get the dimensions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need a link? Are you not capable of self-thinking?
> 
> Our prisons are very good at keeping people in, so why not duplicate prison walls to keep people out. Nothing else is working.
Click to expand...

While it's amusing watching you stamp your feet and pout, it's a less-than-compelling argument.

Try again.


----------



## OnePercenter

daveman said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course a link is required.  Where did you get the dimensions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need a link? Are you not capable of self-thinking?
> 
> Our prisons are very good at keeping people in, so why not duplicate prison walls to keep people out. Nothing else is working.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> While it's amusing watching you stamp your feet and pout, it's a less-than-compelling argument.
> 
> Try again.
Click to expand...


So you are incapable of self thought.


----------



## daveman

OnePercenter said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need a link? Are you not capable of self-thinking?
> 
> Our prisons are very good at keeping people in, so why not duplicate prison walls to keep people out. Nothing else is working.
> 
> 
> 
> While it's amusing watching you stamp your feet and pout, it's a less-than-compelling argument.
> 
> Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are incapable of self thought.
Click to expand...

Look, Skippy, it's a pretty basic concept.

You make a claim, you back it up.

Let me guess:  You think you're ENTITLED to me unquestioningly accepting everything you say.

Boy, are you going to go through life bitter and disappointed.


----------



## OnePercenter

daveman said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> While it's amusing watching you stamp your feet and pout, it's a less-than-compelling argument.
> 
> Try again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are incapable of self thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look, Skippy, it's a pretty basic concept.
> 
> You make a claim, you back it up.
> 
> Let me guess:  You think you're ENTITLED to me unquestioningly accepting everything you say.
> 
> Boy, are you going to go through life bitter and disappointed.
Click to expand...


The typical ad hominem attack of panic when one realizes that the GOP is blowing hot air up your skirt.


----------



## Geaux4it

Bottom line is...

We hear that Americans will not do the work the Mex does at the wage the Mex does. Ok- I buy that..

But lets say, we double the wage so Americans do the work?  Gasp! 

Nobody will want to pay $5 for a head of lettuce

Guess what? Time you pay for amnesty through welfare, WIC, etc, so the illegal criminal can work for less, it still winds up costing more than having Americans go the work.

The head of lettuce real-time cost is $15

Basic economics

-Geaux


----------



## daveman

OnePercenter said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are incapable of self thought.
> 
> 
> 
> Look, Skippy, it's a pretty basic concept.
> 
> You make a claim, you back it up.
> 
> Let me guess:  You think you're ENTITLED to me unquestioningly accepting everything you say.
> 
> Boy, are you going to go through life bitter and disappointed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The typical ad hominem attack of panic when one realizes that the GOP is blowing hot air up your skirt.
Click to expand...

Yeah.  Meanwhile, I can't help but notice you haven't proven your claim.  You ever going to get around to that, or do you have to pretend to be superior some more?


----------



## OnePercenter

Geaux4it said:


> Bottom line is...
> 
> We hear that Americans will not do the work the Mex does at the wage the Mex does. Ok- I buy that..
> 
> But lets say, we double the wage so Americans do the work?  Gasp!
> 
> Nobody will want to pay $5 for a head of lettuce
> 
> Guess what? Time you pay for amnesty through welfare, WIC, etc, so the illegal criminal can work for less, it still winds up costing more than having Americans go the work.
> 
> The head of lettuce real-time cost is $15
> 
> Basic economics
> 
> -Geaux



Raise the minimum wage to $23.50/hr.

Make healthcare mandatory for employers to pay.

Disallow all business dedications other than employee expenses.

Allow employers to deduct dollar-for-dollar against ANY taxes/fees owed which will offset the added expense and keep the employers bottom line equivalent to today.

Law change: A ten year prison sentence for any person that knowingly hires an undocumented person for employment.


----------



## daveman

OnePercenter said:


> Raise the minimum wage to $23.50/hr.


And then change the name of the country to "Greece"...because that's what the economy will look like.


----------



## OnePercenter

daveman said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look, Skippy, it's a pretty basic concept.
> 
> You make a claim, you back it up.
> 
> Let me guess:  You think you're ENTITLED to me unquestioningly accepting everything you say.
> 
> Boy, are you going to go through life bitter and disappointed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The typical ad hominem attack of panic when one realizes that the GOP is blowing hot air up your skirt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah.  Meanwhile, I can't help but notice you haven't proven your claim.  You ever going to get around to that, or do you have to pretend to be superior some more?
Click to expand...


I never pretend.

I've given you all the information to do your own math. 

Remember, the thread title is;  'Senate (GOP) rejects amendment to build border fence'.

It's the cost stupid!


----------



## daveman

OnePercenter said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> The typical ad hominem attack of panic when one realizes that the GOP is blowing hot air up your skirt.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah.  Meanwhile, I can't help but notice you haven't proven your claim.  You ever going to get around to that, or do you have to pretend to be superior some more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never pretend.
Click to expand...

Well, since you're not superior, one of us is lying.  Hint:  It's you.


OnePercenter said:


> I've given you all the information to do your own math.
> 
> Remember, the thread title is;  'Senate (GOP) rejects amendment to build border fence'.
> 
> It's the cost stupid!


I can do math.  I want to know where you got the dimensions.  NOTE:  This is YourAss Online is NOT an acceptable source.


----------



## OnePercenter

daveman said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Raise the minimum wage to $23.50/hr.
> 
> 
> 
> And then change the name of the country to "Greece"...because that's what the economy will look like.
Click to expand...


Greece was highly leveraged in derivatives. Thank Phil "Grimm" (R) for the Greece demise.


----------



## OnePercenter

daveman said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah.  Meanwhile, I can't help but notice you haven't proven your claim.  You ever going to get around to that, or do you have to pretend to be superior some more?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never pretend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, since you're not superior, one of us is lying.  Hint:  It's you.
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've given you all the information to do your own math.
> 
> Remember, the thread title is;  'Senate (GOP) rejects amendment to build border fence'.
> 
> It's the cost stupid!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can do math.  I want to know where you got the dimensions.  NOTE:  This is YourAss Online is NOT an acceptable source.
Click to expand...


OK, I'll play. Five feet wide, fifty feet tall, with a twenty five foot by twenty five foot base, times 1950 miles long. We'll call it 'The Great Wall of America'. It will become one of the three man made structures you can see from space. 

Our Founding Fathers of the United States of America will be proud!


----------



## daveman

OnePercenter said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never pretend.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, since you're not superior, one of us is lying.  Hint:  It's you.
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've given you all the information to do your own math.
> 
> Remember, the thread title is;  'Senate (GOP) rejects amendment to build border fence'.
> 
> It's the cost stupid!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can do math.  I want to know where you got the dimensions.  NOTE:  This is YourAss Online is NOT an acceptable source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, I'll play. Five feet wide, fifty feet tall, with a twenty five foot by twenty five foot base, times 1950 miles long. We'll call it 'The Great Wall of America'. It will become one of the three man made structures you can see from space.
> 
> Our Founding Fathers of the United States of America will be proud!
Click to expand...


Great Gaea's Gargantuan Gazongas.

Just admit you made the numbers up.  Because you've had many chances to post a link sourcing the dimensions, and have instead chosen to insist I take your word for it.

Meanwhile, just for giggles, we'll use your numbers.  The dimensions you've given result in 328,533,333 cubic yards of concrete.  Also using your ridiculously-inflated cost of $100 per cubic yard (because they'd use batch plants located near the site -- no way in hell they'd try to truck in that much concrete), the concrete cost is $32,253,333,300.

What was the number your "math" came up with?



OnePercenter said:


> The concrete alone will cost $23 trillion dollars.



Ummm...no.  _Insanely_ inaccurate.

You screwed up.  By _700 times too high_.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why progressives can't be trusted with money.  They don't know how to do math.


----------



## OnePercenter

daveman said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, since you're not superior, one of us is lying.  Hint:  It's you.
> 
> I can do math.  I want to know where you got the dimensions.  NOTE:  This is YourAss Online is NOT an acceptable source.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, I'll play. Five feet wide, fifty feet tall, with a twenty five foot by twenty five foot base, times 1950 miles long. We'll call it 'The Great Wall of America'. It will become one of the three man made structures you can see from space.
> 
> Our Founding Fathers of the United States of America will be proud!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great Gaea's Gargantuan Gazongas.
> 
> Just admit you made the numbers up.  Because you've had many chances to post a link sourcing the dimensions, and have instead chosen to insist I take your word for it.
> 
> Meanwhile, just for giggles, we'll use your numbers.  The dimensions you've given result in 328,533,333 cubic yards of concrete.  Also using your ridiculously-inflated cost of $100 per cubic yard (because they'd use batch plants located near the site -- no way in hell they'd try to truck in that much concrete), the concrete cost is $32,253,333,300.
> 
> What was the number your "math" came up with?
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> The concrete alone will cost $23 trillion dollars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ummm...no.  _Insanely_ inaccurate.
> 
> You screwed up.  By _700 times too high_.
> 
> And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why progressives can't be trusted with money.  They don't know how to do math.
Click to expand...


 Senate (GOP) rejects amendment to build border fence because concrete alone would cost $32,253,333,300.00. Thank You for playing!


----------



## daveman

OnePercenter said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, I'll play. Five feet wide, fifty feet tall, with a twenty five foot by twenty five foot base, times 1950 miles long. We'll call it 'The Great Wall of America'. It will become one of the three man made structures you can see from space.
> 
> Our Founding Fathers of the United States of America will be proud!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great Gaea's Gargantuan Gazongas.
> 
> Just admit you made the numbers up.  Because you've had many chances to post a link sourcing the dimensions, and have instead chosen to insist I take your word for it.
> 
> Meanwhile, just for giggles, we'll use your numbers.  The dimensions you've given result in 328,533,333 cubic yards of concrete.  Also using your ridiculously-inflated cost of $100 per cubic yard (because they'd use batch plants located near the site -- no way in hell they'd try to truck in that much concrete), the concrete cost is $32,253,333,300.
> 
> What was the number your "math" came up with?
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> The concrete alone will cost $23 trillion dollars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ummm...no.  _Insanely_ inaccurate.
> 
> You screwed up.  By _700 times too high_.
> 
> And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why progressives can't be trusted with money.  They don't know how to do math.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Senate (GOP) rejects amendment to build border fence because concrete alone would cost $32,253,333,300.00. Thank You for playing!*
Click to expand...

You misspelled "Wow, Dave, I don't know how I could have made such a huge mistake.  Probably because I'm not very interested in facts; I am a progressive, after all.  Thanks for setting me straight!"


----------



## Synthaholic

OnePercenter said:


> Then we have to place guard turrets every 100 feet. That's another $50 billion.
> 
> Border Patrol Agents for the towers 24/7/365 would be 800,000 Agents at $70,000.00/yr would be another $56 billion per year, plus the current employee cost. So what, $100 billion per year total?


Don't forget their pensions.


----------



## Synthaholic

daveman said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not really, although I expect you feel all bowed up right now.
> 
> I guess I hurt your widdle feewings with the correct statement of your views, huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Will the fence be armed?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's funny, the way you think you have a point.
Click to expand...

I have a clear point that you keep running away from.

You're quite a pussy.


*Will the fence be armed?*


----------



## RoadVirus

OnePercenter said:


> Exactly how many trillions of dollars will it cost to build a fence on the border between Mexico and the United States?
> 
> Exactly how many trillions of dollars per year will it cost to maintain a fence on the border between the United States and Mexico?
> 
> Where exactly are we going to get the funding?



You seriously think it'd take *trillions* to build and maintain a fence?

And where will we get the funding? That's easy. From whatever we save when we're not giving 20 million+ illegal immigrants benefits every year




OnePercenter said:


> Then we have to place guard turrets every 100 feet. That's another $50 billion.
> 
> Border Patrol Agents for the towers 24/7/365 would be 800,000 Agents at $70,000.00/yr would be another $56 billion per year, plus the current employee cost. So what, $100 billion per year total?



Money well spent.


----------



## daveman

Synthaholic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Will the fence be armed?*
> 
> 
> 
> It's funny, the way you think you have a point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have a clear point that you keep running away from.
> 
> You're quite a pussy.
> 
> 
> *Will the fence be armed?*
Click to expand...


  Okay, let's hear this brilliant point of yours.

No, the fence will not be armed.  The men and women patrolling it, however, will be -- hopefully with something more lethal than the beanbag gun Brian Terry was packing when he was murdered by the Mexican drug cartel.  

Which one of you fucking idiot progs thought that was a good idea?  Utter morons, the lot of you.


----------



## daveman

daveman said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's funny, the way you think you have a point.
> 
> 
> 
> I have a clear point that you keep running away from.
> 
> You're quite a pussy.
> 
> 
> *Will the fence be armed?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, let's hear this brilliant point of yours.
> 
> No, the fence will not be armed.  The men and women patrolling it, however, will be -- hopefully with something more lethal than the beanbag gun Brian Terry was packing when he was murdered by the Mexican drug cartel.
> 
> Which one of you fucking idiot progs thought that was a good idea?  Utter morons, the lot of you.
Click to expand...

I'd ask where Synthia ran off to, but he's usually not here on weekends.  He has a regular gig doing Top 40 covers at the Tiki Room at the Holiday Inn on the frontage road.  I hear his Lady Gaga is spot-on!


----------



## Geaux4it

Build the fence.

Then come and talk with us

-Geaux


----------



## OnePercenter

RoadVirus said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly how many trillions of dollars will it cost to build a fence on the border between Mexico and the United States?
> 
> Exactly how many trillions of dollars per year will it cost to maintain a fence on the border between the United States and Mexico?
> 
> Where exactly are we going to get the funding?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seriously think it'd take *trillions* to build and maintain a fence?
> 
> And where will we get the funding? That's easy. From whatever we save when we're not giving 20 million+ illegal immigrants benefits every year
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then we have to place guard turrets every 100 feet. That's another $50 billion.
> 
> Border Patrol Agents for the towers 24/7/365 would be 800,000 Agents at $70,000.00/yr would be another $56 billion per year, plus the current employee cost. So what, $100 billion per year total?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Money well spent.
Click to expand...


Why don't you back up your claim with some numbers.


----------



## daveman

OnePercenter said:


> RoadVirus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly how many trillions of dollars will it cost to build a fence on the border between Mexico and the United States?
> 
> Exactly how many trillions of dollars per year will it cost to maintain a fence on the border between the United States and Mexico?
> 
> Where exactly are we going to get the funding?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seriously think it'd take *trillions* to build and maintain a fence?
> 
> And where will we get the funding? That's easy. From whatever we save when we're not giving 20 million+ illegal immigrants benefits every year
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then we have to place guard turrets every 100 feet. That's another $50 billion.
> 
> Border Patrol Agents for the towers 24/7/365 would be 800,000 Agents at $70,000.00/yr would be another $56 billion per year, plus the current employee cost. So what, $100 billion per year total?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Money well spent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you back up your claim with some numbers.
Click to expand...

Yes, RoadVirus, let's see some numbers.  And multiply them by 700 so 1%er can understand them.


----------



## antiquity

The Senate just passed an amendment to S 744 to further tighten the southern border. On a vote of 69-29 the amendment required the government to build 700 miles of fencing, double the number of Border Patrol agents to 40K, deploy drone and blanket the border with thermal imaging, cameras and other surveillance. How the House will address that part of the immigration bill is anyone guess at this time.

Cost $46 billion over 10 years.

Worth every cent.



> *CIS report*: Households headed by illegal aliens imposed more than $26.3 billion in costs on the federal government in 2002 and paid only $16 billion in taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of almost $10.4 billion, or $2,700 per illegal household.



Now that is for one year, now multiply that figure by 10 years and that not including inflation totals over $100 billion. So you can see that $46 billion is a bargain.


----------



## Synthaholic

daveman said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a clear point that you keep running away from.
> 
> You're quite a pussy.
> 
> 
> *Will the fence be armed?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, let's hear this brilliant point of yours.
> 
> No, the fence will not be armed.  The men and women patrolling it, however, will be -- hopefully with something more lethal than the beanbag gun Brian Terry was packing when he was murdered by the Mexican drug cartel.
> 
> Which one of you fucking idiot progs thought that was a good idea?  Utter morons, the lot of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'd ask where Synthia ran off to, but he's usually not here on weekends.  He has a regular gig doing Top 40 covers at the Tiki Room at the Holiday Inn on the frontage road. * I hear his Lady Gaga is spot-on!*
Click to expand...


That was my 2012 show.  Try to keep up!


----------



## Synthaholic

daveman said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's funny, the way you think you have a point.
> 
> 
> 
> I have a clear point that you keep running away from.
> 
> You're quite a pussy.
> 
> 
> *Will the fence be armed?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, let's hear this brilliant point of yours.
> 
> No, the fence will not be armed.  The men and women patrolling it, however, will be --
Click to expand...


So, how many?  What will their salaries be?  What will their pensions cost for decades into the future?

This will be an ongoing bureaucracy, just like the last Conservative bureaucratic money hole, the Department Of Homeland Security.  *How much is that costing us each year?  *And keep in mind, we still have an FBI and a CIA with bigger budgets than ever, so DHS has not absorbed those agencies or their costs.

So you want to create another 40,000 person Federal behemoth?  With all the attending costs?

And you fools try to tell us that you care about the debt and Big Government?


----------



## daveman

Synthaholic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a clear point that you keep running away from.
> 
> You're quite a pussy.
> 
> 
> *Will the fence be armed?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, let's hear this brilliant point of yours.
> 
> No, the fence will not be armed.  The men and women patrolling it, however, will be --
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, how many?  What will their salaries be?  What will their pensions cost for decades into the future?
> 
> This will be an ongoing bureaucracy, just like the last Conservative bureaucratic money hole, the Department Of Homeland Security.  *How much is that costing us each year?  *And keep in mind, we still have an FBI and a CIA with bigger budgets than ever, so DHS has not absorbed those agencies or their costs.
> 
> So you want to create another 40,000 person Federal behemoth?  With all the attending costs?
> 
> And you fools try to tell us that you care about the debt and Big Government?
Click to expand...

Some things are worth the money, like border security, especially considering how illegals cost society more than they contribute.

Some things -- like the National Endowment for the Arts -- are NOT worth the money, and should be abolished.


----------



## daveman

Synthaholic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, let's hear this brilliant point of yours.
> 
> No, the fence will not be armed.  The men and women patrolling it, however, will be -- hopefully with something more lethal than the beanbag gun Brian Terry was packing when he was murdered by the Mexican drug cartel.
> 
> Which one of you fucking idiot progs thought that was a good idea?  Utter morons, the lot of you.
> 
> 
> 
> I'd ask where Synthia ran off to, but he's usually not here on weekends.  He has a regular gig doing Top 40 covers at the Tiki Room at the Holiday Inn on the frontage road. * I hear his Lady Gaga is spot-on!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was my 2012 show.  Try to keep up!
Click to expand...

So, what empty-headed bit of bubblegum fluff are you imitating to pay the bills this year?

Man, pop music sucks.


----------



## Synthaholic

daveman said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, let's hear this brilliant point of yours.
> 
> No, the fence will not be armed.  The men and women patrolling it, however, will be --
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, how many?  What will their salaries be?  What will their pensions cost for decades into the future?
> 
> This will be an ongoing bureaucracy, just like the last Conservative bureaucratic money hole, the Department Of Homeland Security.  *How much is that costing us each year?  *And keep in mind, we still have an FBI and a CIA with bigger budgets than ever, so DHS has not absorbed those agencies or their costs.
> 
> So you want to create another 40,000 person Federal behemoth?  With all the attending costs?
> 
> And you fools try to tell us that you care about the debt and Big Government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some things are worth the money, like border security, especially considering how illegals cost society more than they contribute.
> 
> Some things -- like the National Endowment for the Arts -- are NOT worth the money, and should be abolished.
Click to expand...


You're a fraud - a big spending Republican, content to waste taxpayer money when it goes to you and your cronies.

Are you hoping they will be hiring AF retirees unable to hold a job without the gummint nanny taking care of you, covering your medical, giving you discounts on your food and goods, and the commissary and PX?  

What sux is that private employers won't pay you to sit around and post on message boards all day like the Air Forces did, doesn't it, davey?


----------



## daveman

Synthaholic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, how many?  What will their salaries be?  What will their pensions cost for decades into the future?
> 
> This will be an ongoing bureaucracy, just like the last Conservative bureaucratic money hole, the Department Of Homeland Security.  *How much is that costing us each year?  *And keep in mind, we still have an FBI and a CIA with bigger budgets than ever, so DHS has not absorbed those agencies or their costs.
> 
> So you want to create another 40,000 person Federal behemoth?  With all the attending costs?
> 
> And you fools try to tell us that you care about the debt and Big Government?
> 
> 
> 
> Some things are worth the money, like border security, especially considering how illegals cost society more than they contribute.
> 
> Some things -- like the National Endowment for the Arts -- are NOT worth the money, and should be abolished.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a fraud - a big spending Republican, content to waste taxpayer money when it goes to you and your cronies.
> 
> Are you hoping they will be hiring AF retirees unable to hold a job without the gummint nanny taking care of you, covering your medical, giving you discounts on your food and goods, and the commissary and PX?
> 
> What sux is that private employers won't pay you to sit around and post on message boards all day like the Air Forces did, doesn't it, davey?
Click to expand...

My, my, such an irrational hatred you have for veterans.  Is it because our existence points out something lacking in you?  Honor, courage, commitment, perhaps?

Sure does seem like, doesn't it?

Did a Soldier beat you up once?  Did a Sailor steal your girlfriend?  Did a Marine laugh at you?  Did an Airman make fun of you on the internet?

I know for a fact the last part is true.


----------



## Synthaholic

daveman said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some things are worth the money, like border security, especially considering how illegals cost society more than they contribute.
> 
> Some things -- like the National Endowment for the Arts -- are NOT worth the money, and should be abolished.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're a fraud - a big spending Republican, content to waste taxpayer money when it goes to you and your cronies.
> 
> Are you hoping they will be hiring AF retirees unable to hold a job without the gummint nanny taking care of you, covering your medical, giving you discounts on your food and goods, and the commissary and PX?
> 
> What sux is that private employers won't pay you to sit around and post on message boards all day like the Air Forces did, doesn't it, davey?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *My, my, such an irrational hatred you have for veterans. * Is it because our existence points out something lacking in you?  Honor, courage, commitment, perhaps?
> 
> Sure does seem like, doesn't it?
> 
> Did a Soldier beat you up once?  Did a Sailor steal your girlfriend?  Did a Marine laugh at you?  Did an Airman make fun of you on the internet?
> 
> I know for a fact the last part is true.
Click to expand...


I have no hatred for veterans.  I have hatred for frauds and hypocrites.  You don't get a free pass because you joined the military, out of options in the Capitalist, free market world that you couldn't hack.

But it's clear you have an irrational hatred of musicians and artists, as you demonstrated once more by picking the strawman of the NEA.

Don't blame musicians because you weren't good enough.


----------



## Synthaholic

daveman said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, let's hear this brilliant point of yours.
> 
> No, the fence will not be armed.  The men and women patrolling it, however, will be --
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, how many?  What will their salaries be?  What will their pensions cost for decades into the future?
> 
> This will be an ongoing bureaucracy, just like the last Conservative bureaucratic money hole, the Department Of Homeland Security.  *How much is that costing us each year?  *And keep in mind, we still have an FBI and a CIA with bigger budgets than ever, so DHS has not absorbed those agencies or their costs.
> 
> So you want to create another 40,000 person Federal behemoth?  With all the attending costs?
> 
> And you fools try to tell us that you care about the debt and Big Government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some things are worth the money, like border security, especially considering how illegals cost society more than they contribute.
> 
> *Some things -- like the National Endowment for the Arts -- are NOT worth the money, and should be abolished.*
Click to expand...



This is just further proof that you can't debate me honestly, or you're just ignorant.  This fence will cost hundreds of billions, while the NEA cost mere millions.  Yet you want to try to equate them.

Just how retarded are you?  Are you drooling right now?


----------



## daveman

Synthaholic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're a fraud - a big spending Republican, content to waste taxpayer money when it goes to you and your cronies.
> 
> Are you hoping they will be hiring AF retirees unable to hold a job without the gummint nanny taking care of you, covering your medical, giving you discounts on your food and goods, and the commissary and PX?
> 
> What sux is that private employers won't pay you to sit around and post on message boards all day like the Air Forces did, doesn't it, davey?
> 
> 
> 
> *My, my, such an irrational hatred you have for veterans. * Is it because our existence points out something lacking in you?  Honor, courage, commitment, perhaps?
> 
> Sure does seem like, doesn't it?
> 
> Did a Soldier beat you up once?  Did a Sailor steal your girlfriend?  Did a Marine laugh at you?  Did an Airman make fun of you on the internet?
> 
> I know for a fact the last part is true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no hatred for veterans.  I have hatred for frauds and hypocrites.  You don't get a free pass because you joined the military, out of options in the Capitalist, free market world that you couldn't hack.
Click to expand...

I never asked for a free pass, dumbass.    And the rest -- you're just making it up...out of your irrational hatred for veterans.


Synthaholic said:


> But it's clear you have an irrational hatred of musicians and artists, as you demonstrated once more by picking the strawman of the NEA.


No, I don't hate musicians and artists.  I was a musician for a number of years, and my oldest daughter is a gifted artist.

What I dislike is wasting of taxpayer money.  And giving it to some edgy "artist" so he can excrete something on canvas and have idiots like you oooh and aaaah over it is a waste of money.


Synthaholic said:


> Don't blame musicians because you weren't good enough.


...says the guy without a record deal.


----------



## daveman

Synthaholic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, how many?  What will their salaries be?  What will their pensions cost for decades into the future?
> 
> This will be an ongoing bureaucracy, just like the last Conservative bureaucratic money hole, the Department Of Homeland Security.  *How much is that costing us each year?  *And keep in mind, we still have an FBI and a CIA with bigger budgets than ever, so DHS has not absorbed those agencies or their costs.
> 
> So you want to create another 40,000 person Federal behemoth?  With all the attending costs?
> 
> And you fools try to tell us that you care about the debt and Big Government?
> 
> 
> 
> Some things are worth the money, like border security, especially considering how illegals cost society more than they contribute.
> 
> *Some things -- like the National Endowment for the Arts -- are NOT worth the money, and should be abolished.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This is just further proof that you can't debate me honestly, or you're just ignorant.  This fence will cost hundreds of billions, while the NEA cost mere millions.  Yet you want to try to equate them.
> 
> Just how retarded are you?  Are you drooling right now?
Click to expand...

Ever hear of a document called the Constitution of the United States of America?

Handy thing, that.  It outlines the Federal government's roles and responsibilities.  National security is in there.

Giving money to musicians and artists is not.  Weird, huh?

Meanwhile, speaking of honesty, why don't you be honest about your opposition to securing the border?  It certainly has nothing to do with money.

You want a steady stream of new Democrat voters.

Period.


----------



## OnePercenter

antiquity said:


> The Senate just passed an amendment to S 744 to further tighten the southern border. On a vote of 69-29 the amendment required the government to build 700 miles of fencing, double the number of Border Patrol agents to 40K, deploy drone and blanket the border with thermal imaging, cameras and other surveillance. How the House will address that part of the immigration bill is anyone guess at this time.
> 
> Cost $46 billion over 10 years.
> 
> Worth every cent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *CIS report*: Households headed by illegal aliens imposed more than $26.3 billion in costs on the federal government in 2002 and paid only $16 billion in taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of almost $10.4 billion, or $2,700 per illegal household.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now that is for one year, now multiply that figure by 10 years and that not including inflation totals over $100 billion. So you can see that $46 billion is a bargain.
Click to expand...


What's been proposed won't work. If you want to build a wall then you need to look at prisons or the Berlin wall.


----------



## Zona

daveman said:


> Dugdale_Jukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even nutball scum bumble into daylight once in a while.
> 
> The only way to stop illegal immigration is to prosecute corporations hiring illegals.
> 
> For what it's worth, when the fence IS built, it will be as much to keep people in as out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be forgetting deportation of the illegals themselves, Jughead.
Click to expand...

If we did,it would bankrupt this county.  Everyone talks a good game but when the rubber boys the road, the illegals en mass won't be deported.  Period.  It's all about $$$.  If I am wrong, then why don't they aggressively go after  businesses  who hire them.


----------



## Geaux4it

Build the fence

No votes until complete

-Geaux


----------



## antiquity

Synthaholic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a clear point that you keep running away from.
> 
> You're quite a pussy.
> 
> 
> *Will the fence be armed?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, let's hear this brilliant point of yours.
> 
> No, the fence will not be armed.  The men and women patrolling it, however, will be --
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, how many?  What will their salaries be?  What will their pensions cost for decades into the future?
> 
> This will be an ongoing bureaucracy, just like the last Conservative bureaucratic money hole, the Department Of Homeland Security.  *How much is that costing us each year?  *And keep in mind, we still have an FBI and a CIA with bigger budgets than ever, so DHS has not absorbed those agencies or their costs.
> 
> *So you want to create another 40,000 person* Federal behemoth?  With all the attending costs?
> 
> And you fools try to tell us that you care about the debt and Big Government?
Click to expand...


The bill say it will double the agents on the border to 40K not increase it by 40K. You sound like a tool for the Obama administration to me. 

But under Obama the number of Federal employees have increased...I have a feeling you didn't blink an eye when the following happened.


----------



## antiquity

OnePercenter said:


> antiquity said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Senate just passed an amendment to S 744 to further tighten the southern border. On a vote of 69-29 the amendment required the government to build 700 miles of fencing, double the number of Border Patrol agents to 40K, deploy drone and blanket the border with thermal imaging, cameras and other surveillance. How the House will address that part of the immigration bill is anyone guess at this time.
> 
> Cost $46 billion over 10 years.
> 
> Worth every cent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *CIS report*: Households headed by illegal aliens imposed more than $26.3 billion in costs on the federal government in 2002 and paid only $16 billion in taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of almost $10.4 billion, or $2,700 per illegal household.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now that is for one year, now multiply that figure by 10 years and that not including inflation totals over $100 billion. So you can see that $46 billion is a bargain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's been proposed won't work. If you want to build a wall then you need to look at prisons or the Berlin wall.
Click to expand...


Name one country that has a lack of border security like the US does? Name one country that doesn't enforce its border like the US does? I would advise you to look into what Mexico has done on its southern border

Hypocritical Mexico is now building their own wall on border with Guatemala...press ignores.



> The Inter-Press Sevice (IPS) is reporting that the head administrator of the Mexican Superintendency of Tax Administration, Raul Diaz, has confirmed that his government is building a wall in the state of Chiapas, along the Mexican/Guatemalan border.
> 
> The official reason is to stop contraband from coming into Mexico, but as Diaz admitted: &#8220;It could also prevent the free passage of illegal immigrants.&#8221;
> 
> According to Mexico's National Commission on Human Rights, 500,000 people from Central America cross into Mexico illegally every year.


----------



## Synthaholic

daveman said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> *My, my, such an irrational hatred you have for veterans. * Is it because our existence points out something lacking in you?  Honor, courage, commitment, perhaps?
> 
> Sure does seem like, doesn't it?
> 
> Did a Soldier beat you up once?  Did a Sailor steal your girlfriend?  Did a Marine laugh at you?  Did an Airman make fun of you on the internet?
> 
> I know for a fact the last part is true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no hatred for veterans.  I have hatred for frauds and hypocrites.  You don't get a free pass because you joined the military, out of options in the Capitalist, free market world that you couldn't hack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never asked for a free pass, dumbass.    And the rest -- you're just making it up...out of your irrational hatred for veterans.
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it's clear you have an irrational hatred of musicians and artists, as you demonstrated once more by picking the strawman of the NEA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I don't hate musicians and artists.  I was a musician for a number of years, and my oldest daughter is a gifted artist.
> 
> What I dislike is wasting of taxpayer money.  And giving it to some edgy "artist" so he can excrete something on canvas and have idiots like you oooh and aaaah over it is a waste of money.
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't blame musicians because you weren't good enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...says the guy without a record deal.
Click to expand...

Not everyone in the music industry makes their money off of "record deals".

(Part of the reason is that 'records' haven't been mass-produced for decades, but that's just your ignorance showing again)


----------



## Synthaholic

daveman said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some things are worth the money, like border security, especially considering how illegals cost society more than they contribute.
> 
> *Some things -- like the National Endowment for the Arts -- are NOT worth the money, and should be abolished.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is just further proof that you can't debate me honestly, or you're just ignorant.  This fence will cost hundreds of billions, while the NEA cost mere millions.  Yet you want to try to equate them.
> 
> Just how retarded are you?  Are you drooling right now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ever hear of a document called the Constitution of the United States of America?
> 
> Handy thing, that.  It outlines the Federal government's roles and responsibilities.  National security is in there.
> 
> Giving money to musicians and artists is not.  Weird, huh?
> 
> Meanwhile, speaking of honesty, why don't you be honest about your opposition to securing the border?  It certainly has nothing to do with money.
> 
> You want a steady stream of new Democrat voters.
> 
> Period.
Click to expand...


A wall does not = national security.

And you're lying again - I can tell, since you are typing.  I am fine with securing the border with our shiny new drone technology.  They can see illegals crossing, send the coordinates to the nearest station, where border patrol will intercept.

What's your problem with that, besides the fact that they won't need to hire retired fat-ass desk jockeys from the military, looking to continue their free ride?


----------



## antiquity

Synthaholic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, how many?  What will their salaries be?  What will their pensions cost for decades into the future?
> 
> This will be an ongoing bureaucracy, just like the last Conservative bureaucratic money hole, the Department Of Homeland Security.  *How much is that costing us each year?  *And keep in mind, we still have an FBI and a CIA with bigger budgets than ever, so DHS has not absorbed those agencies or their costs.
> 
> So you want to create another 40,000 person Federal behemoth?  With all the attending costs?
> 
> And you fools try to tell us that you care about the debt and Big Government?
> 
> 
> 
> Some things are worth the money, like border security, especially considering how illegals cost society more than they contribute.
> 
> *Some things -- like the National Endowment for the Arts -- are NOT worth the money, and should be abolished.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This is just further proof that you can't debate me honestly, or you're just ignorant.  This fence will* cost hundreds of billions, *while the NEA cost mere millions.  Yet you want to try to equate them.
> 
> Just how retarded are you?  Are you drooling right now?
Click to expand...


Who is proposing to spend hundreds of billions? As far as I know the proposed amount is around $46 billion. A real bargain compare to the cost to the American taxpayer now to support the illegal population every year and years to come.


----------



## Synthaholic

antiquity said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, let's hear this brilliant point of yours.
> 
> No, the fence will not be armed.  The men and women patrolling it, however, will be --
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, how many?  What will their salaries be?  What will their pensions cost for decades into the future?
> 
> This will be an ongoing bureaucracy, just like the last Conservative bureaucratic money hole, the Department Of Homeland Security.  *How much is that costing us each year?  *And keep in mind, we still have an FBI and a CIA with bigger budgets than ever, so DHS has not absorbed those agencies or their costs.
> 
> *So you want to create another 40,000 person* Federal behemoth?  With all the attending costs?
> 
> And you fools try to tell us that you care about the debt and Big Government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The bill say it will double the agents on the border to 40K not increase it by 40K. You sound like a tool for the Obama administration to me.
Click to expand...


But you're fine with adding more Federal jobs, plus their pensions, in perpetuity?

Small government, my ass.




> But under Obama the number of Federal employees have increased...I have a feeling you didn't blink an eye when the following happened.




That chart is clearly a lie.  It's a lie of omission.

Show the chart going back into the Bush years and you will see that any increase under Obama is still a massive cut from under Bush.

It's from Heritage - no wonder it's false.


----------



## Synthaholic

antiquity said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antiquity said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Senate just passed an amendment to S 744 to further tighten the southern border. On a vote of 69-29 the amendment required the government to build 700 miles of fencing, double the number of Border Patrol agents to 40K, deploy drone and blanket the border with thermal imaging, cameras and other surveillance. How the House will address that part of the immigration bill is anyone guess at this time.
> 
> Cost $46 billion over 10 years.
> 
> Worth every cent.
> 
> 
> 
> Now that is for one year, now multiply that figure by 10 years and that not including inflation totals over $100 billion. So you can see that $46 billion is a bargain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's been proposed won't work. If you want to build a wall then you need to look at prisons or the Berlin wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Name one country that has a lack of border security like the US does? Name one country that doesn't enforce its border like the US does? I would advise you to look into what Mexico has done on its southern border
> 
> Hypocritical Mexico is now building their own wall on border with Guatemala...press ignores.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Inter-Press Sevice (IPS) is reporting that the head administrator of the Mexican Superintendency of Tax Administration, Raul Diaz, has confirmed that his government is building a wall in the state of Chiapas, along the Mexican/Guatemalan border.
> 
> The official reason is to stop contraband from coming into Mexico, but as Diaz admitted: &#8220;It could also prevent the free passage of illegal immigrants.&#8221;
> 
> According to Mexico's National Commission on Human Rights, 500,000 people from Central America cross into Mexico illegally every year.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

It's not our business.


----------



## Synthaholic

antiquity said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some things are worth the money, like border security, especially considering how illegals cost society more than they contribute.
> 
> *Some things -- like the National Endowment for the Arts -- are NOT worth the money, and should be abolished.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is just further proof that you can't debate me honestly, or you're just ignorant.  This fence will* cost hundreds of billions, *while the NEA cost mere millions.  Yet you want to try to equate them.
> 
> Just how retarded are you?  Are you drooling right now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is proposing to spend hundreds of billions? As far as I know the proposed amount is around $46 billion. A real bargain compare to the cost to the American taxpayer now to support the illegal population every year and years to come.
Click to expand...

Name the government program or bureaucracy that came in at, or below, estimates.


Remember when the conservative liars all told us the Iraq War would cost less than $20 billion and be paid with oil?

Conservatives lie.  It's the only thing they are actually good at.


----------



## tjvh

velvtacheeze said:


> For six nightmare years the GOP held unified power in DC and they didn't pay for a fence then, so why do we have to do it now?  They had their chance during the Bush years and blew it. It's their own damn fault.



So because Bush didn't do it, that excuses Obama from doing it?  Sorry, but they are both wrong for not fixing our borders.


----------



## antiquity

Synthaholic said:


> antiquity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, how many?  What will their salaries be?  What will their pensions cost for decades into the future?
> 
> This will be an ongoing bureaucracy, just like the last Conservative bureaucratic money hole, the Department Of Homeland Security.  *How much is that costing us each year?  *And keep in mind, we still have an FBI and a CIA with bigger budgets than ever, so DHS has not absorbed those agencies or their costs.
> 
> *So you want to create another 40,000 person* Federal behemoth?  With all the attending costs?
> 
> And you fools try to tell us that you care about the debt and Big Government?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The bill say it will double the agents on the border to 40K not increase it by 40K. You sound like a tool for the Obama administration to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're fine with adding more Federal jobs, plus their pensions, in perpetuity?
> 
> Small government, my ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But under Obama the number of Federal employees have increased...I have a feeling you didn't blink an eye when the following happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That chart is clearly a lie.  It's a lie of omission.
> 
> Show the chart going back into the Bush years and you will see that any increase under Obama is still a massive cut from under Bush.
> 
> It's from Heritage - no wonder it's false.
Click to expand...


Beside being a joke you are so illiterate, the source is not from the Heritage its from the United States Department of Labor, the Heritage only reported it. 

You will also note that the increases started when the Democrats took power in both houses.


----------



## Synthaholic

antiquity said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antiquity said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bill say it will double the agents on the border to 40K not increase it by 40K. You sound like a tool for the Obama administration to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you're fine with adding more Federal jobs, plus their pensions, in perpetuity?
> 
> Small government, my ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But under Obama the number of Federal employees have increased...I have a feeling you didn't blink an eye when the following happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That chart is clearly a lie.  It's a lie of omission.
> 
> Show the chart going back into the Bush years and you will see that any increase under Obama is still a massive cut from under Bush.
> 
> It's from Heritage - no wonder it's false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Beside being a joke you are so illiterate, the source is not from the Heritage its from the United States Department of Labor, the Heritage only reported it.
> 
> You will also note that the increases started when the Democrats took power in both houses.
Click to expand...


The original info is from Labor.  The deceptive chart is from Heritage.


----------



## antiquity

Synthaholic said:


> It's not our business.



Never said it was but the hypocrisy by the Mexican government is about the same level as yours.


----------



## antiquity

Synthaholic said:


> The original info is from Labor.  The deceptive chart is from Heritage.



What is your point, that because the chart was posted by the Heritage is is false?


----------



## antiquity

Synthaholic said:


> Name the government program or bureaucracy that came in at, or below, estimates.



Well it sure wasn't Obamacare.



> Remember when the conservative liars all told us the Iraq War would cost less than $20 billion and be paid with oil?



Link?



> Conservatives lie.  It's the only thing they are actually good at.



What? That is so stupid its not ever worth a comment.


----------



## daveman

Zona said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dugdale_Jukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even nutball scum bumble into daylight once in a while.
> 
> The only way to stop illegal immigration is to prosecute corporations hiring illegals.
> 
> For what it's worth, when the fence IS built, it will be as much to keep people in as out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be forgetting deportation of the illegals themselves, Jughead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If we did,it would bankrupt this county.  Everyone talks a good game but when the rubber boys the road, the illegals en mass won't be deported.  Period.  It's all about $$$.  If I am wrong, then why don't they aggressively go after  businesses  who hire them.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone's suggesting we book 12 million airline seats next week.

We can send 'em home when we catch 'em -- instead of letting them go, like Obama's been doing.


----------



## daveman

Synthaholic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no hatred for veterans.  I have hatred for frauds and hypocrites.  You don't get a free pass because you joined the military, out of options in the Capitalist, free market world that you couldn't hack.
> 
> 
> 
> I never asked for a free pass, dumbass.    And the rest -- you're just making it up...out of your irrational hatred for veterans.
> 
> No, I don't hate musicians and artists.  I was a musician for a number of years, and my oldest daughter is a gifted artist.
> 
> What I dislike is wasting of taxpayer money.  And giving it to some edgy "artist" so he can excrete something on canvas and have idiots like you oooh and aaaah over it is a waste of money.
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't blame musicians because you weren't good enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...says the guy without a record deal.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not everyone in the music industry makes their money off of "record deals".
> 
> (Part of the reason is that 'records' haven't been mass-produced for decades, but that's just your ignorance showing again)
Click to expand...

Have you ever heard the term "CD deal"?

I haven't either.  Dumbass.  

How do I Get a Record Deal?
How to Get a Hiphop Record Deal: Step-by-Step Instructions
Ed Sheeran tells how he struggled to get record deal "because he was ginger" - Independent.ie
Shaun White Signs Record Deal
First Step To Getting a Record Deal


I do believe your ignorance is showing again.  Dumbass.


----------



## daveman

Synthaholic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is just further proof that you can't debate me honestly, or you're just ignorant.  This fence will cost hundreds of billions, while the NEA cost mere millions.  Yet you want to try to equate them.
> 
> Just how retarded are you?  Are you drooling right now?
> 
> 
> 
> Ever hear of a document called the Constitution of the United States of America?
> 
> Handy thing, that.  It outlines the Federal government's roles and responsibilities.  National security is in there.
> 
> Giving money to musicians and artists is not.  Weird, huh?
> 
> Meanwhile, speaking of honesty, why don't you be honest about your opposition to securing the border?  It certainly has nothing to do with money.
> 
> You want a steady stream of new Democrat voters.
> 
> Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A wall does not = national security.
> 
> And you're lying again - I can tell, since you are typing.
Click to expand...

Note:  "Saying stuff that hurts Synthia's widdle feewings" =/= "lying".


Synthaholic said:


> I am fine with securing the border with our shiny new drone technology.  They can see illegals crossing, send the coordinates to the nearest station, where border patrol will intercept.


And do what with them?  Escort them to the nearest DNC office to register to vote?


Synthaholic said:


> What's your problem with that, besides the fact that they won't need to hire retired fat-ass desk jockeys from the military, looking to continue their free ride?


Nope.  No hatred for veterans here, folks.  Move along, move along.

Dumbass.


----------



## daveman

Synthaholic said:


> antiquity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you're fine with adding more Federal jobs, plus their pensions, in perpetuity?
> 
> Small government, my ass.
> 
> 
> 
> That chart is clearly a lie.  It's a lie of omission.
> 
> Show the chart going back into the Bush years and you will see that any increase under Obama is still a massive cut from under Bush.
> 
> It's from Heritage - no wonder it's false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Beside being a joke you are so illiterate, the source is not from the Heritage its from the United States Department of Labor, the Heritage only reported it.
> 
> You will also note that the increases started when the Democrats took power in both houses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The original info is from Labor.  The deceptive chart is from Heritage.
Click to expand...

So present proof of your claim.  Don't just screech "Nuh-UH!!"


----------



## Synthaholic

daveman said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ever hear of a document called the Constitution of the United States of America?
> 
> Handy thing, that.  It outlines the Federal government's roles and responsibilities.  National security is in there.
> 
> Giving money to musicians and artists is not.  Weird, huh?
> 
> Meanwhile, speaking of honesty, why don't you be honest about your opposition to securing the border?  It certainly has nothing to do with money.
> 
> You want a steady stream of new Democrat voters.
> 
> Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A wall does not = national security.
> 
> And you're lying again - I can tell, since you are typing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Note:  "Saying stuff that hurts Synthia's widdle feewings" =/= "lying".
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am fine with securing the border with our shiny new drone technology.  They can see illegals crossing, send the coordinates to the nearest station, where border patrol will intercept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And do what with them?  Escort them to the nearest DNC office to register to vote?
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's your problem with that, besides the fact that they won't need to hire retired fat-ass desk jockeys from the military, looking to continue their free ride?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  No hatred for veterans here, folks.  Move along, move along.
> 
> Dumbass.
Click to expand...



Again, you cannot counter my arguments.


----------



## daveman

Synthaholic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> A wall does not = national security.
> 
> And you're lying again - I can tell, since you are typing.
> 
> 
> 
> Note:  "Saying stuff that hurts Synthia's widdle feewings" =/= "lying".
> 
> And do what with them?  Escort them to the nearest DNC office to register to vote?
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's your problem with that, besides the fact that they won't need to hire retired fat-ass desk jockeys from the military, looking to continue their free ride?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  No hatred for veterans here, folks.  Move along, move along.
> 
> Dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you cannot counter my arguments.
Click to expand...

You have no arguments.

Neither do you have a record deal.


daveman said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not everyone in the music industry makes their money off of "record deals".
> 
> (Part of the reason is that 'records' haven't been mass-produced for decades, but that's just your ignorance showing again)
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever heard the term "CD deal"?
> 
> I haven't either.  Dumbass.
> 
> How do I Get a Record Deal?
> How to Get a Hiphop Record Deal: Step-by-Step Instructions
> Ed Sheeran tells how he struggled to get record deal "because he was ginger" - Independent.ie
> Shaun White Signs Record Deal
> First Step To Getting a Record Deal
> 
> 
> I do believe your ignorance is showing again.  Dumbass.
Click to expand...


Chickenshit.


----------



## Synthaholic

daveman said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Note:  "Saying stuff that hurts Synthia's widdle feewings" =/= "lying".
> 
> And do what with them?  Escort them to the nearest DNC office to register to vote?
> 
> Nope.  No hatred for veterans here, folks.  Move along, move along.
> 
> Dumbass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you cannot counter my arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no arguments.
Click to expand...



Another lie from you - it comes so easily to you.

My argument is that drones can do the job of monitoring the border at far less cost.




			
				troll said:
			
		

> Chickenshit.



Is this your self-assessment of your participation in this thread?  Because you're too chickenshit to debate me, obviously.


----------



## antiquity

Synthaholic said:


> Another lie from you - it comes so easily to you.
> 
> My argument is that drones can do the job of monitoring the border at far less cost.



While drone can be part of the overall equation, how does a drone apprehend an illegal. Use Obama plan in the past and bomb them?


----------



## Synthaholic

antiquity said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another lie from you - it comes so easily to you.
> 
> My argument is that drones can do the job of monitoring the border at far less cost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While drone can be part of the overall equation, how does a drone apprehend an illegal. Use Obama plan in the past and bomb them?
Click to expand...

Are you incapable of following a thread?


----------



## daveman

Synthaholic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you cannot counter my arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> You have no arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Another lie from you - it comes so easily to you.
> 
> My argument is that drones can do the job of monitoring the border at far less cost.
Click to expand...

Never mind the fact that it's easier to stop them from crossing than picking them up after they get here.  

Do you lock your house's doors?  Why?  It's easier to call the cops after the bad guy's in your house, right?


Synthaholic said:


> troll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chickenshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this your self-assessment of your participation in this thread?  Because you're too chickenshit to debate me, obviously.
Click to expand...

Well, given the fact that you claim to be a musician who thinks the term "record deal" is not longer used, EVEN AFTER I POSTED LINKS ONLY HOURS OLD SHOWING THE TERM IS CURRENT, I'd say your judgement is worth about as much as a bucket of sloth shit.

Plus, the fact that you refuse to quote where I proved you wrong pretty much confirms you're the chickenshit here, boy.

Probably aren't even a musician, either.  NOTE:  Playing "Guitar Hero" doesn't count, kid.


----------



## Trajan

as far as the fence and border guards to be built and hired, Obama just deep sixed a law for a year in the aca bill , why wouldn't he put that off too?


----------



## Synthaholic

daveman said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have no arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another lie from you - it comes so easily to you.
> 
> My argument is that drones can do the job of monitoring the border at far less cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Never mind the fact that it's easier to stop them from crossing than picking them up after they get here.
> 
> Do you lock your house's doors?  Why?  It's easier to call the cops after the bad guy's in your house, right?
Click to expand...


This is desert expanse, correct?

C'mon.  Use your brain.  You can do it.


----------



## Synthaholic

Trajan said:


> as far as the fence and border guards to be built and hired, Obama just deep sixed a law for a year in the aca bill , why wouldn't he put that off too?


Well, speculation is certainly easier than refuting my drone argument, isn't it?


----------



## daveman

Synthaholic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another lie from you - it comes so easily to you.
> 
> My argument is that drones can do the job of monitoring the border at far less cost.
> 
> 
> 
> Never mind the fact that it's easier to stop them from crossing than picking them up after they get here.
> 
> Do you lock your house's doors?  Why?  It's easier to call the cops after the bad guy's in your house, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is desert expanse, correct?
> 
> C'mon.  Use your brain.  You can do it.
Click to expand...

Do you lock your house's doors?  Answer the question.


----------



## Trajan

Synthaholic said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> as far as the fence and border guards to be built and hired, Obama just deep sixed a law for a year in the aca bill , why wouldn't he put that off too?
> 
> 
> 
> Well, speculation is certainly easier than refuting my drone argument, isn't it?
Click to expand...


I wasn't concerned with refuting anything in particular, I posed a  general question.....


I am sorry if you feel neglected.....cheer up, your milk and cookies are waiting, get into your jammies first


----------



## Trajan

Synthaholic said:


> antiquity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you're fine with adding more Federal jobs, plus their pensions, in perpetuity?
> 
> Small government, my ass.
> 
> 
> 
> That chart is clearly a lie.  It's a lie of omission.
> 
> Show the chart going back into the Bush years and you will see that any increase under Obama is still a massive cut from under Bush.
> 
> It's from Heritage - no wonder it's false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Beside being a joke you are so illiterate, the source is not from the Heritage its from the United States Department of Labor, the Heritage only reported it.
> 
> You will also note that the increases started when the Democrats took power in both houses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The original info is from Labor.  The deceptive chart is from Heritage.
Click to expand...


Employees: The number of federal employees grew by 123,000, or 6.2%, under President Obama, according to the White House's Office of Management and Budget.

Did Obama really make government bigger? - Jan. 25, 2012

and 








you asked for refutation, right?


----------



## antiquity

Synthaholic said:


> antiquity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another lie from you - it comes so easily to you.
> 
> My argument is that drones can do the job of monitoring the border at far less cost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While drone can be part of the overall equation, how does a drone apprehend an illegal. Use Obama plan in the past and bomb them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you incapable of following a thread?
Click to expand...


Oh, I have little trouble following any thread, but I do have trouble following your logic as most of the time its either full of half truths  or out and out lies to try to sway people to your agenda. For example you claim that the Immigration law will add 40K border agents when in fact it increases the number of border agents to 40K.

As far as the Senate rejecting the border fence I would suggest you do some further research and you will find that the Senate did later agree to building the fence among other provisions. Including adding 20K border agents.



> Senate Approves Landmark Immigration Bill After Border Amendment Draws GOP Support
> 
> The Senate has approved the long-awaited immigration reform bill that creates a path to citizenship for millions of undocumented immigrants while imposing unprecedented new measures for border security. Fourteen Republicans joined a united Democratic caucus to pass the bill by a vote of 68 to 32. *It includes an amendment that radically expands enforcement along the U.S.-Mexico border, spending $46 billion to nearly double the number of border agents to 40,000, expand the use of drones, and construct around 700 miles of border fencing. *The measure now faces an uncertain fate in the House, where Speaker John Boehner says he will not allow a vote without the majority support of Republican members.



What do you have to say to that hotshot?


----------



## Synthaholic

Trajan said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> as far as the fence and border guards to be built and hired, Obama just deep sixed a law for a year in the aca bill , why wouldn't he put that off too?
> 
> 
> 
> Well, speculation is certainly easier than refuting my drone argument, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wasn't concerned with refuting anything in particular, I posed a  general question.....
> 
> 
> I am sorry if you feel neglected.....cheer up, your milk and cookies are waiting, get into your jammies first
Click to expand...

Instead of the usual lack of substance, how about telling us if you think 24 hr. a day drones will work along the border, constantly feeding surveillance to a bunch of border agenst in well-air conditioned rooms, dispatching field agents to Tumbleweed #3946 to intercept the illegal entrants?


----------



## Synthaholic

Trajan said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antiquity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Beside being a joke you are so illiterate, the source is not from the Heritage its from the United States Department of Labor, the Heritage only reported it.
> 
> You will also note that the increases started when the Democrats took power in both houses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The original info is from Labor.  The deceptive chart is from Heritage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Employees: The number of federal employees grew by 123,000, or 6.2%, under President Obama, according to the White House's Office of Management and Budget.
> 
> Did Obama really make government bigger? - Jan. 25, 2012
> 
> and
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you asked for refutation, right?
Click to expand...

January, 2012?


----------



## Synthaholic

antiquity said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antiquity said:
> 
> 
> 
> While drone can be part of the overall equation, how does a drone apprehend an illegal. Use Obama plan in the past and bomb them?
> 
> 
> 
> Are you incapable of following a thread?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I have little trouble following any thread, but I do have trouble following your logic as most of the time its either full of half truths  or out and out lies to try to sway people to your agenda. For example you claim that the Immigration law will add 40K border agents when in fact it increases the number of border agents to 40K.
> 
> As far as the Senate rejecting the border fence I would suggest you do some further research and you will find that the Senate did later agree to building the fence among other provisions. Including adding 20K border agents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Senate Approves Landmark Immigration Bill After Border Amendment Draws GOP Support
> 
> The Senate has approved the long-awaited immigration reform bill that creates a path to citizenship for millions of undocumented immigrants while imposing unprecedented new measures for border security. Fourteen Republicans joined a united Democratic caucus to pass the bill by a vote of 68 to 32. *It includes an amendment that radically expands enforcement along the U.S.-Mexico border, spending $46 billion to nearly double the number of border agents to 40,000, expand the use of drones, and construct around 700 miles of border fencing. *The measure now faces an uncertain fate in the House, where Speaker John Boehner says he will not allow a vote without the majority support of Republican members.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you have to say to that hotshot?
Click to expand...

We don't need the expense of 20,000 more border agents, sitting around waiting for people who are down to a trickle trying to enter the country, and creating more pensions.

We don't need 700 miles of fence.

We need the drones that should be coming home from Afghanistan.


----------



## daveman

daveman said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never mind the fact that it's easier to stop them from crossing than picking them up after they get here.
> 
> Do you lock your house's doors?  Why?  It's easier to call the cops after the bad guy's in your house, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is desert expanse, correct?
> 
> C'mon.  Use your brain.  You can do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you lock your house's doors?  Answer the question.
Click to expand...


Yo, Synth -- why are you running away from this question?


----------



## daveman

Synthaholic said:


> antiquity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you incapable of following a thread?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I have little trouble following any thread, but I do have trouble following your logic as most of the time its either full of half truths  or out and out lies to try to sway people to your agenda. For example you claim that the Immigration law will add 40K border agents when in fact it increases the number of border agents to 40K.
> 
> As far as the Senate rejecting the border fence I would suggest you do some further research and you will find that the Senate did later agree to building the fence among other provisions. Including adding 20K border agents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Senate Approves Landmark Immigration Bill After Border Amendment Draws GOP Support
> 
> The Senate has approved the long-awaited immigration reform bill that creates a path to citizenship for millions of undocumented immigrants while imposing unprecedented new measures for border security. Fourteen Republicans joined a united Democratic caucus to pass the bill by a vote of 68 to 32. *It includes an amendment that radically expands enforcement along the U.S.-Mexico border, spending $46 billion to nearly double the number of border agents to 40,000, expand the use of drones, and construct around 700 miles of border fencing. *The measure now faces an uncertain fate in the House, where Speaker John Boehner says he will not allow a vote without the majority support of Republican members.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you have to say to that hotshot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't need the expense of 20,000 more border agents, sitting around waiting for people who are down to a trickle trying to enter the country, and creating more pensions.
> 
> We don't need 700 miles of fence.
> 
> We need the drones that should be coming home from Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

Can we arm them?

The Border Patrol wants to.

Prediction:  You will vehemently oppose this.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Of course we should arm the drones! What could possible be the downside of giving our government the authority to kill people on USA soil without a trial because they have alllegely committted a misdemeanor?


----------



## Synthaholic

daveman said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is desert expanse, correct?
> 
> C'mon.  Use your brain.  You can do it.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you lock your house's doors?  Answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yo, Synth -- why are you running away from this question?
Click to expand...

People's doors aren't on the Mexican border.

For anyone whose door actually is on the US-Mexican border, I suggest they move.


----------



## Synthaholic

daveman said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antiquity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I have little trouble following any thread, but I do have trouble following your logic as most of the time its either full of half truths  or out and out lies to try to sway people to your agenda. For example you claim that the Immigration law will add 40K border agents when in fact it increases the number of border agents to 40K.
> 
> As far as the Senate rejecting the border fence I would suggest you do some further research and you will find that the Senate did later agree to building the fence among other provisions. Including adding 20K border agents.
> 
> 
> 
> What do you have to say to that hotshot?
> 
> 
> 
> We don't need the expense of 20,000 more border agents, sitting around waiting for people who are down to a trickle trying to enter the country, and creating more pensions.
> 
> We don't need 700 miles of fence.
> 
> We need the drones that should be coming home from Afghanistan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can we arm them?
> 
> The Border Patrol wants to.
> 
> Prediction:  You will vehemently oppose this.
Click to expand...

Why would the drones need to be armed?


----------



## daveman

Synthaholic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you lock your house's doors?  Answer the question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yo, Synth -- why are you running away from this question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People's doors aren't on the Mexican border.
> 
> For anyone whose door actually is on the US-Mexican border, I suggest they move.
Click to expand...


Why are you afraid to answer this question?

You lock your doors so people you don't want to enter your home can't come in.

But you insist the nation doesn't need such protection, despite the numbers of people illegally entering.

How do you reconcile that dichotomy?


----------



## daveman

Synthaholic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't need the expense of 20,000 more border agents, sitting around waiting for people who are down to a trickle trying to enter the country, and creating more pensions.
> 
> We don't need 700 miles of fence.
> 
> We need the drones that should be coming home from Afghanistan.
> 
> 
> 
> Can we arm them?
> 
> The Border Patrol wants to.
> 
> Prediction:  You will vehemently oppose this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would the drones need to be armed?
Click to expand...

Why wouldn't they?  People are breaking in to our nation.  They're criminals.

What's wrong with arming drones?


----------



## Synthaholic

daveman said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yo, Synth -- why are you running away from this question?
> 
> 
> 
> People's doors aren't on the Mexican border.
> 
> For anyone whose door actually is on the US-Mexican border, I suggest they move.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you afraid to answer this question?
> 
> You lock your doors so people you don't want to enter your home can't come in.
> 
> But you insist the nation doesn't need such protection, despite the numbers of people illegally entering.
> 
> How do you reconcile that dichotomy?
Click to expand...



Oh, davey wants to use metaphor.  OK.


Here's America:










Here's America's backyard:






















All these images are found by Googling texas border mexico


Now, what is going to patrol that expanse better, drones or people in trucks?

How does it make sense to try to build a wall across that?


----------



## Synthaholic

daveman said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can we arm them?
> 
> The Border Patrol wants to.
> 
> Prediction:  You will vehemently oppose this.
> 
> 
> 
> Why would the drones need to be armed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why wouldn't they?  People are breaking in to our nation.  They're criminals.
> 
> What's wrong with arming drones?
Click to expand...

It's a misdemeanor.

Are you advocating murdering them?  Killing them without due process?

Are misdemeanors now Capital offenses?

Or only for Brown people?

It never fails.  I push you long enough, your racism comes out.


----------



## Socio

daveman said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antiquity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I have little trouble following any thread, but I do have trouble following your logic as most of the time its either full of half truths  or out and out lies to try to sway people to your agenda. For example you claim that the Immigration law will add 40K border agents when in fact it increases the number of border agents to 40K.
> 
> As far as the Senate rejecting the border fence I would suggest you do some further research and you will find that the Senate did later agree to building the fence among other provisions. Including adding 20K border agents.
> 
> 
> 
> What do you have to say to that hotshot?
> 
> 
> 
> We don't need the expense of 20,000 more border agents, sitting around waiting for people who are down to a trickle trying to enter the country, and creating more pensions.
> 
> We don't need 700 miles of fence.
> 
> We need the drones that should be coming home from Afghanistan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can we arm them?
> 
> The Border Patrol wants to.
> 
> Prediction:  You will vehemently oppose this.
Click to expand...


True we don't need 700 miles of fence or the expense of 20,000 Agents, either would be a cosmetic remedy anyway, like putting a band aid on a wound that requires 200 stitches.

 If you want to stop illegal immigration you just need a bill with only 4 inclusions;

 1, Make E-Verify mandatory, resume work place raids, arrest and fine employers whom hire illegals. 

 2, Make it a class A felony to sell, lease, rent, or otherwise provide illegals with dwellings.

 3, Remove all loopholes for obtaining government assistance which includes removal of the anchor baby loophole.

 4, Require proof of citizenship or legal status to enroll kids in school.

In a nutshell make it as difficult as possible to exist in the US illegally. If that was done there will be nothing here for them, no reason for them to come here, no reason for them to overstay visas, and no reason for those here already to stay. Our problem for the most part will deport itself.

After about six mouths or so of that, sufficient word should have spread that there is nothing here for you don't bother to come. After that it would be safe to assume that anyone still trying to cross our border illegally would be doing so for nefarious reasons, that's when you break out the drones.


----------



## antiquity

Synthaholic said:


> We don't need the expense of 20,000 more border agents, sitting around waiting for people who are down to a trickle trying to enter the country, and creating more pensions.
> 
> We don't need 700 miles of fence.
> 
> We need the drones that should be coming home from Afghanistan.



So now you admit its only 20K and not 40K? 

Since you are so concerned about Pensions of border agents are you concerned about the pensions of the 16500 new IRS agents who are being hired to dictate the new Obamacare on the millions of people who don't want it?

You do know that the fence would not only help keep out illegals but drugs and possible terrorists? Or do you care?


----------



## antiquity

Synthaholic said:


> Why would the drones need to be armed?



If the US government can kill Americans using drone what a few Latinos?


----------



## daveman

Socio said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't need the expense of 20,000 more border agents, sitting around waiting for people who are down to a trickle trying to enter the country, and creating more pensions.
> 
> We don't need 700 miles of fence.
> 
> We need the drones that should be coming home from Afghanistan.
> 
> 
> 
> Can we arm them?
> 
> The Border Patrol wants to.
> 
> Prediction:  You will vehemently oppose this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True we don't need 700 miles of fence or the expense of 20,000 Agents, either would be a cosmetic remedy anyway, like putting a band aid on a wound that requires 200 stitches.
> 
> If you want to stop illegal immigration you just need a bill with only 4 inclusions;
> 
> 1, Make E-Verify mandatory, resume work place raids, arrest and fine employers whom hire illegals.
> 
> 2, Make it a class A felony to sell, lease, rent, or otherwise provide illegals with dwellings.
> 
> 3, Remove all loopholes for obtaining government assistance which includes removal of the anchor baby loophole.
> 
> 4, Require proof of citizenship or legal status to enroll kids in school.
> 
> In a nutshell make it as difficult as possible to exist in the US illegally. If that was done there will be nothing here for them, no reason for them to come here, no reason for them to overstay visas, and no reason for those here already to stay. Our problem for the most part will deport itself.
> 
> After about six mouths or so of that, sufficient word should have spread that there is nothing here for you don't bother to come. After that it would be safe to assume that anyone still trying to cross our border illegally would be doing so for nefarious reasons, that's when you break out the drones.
Click to expand...

I think it's simplistic to think that they will simply deport themselves.

Many will stay, turning to (even more) crime to support themselves.

Add two more provisions to your list, and I'm good with it:

Deport illegals whenever found.

No wire transfer of money overseas without proof of legal presence.


----------



## daveman

Synthaholic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> People's doors aren't on the Mexican border.
> 
> For anyone whose door actually is on the US-Mexican border, I suggest they move.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you afraid to answer this question?
> 
> You lock your doors so people you don't want to enter your home can't come in.
> 
> But you insist the nation doesn't need such protection, despite the numbers of people illegally entering.
> 
> How do you reconcile that dichotomy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, davey wants to use metaphor.  OK.
> 
> 
> Here's America:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's America's backyard:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All these images are found by Googling texas border mexico
> 
> 
> Now, what is going to patrol that expanse better, drones or people in trucks?
> 
> How does it make sense to try to build a wall across that?
Click to expand...

Say, here's a thought -- ENFORCE THE IMMIGRATION LAWS ALREADY ON THE BOOKS.

But you liberals don't want that.  And you sue states who try to enforce Federal law.

You're simply not serious about stopping illegal immigration.  You don't want to lose the Latino vote, and you don't want to lose the illegal immigrant vote.

This is undeniable.


----------



## daveman

Synthaholic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would the drones need to be armed?
> 
> 
> 
> Why wouldn't they?  People are breaking in to our nation.  They're criminals.
> 
> What's wrong with arming drones?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a misdemeanor.
> 
> Are you advocating murdering them?  Killing them without due process?
> 
> Are misdemeanors now Capital offenses?
> 
> Or only for Brown people?
> 
> It never fails.  I push you long enough, your racism comes out.
Click to expand...

It never fails.  I push you long enough, your stupid comes out.

Didn't read the article, did you?  They want to put _non-lethal_ weapons on the border patrol drones.  

Besides, you don't seem to have a problem with Obama killing people without due process.  

Or is it different...somehow...it just is, you racist!!...when Obama does it?


----------



## antiquity

Socio said:


> True we don't need 700 miles of fence or the expense of 20,000 Agents, either would be a cosmetic remedy anyway, like putting a band aid on a wound that requires 200 stitches.
> 
> If you want to stop illegal immigration you just need a bill with only 4 inclusions;
> 
> 1, Make E-Verify mandatory, resume work place raids, arrest and fine employers whom hire illegals.



Opposed by democrats and RINO. 



> 2, Make it a class A felony to sell, lease, rent, or otherwise provide illegals with dwellings.



Again opposed by democrats and the ACLU.



> 3, Remove all loopholes for obtaining government assistance which includes removal of the anchor baby loophole.



Opposed by democrats. 
You have to be smart enough to know your claim to removal of the anchor baby so-called loop hole is something that would take a Constitutional amendment because of the following:



> The Civil Rights Act of 1866 had already granted U.S. citizenship to all persons born in the United States granted by the  Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.





> 4, Require proof of citizenship or legal status to enroll kids in school.



Opposed by democrats and the ACLU.



> In a nutshell make it as difficult as possible to exist in the US illegally. If that was done there will be nothing here for them, no reason for them to come here, no reason for them to overstay visas, and no reason for those here already to stay. Our problem for the most part will deport itself.
> 
> After about six mouths or so of that, sufficient word should have spread that there is nothing here for you don't bother to come. After that it would be safe to assume that anyone still trying to cross our border illegally would be doing so for nefarious reasons, that's when you break out the drones.



In a nutshell I would agree with you but .......in reality? 

Securing our border is not a band-aid fix, its one of the pieces of the illegal immigration puzzle needed to be put in place, but one that needs to be on the top of the list.


----------



## Synthaholic

antiquity said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't need the expense of 20,000 more border agents, sitting around waiting for people who are down to a trickle trying to enter the country, and creating more pensions.
> 
> We don't need 700 miles of fence.
> 
> We need the drones that should be coming home from Afghanistan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So now you admit its only 20K and not 40K?
> 
> Since you are so concerned about Pensions of border agents are you concerned about the pensions of the 16500 new IRS agents who are being hired to dictate the new Obamacare on the millions of people who don't want it?
> 
> You do know that the fence would not only help keep out illegals but drugs and possible terrorists? Or do you care?
Click to expand...

A fence will keep out a terrorist?


----------



## Synthaholic

antiquity said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would the drones need to be armed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the US government can kill Americans using drone what a few Latinos?
Click to expand...

Figures daveman would thank this.

It's your statement that Latinos are worth less, because they are Brown.


----------



## Synthaholic

daveman said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you afraid to answer this question?
> 
> You lock your doors so people you don't want to enter your home can't come in.
> 
> But you insist the nation doesn't need such protection, despite the numbers of people illegally entering.
> 
> How do you reconcile that dichotomy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, davey wants to use metaphor.  OK.
> 
> 
> Here's America:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's America's backyard:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All these images are found by Googling texas border mexico
> 
> 
> Now, what is going to patrol that expanse better, drones or people in trucks?
> 
> How does it make sense to try to build a wall across that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Say, here's a thought -- ENFORCE THE IMMIGRATION LAWS ALREADY ON THE BOOKS.
> 
> But you liberals don't want that.  And you sue states who try to enforce Federal law.
> 
> You're simply not serious about stopping illegal immigration.  You don't want to lose the Latino vote, and you don't want to lose the illegal immigrant vote.
> 
> This is undeniable.
Click to expand...


Again you deflect away from my pointed question and start babbling about non-existent voter fraud.

You really suck at this.


----------



## Synthaholic

daveman said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why wouldn't they?  People are breaking in to our nation.  They're criminals.
> 
> What's wrong with arming drones?
> 
> 
> 
> It's a misdemeanor.
> 
> Are you advocating murdering them?  Killing them without due process?
> 
> Are misdemeanors now Capital offenses?
> 
> Or only for Brown people?
> 
> It never fails.  I push you long enough, your racism comes out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It never fails.  I push you long enough, your stupid comes out.
> 
> Didn't read the article, did you?  They want to put _non-lethal_ weapons on the border patrol drones.
> 
> Besides, you don't seem to have a problem with Obama killing people without due process.
> 
> Or is it different...somehow...it just is, you racist!!...when Obama does it?
Click to expand...


You said arming drones.

You can try to claim that arming drones doesn't mean what we all know it means, but you'll just be digging yourself another hole.

Haven't you dug enough on this message board?


----------



## daveman

Synthaholic said:


> antiquity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would the drones need to be armed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the US government can kill Americans using drone what a few Latinos?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Figures daveman would thank this.
> 
> It's your statement that Latinos are worth less, because they are Brown.
Click to expand...


I thanked him because Obama has killed Americans using drones.

And you never uttered a word of criticism.


----------



## daveman

Synthaholic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Say, here's a thought -- ENFORCE THE IMMIGRATION LAWS ALREADY ON THE BOOKS.
> 
> But you liberals don't want that.  And you sue states who try to enforce Federal law.
> 
> You're simply not serious about stopping illegal immigration.  You don't want to lose the Latino vote, and you don't want to lose the illegal immigrant vote.
> 
> This is undeniable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again you deflect away from my pointed question and start babbling about non-existent voter fraud.
> 
> You really suck at this.
Click to expand...

I'm sure it comforts you to think so, but no.

Can you explain why the Federal government refuses to enforce Federal immigration law?  Can you explain why the Federal government sues states to prevent them from enforcing Federal immigration law?

Can you really claim that the Federal government, currently under 2/3 Democratic Party control, is interested in doing anything about illegal immigration?

As far as deflection is concerned, why do you pretend that my posts showing you're wrong about the term "record deal" being obsolete simply don't exist?


----------



## Synthaholic

daveman said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antiquity said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the US government can kill Americans using drone what a few Latinos?
> 
> 
> 
> Figures daveman would thank this.
> 
> It's your statement that Latinos are worth less, because they are Brown.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thanked him because Obama has killed Americans using drones.
> 
> And you never uttered a word of criticism.
Click to expand...

You sure about that?


----------



## Synthaholic

daveman said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Say, here's a thought -- ENFORCE THE IMMIGRATION LAWS ALREADY ON THE BOOKS.
> 
> But you liberals don't want that.  And you sue states who try to enforce Federal law.
> 
> You're simply not serious about stopping illegal immigration.  You don't want to lose the Latino vote, and you don't want to lose the illegal immigrant vote.
> 
> This is undeniable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again you deflect away from my pointed question and start babbling about non-existent voter fraud.
> 
> You really suck at this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sure it comforts you to think so, but no.
> 
> Can you explain why the Federal government refuses to enforce Federal immigration law?  *Can you explain why the Federal government sues states to prevent them from enforcing Federal immigration law?*
> 
> Can you really claim that the Federal government, currently under 2/3 Democratic Party control, is interested in doing anything about illegal immigration?
> 
> As far as deflection is concerned, why do you pretend that my posts showing you're wrong about the term "record deal" being obsolete simply don't exist?
Click to expand...


Alabama's law was clearly un-Constitutional.

Obama has deported illegals at 1.5 times Bush's rate.

And you have still ducked my question.


----------



## daveman

Synthaholic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a misdemeanor.
> 
> Are you advocating murdering them?  Killing them without due process?
> 
> Are misdemeanors now Capital offenses?
> 
> Or only for Brown people?
> 
> It never fails.  I push you long enough, your racism comes out.
> 
> 
> 
> It never fails.  I push you long enough, your stupid comes out.
> 
> Didn't read the article, did you?  They want to put _non-lethal_ weapons on the border patrol drones.
> 
> Besides, you don't seem to have a problem with Obama killing people without due process.
> 
> Or is it different...somehow...it just is, you racist!!...when Obama does it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said arming drones.
> 
> You can try to claim that arming drones doesn't mean what we all know it means, but you'll just be digging yourself another hole.
> 
> Haven't you dug enough on this message board?
Click to expand...

Soooo...you're too stupid to read the article...and it's MY fault.

You're quite the whiny little bitch, aren't you?


----------



## daveman

Synthaholic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Figures daveman would thank this.
> 
> It's your statement that Latinos are worth less, because they are Brown.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thanked him because Obama has killed Americans using drones.
> 
> And you never uttered a word of criticism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You sure about that?
Click to expand...


Find me links.  Because criticism after you've been browbeaten into doing so is meaningless.


----------



## daveman

Synthaholic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again you deflect away from my pointed question and start babbling about non-existent voter fraud.
> 
> You really suck at this.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure it comforts you to think so, but no.
> 
> Can you explain why the Federal government refuses to enforce Federal immigration law?  *Can you explain why the Federal government sues states to prevent them from enforcing Federal immigration law?*
> 
> Can you really claim that the Federal government, currently under 2/3 Democratic Party control, is interested in doing anything about illegal immigration?
> 
> As far as deflection is concerned, why do you pretend that my posts showing you're wrong about the term "record deal" being obsolete simply don't exist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Alabama's law was clearly un-Constitutional.
Click to expand...

How?  And how about Arizona's?


Synthaholic said:


> Obama has deported illegals at 1.5 times Bush's rate.


Yeah.  He's also releasing the dangerous ones back out into the street.

Make sure you lock your doors so they don't get in.  You know, like you DON'T want to do for the nation.



Synthaholic said:


> And you have still ducked my question.


Sorry...too busy working on a CD deal.


----------



## Socio

antiquity said:


> Socio said:
> 
> 
> 
> True we don't need 700 miles of fence or the expense of 20,000 Agents, either would be a cosmetic remedy anyway, like putting a band aid on a wound that requires 200 stitches.
> 
> If you want to stop illegal immigration you just need a bill with only 4 inclusions;
> 
> 1, Make E-Verify mandatory, resume work place raids, arrest and fine employers whom hire illegals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Opposed by democrats and RINO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2, Make it a class A felony to sell, lease, rent, or otherwise provide illegals with dwellings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again opposed by democrats and the ACLU.
> 
> 
> 
> Opposed by democrats.
> You have to be smart enough to know your claim to removal of the anchor baby so-called loop hole is something that would take a Constitutional amendment because of the following:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4, Require proof of citizenship or legal status to enroll kids in school.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Opposed by democrats and the ACLU.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a nutshell make it as difficult as possible to exist in the US illegally. If that was done there will be nothing here for them, no reason for them to come here, no reason for them to overstay visas, and no reason for those here already to stay. Our problem for the most part will deport itself.
> 
> After about six mouths or so of that, sufficient word should have spread that there is nothing here for you don't bother to come. After that it would be safe to assume that anyone still trying to cross our border illegally would be doing so for nefarious reasons, that's when you break out the drones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In a nutshell I would agree with you but .......in reality?
> 
> *Securing our border is not a band-aid fix, its one of the pieces of the illegal immigration puzzle needed to be put in place, but one that needs to be on the top of the list*.
Click to expand...


Wrong; 

The whole "secure the border first" is a ruse, a huge con job being played on the American people, getting everyone to believe it is the end all to illegal immigration which it is not. 

The only way to stop illegal immigration is through strong deterrents like I listed, securing the border is not a deterrent it is simply an obstacle; obstacles can be circumvented and it will. The Border is like our public school system no matter how much money you throw at it nothing will get better, I know, I live on it, so close can see houses in Mexico from my front porch with the naked eye.


----------



## Vandalshandle

The fact that more than 50% of illegal aliens simply crossed the border with a valid visa, and then did not go home, should not deter the Right from throwing hundreds of billions of dollars at building fences that any idiot can climb over, or just plain go around (unless they plan on extending it across the Gulf of Mexico, and Pacific ocean)...or better yet, just apply for and get a visa. The border patrol contracts out building these fences to independent contractors, and they like to hire people who speak Spanish, since everyone here is bilingual. Consequently, we have given yet another incentive for latnios to come across and get a job.

The reason that I  am no longer a republican is that they don't seem to have the ability to think things through. Even those that would still cross the AZ desert, walking 4 days in 110 degree heat with no water through cactus and rattlesnake infested country are not going to say to themselves, "Oh! A fence! That is too much for me to face! I'm staying right here!"


----------



## Synthaholic

daveman said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> It never fails.  I push you long enough, your stupid comes out.
> 
> Didn't read the article, did you?  They want to put _non-lethal_ weapons on the border patrol drones.
> 
> Besides, you don't seem to have a problem with Obama killing people without due process.
> 
> Or is it different...somehow...it just is, you racist!!...when Obama does it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You said arming drones.
> 
> You can try to claim that arming drones doesn't mean what we all know it means, but you'll just be digging yourself another hole.
> 
> Haven't you dug enough on this message board?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Soooo...you're too stupid to read the article...and it's MY fault.
> 
> You're quite the whiny little bitch, aren't you?
Click to expand...

What does 'arming drones' mean to 99% + of the people asked?


----------



## Synthaholic

daveman said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thanked him because Obama has killed Americans using drones.
> 
> And you never uttered a word of criticism.
> 
> 
> 
> You sure about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Find me links.  Because criticism after you've been browbeaten into doing so is meaningless.
Click to expand...

That's not how it works.  You find the links to back up your accusation.

Or you can take it back like you did with your last accusation.


----------



## daveman

Synthaholic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said arming drones.
> 
> You can try to claim that arming drones doesn't mean what we all know it means, but you'll just be digging yourself another hole.
> 
> Haven't you dug enough on this message board?
> 
> 
> 
> Soooo...you're too stupid to read the article...and it's MY fault.
> 
> You're quite the whiny little bitch, aren't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does 'arming drones' mean to 99% + of the people asked?
Click to expand...


To the people who read the article...you know, like you didn't...it means with non-lethal weapons.

You're REALLY blaming me for your fuck-up.  I'd say it's unbelievable, but it's perfectly in character for you.


----------



## daveman

Synthaholic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You sure about that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Find me links.  Because criticism after you've been browbeaten into doing so is meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not how it works.  You find the links to back up your accusation.
> 
> Or you can take it back like you did with your last accusation.
Click to expand...

Yeah, 'bout what I thought.  No condemnation at all.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Synthaholic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said arming drones.
> 
> You can try to claim that arming drones doesn't mean what we all know it means, but you'll just be digging yourself another hole.
> 
> Haven't you dug enough on this message board?
> 
> 
> 
> Soooo...you're too stupid to read the article...and it's MY fault.
> 
> You're quite the whiny little bitch, aren't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does 'arming drones' mean to 99% + of the people asked?
Click to expand...


I think it means, "Set the phasers on 'stun', men!"


----------



## Socio

Synthaholic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dugdale_Jukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even nutball scum bumble into daylight once in a while.
> 
> The only way to stop illegal immigration is to prosecute corporations hiring illegals.
> 
> For what it's worth, when the fence IS built, it will be as much to keep people in as out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be forgetting deportation of the illegals themselves, Jughead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *As of July, Obama deported 1.4 million illegal immigrants since the beginning of his administration  thats 1.5 times more immigrants on average than Bush deported  every month*, according to official numbers from the Department of  Homeland Security*. But thats only part of Obamas deportation  strategy: The administrations stated goal is to prioritize the  deportation of criminal, dangerous illegal immigrants. And its promised  to make a new program called Secure Communities mandatory  by 2013, which would force local law enforcement to share fingerprints  of those arrested with the Department of Homeland Security, which has  immigration records, through the FBI.
> 
> 
> Obama is deporting immigrants faster than Bush. Republicans don?t think that?s enough.
Click to expand...


FYI Obama lied:

DHS Deportation Numbers Again Called into Question



> According to a press release by the House Judiciary Committee:
> 
> 
> The House Judiciary Committee has obtained internal U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) documents, which show that the Obama administration is cooking the books to achieve their so-called record deportation numbers for illegal immigrants and that removals are actually significantly downnot upfrom 2009. Beginning in 2011, the Committee has learned that Obama administration officials at the Department of Homeland Security started to include numbers from the Alien Transfer Exit Program (ATEP) in its year-end removal numbers. _t is illegitimate to count illegal immigrants apprehended by the Border Patrol along the Southwest border as ICE removals.
> _


_




			Do away with ATEP removals numbers in ICEs deportation figures and what you get is not the record number the agency so proudly proclaims. ICEs 2011 total removals, according to the House Judiciary press release, would drop from a purported 397,000 to around 360,000, and the agencys 2012 numbers (annualized) would drop from 334,000 to approximately 263,000.
		
Click to expand...


Obama & Co used some sleight of hand to make it appear they were deporting record numbers when in reality:

Immigration Apprehensions Lowest Since 1972




			Less than two years into the Obama presidency, the number of immigration violation apprehensions was at the lowest level since 1972, according the federal report.
		
Click to expand...


The only record deportations this administration is doing is "lows"._


----------



## Synthaholic

dameman thinks we arm our drones with warnings.


----------



## daveman

Synthaholic said:


> dameman thinks we arm our drones with warnings.



At least daveman thinks.  Synthaholic should give it a try sometime.


----------



## antiquity

Synthaholic said:


> People's doors aren't on the Mexican border.



Are people's door on the border....hummm....I think the* People's door* is the border.



> For anyone whose door actually is on the US-Mexican border, I suggest they move.



Anyone who is opposed to protecting our countries border should move.


----------



## antiquity

Synthaholic said:


> A fence will keep out a terrorist?



Thank you for cherry picking....But yes a fence could keep out terrorist as it could drugs and gang members. Could it stop the flow of drugs and gang members or even terrorist, no, but it could put a major dent in the ease they flow into our country.






Mexican Gang Member Pleads Guilty To Killing Of U.S. Agent


----------



## antiquity

Synthaholic said:


> antiquity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would the drones need to be armed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the US government can kill Americans using drone what a few Latinos?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Figures daveman would thank this.
> 
> It's your statement that Latinos are worth less, because they are Brown.
Click to expand...


What? So Obama and you think Pakistani children are worthless because they are brown? That American citizens can be killed by drone attacks without due process. Yes Mr. Synthoholic you are even a bigger moron than I thought.


----------



## Stashman

Border Fence? You will Never see a fence built around our borders because the very essence of world governance is a border less world. I have been hearing about this fence for 40 yrs now. Would love to see one though, but it's just never gonna happen.


----------



## RandallFlagg

Stashman said:


> Border Fence? You will Never see a fence built around our borders because the very essence of world governance is a border less world. I have been hearing about this fence for 40 yrs now. Would love to see one though, but it's just never gonna happen.




I agree and for the reason cited. America has (for the most part) always been a reactive, rather than proactive, country.

There will never be "secure" borders. Politicians will go on telling us what we want to hear while ignoring what we tell them.


----------



## RoadVirus

Synthaholic said:


> dameman thinks we arm our drones with warnings.



You idiots are still going on with that?


----------



## Synthaholic

RoadVirus said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> dameman thinks we arm our drones with warnings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You idiots are still going on with that?
Click to expand...

dave might be.  I already won this thread pages ago.


----------



## daveman

Synthaholic said:


> RoadVirus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> dameman thinks we arm our drones with warnings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You idiots are still going on with that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dave might be.  I already won this thread pages ago.
Click to expand...


You should take this thread to a music label.  Maybe they'd give you a CD contract.


----------



## antiquity

Synthaholic said:


> dave might be.  I already won this thread pages ago.



If lying and half truths are winning, you win hands down. But in the real world most people can see past the reason why liberal love illegals....its the vote, Stupid.


----------



## Synthaholic

antiquity said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> dave might be.  I already won this thread pages ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If lying and half truths are winning, you win hands down. But in the real world most people can see past the reason why liberal love illegals....its the vote, Stupid.
Click to expand...

I have a long history of posts saying illegals should be deported.  I've even posted that when we find them, they should be dropped off at the southern tip of Mexico.

So, another FAIL for you!

But a wall is just a colossal waste of money for something that has no hope of working.


----------



## daveman

Synthaholic said:


> antiquity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> dave might be.  I already won this thread pages ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If lying and half truths are winning, you win hands down. But in the real world most people can see past the reason why liberal love illegals....its the vote, Stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have a long history of posts saying illegals should be deported.  I've even posted that when we find them, they should be dropped off at the southern tip of Mexico.
> 
> So, another FAIL for you!
> 
> But a wall is just a colossal waste of money for something that has no hope of working.
Click to expand...

That's odd.  Here in this thread about illegal immigration, I believe this is the first time you've mentioned that you want to deport illegals.


----------



## Synthaholic

daveman said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antiquity said:
> 
> 
> 
> If lying and half truths are winning, you win hands down. But in the real world most people can see past the reason why liberal love illegals....its the vote, Stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> I have a long history of posts saying illegals should be deported.  I've even posted that when we find them, they should be dropped off at the southern tip of Mexico.
> 
> So, another FAIL for you!
> 
> But a wall is just a colossal waste of money for something that has no hope of working.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's odd.  *Here in this thread *about illegal immigration, I believe this is the first time you've mentioned that you want to deport illegals.
Click to expand...


Yes - here in this thread.  But this thread is about Republicans wasting taxpayer money on a wall, not a thread about illegal immigration.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

tyroneweaver said:


> Senate rejects amendment to build border fence | The Daily Caller
> 
> 
> and you rino's thought voters sat home during Romney, you ain't seen nothing yet.



It's a myth that avid Republicans sat at home for Romney. The GOP was sufficiently galvanized and the totals reflect that. Obama paid for a result though. You think he's gettin 90 percent of the vote in the inner cities? Give me an f'ing break.

However, the GOP doesn't realize that Romney was a classy guy with a real vision and principles and that's why people showed up. Nobody cares about the rest of this soulless vermin any more. Frankly, I don't see a difference between Rubio and Clinton and that San Antonio mayor and Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich and Al Gore. If the contrast is not there, people won't care any more and 2016 is a free win for the Democrats. Because the Republicans have all these soulless losers in prominence.


----------



## Synthaholic

TheGreatGatsby said:


> tyroneweaver said:
> 
> 
> 
> Senate rejects amendment to build border fence | The Daily Caller
> 
> 
> and you rino's thought voters sat home during Romney, you ain't seen nothing yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a myth that avid Republicans sat at home for Romney. The GOP was sufficiently galvanized and the totals reflect that. *Obama paid for a result though.* You think he's gettin 90 percent of the vote in the inner cities? Give me an f'ing break.
> 
> However, the GOP doesn't realize that Romney was a classy guy with a real vision and principles and that's why people showed up. Nobody cares about the rest of this soulless vermin any more. Frankly, I don't see a difference between Rubio and Clinton and that San Antonio mayor and Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich and Al Gore. If the contrast is not there, people won't care any more and 2016 is a free win for the Democrats. Because the Republicans have all these soulless losers in prominence.
Click to expand...





Still whining that Obama somehow didn't win fairly?


----------



## antiquity

Synthaholic said:


> Yes - here in this thread.  But this thread is about Republicans wasting taxpayer money on a wall, not a thread about illegal immigration.



I believe the vote in the Senate was 68-32, so you are half wrong again.



> *Senate Approves Landmark Immigration Bill After Border Amendment Draws GOP Support*
> 
> The Senate has approved the long-awaited immigration reform bill that creates a path to citizenship for millions of undocumented immigrants while imposing unprecedented new measures for border security. Fourteen Republicans joined a united Democratic caucus to pass the bill by a vote of 68 to 32. *It includes an amendment that radically expands enforcement along the U.S.-Mexico border, spending $46 billion to nearly double the number of border agents to 40,000, expand the use of drones, and construct around 700 miles of border fencing. *



Senate Approves Landmark Immigration Bill After Border Amendment Draws GOP Support | Democracy Now!

So your outlandish claim that republicans wasting taxpayer money seems to have fallen on 52 democrats who supported the amendment.


----------



## antiquity

Synthaholic said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tyroneweaver said:
> 
> 
> 
> Senate rejects amendment to build border fence | The Daily Caller
> 
> 
> and you rino's thought voters sat home during Romney, you ain't seen nothing yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a myth that avid Republicans sat at home for Romney. The GOP was sufficiently galvanized and the totals reflect that. *Obama paid for a result though.* You think he's gettin 90 percent of the vote in the inner cities? Give me an f'ing break.
> 
> However, the GOP doesn't realize that Romney was a classy guy with a real vision and principles and that's why people showed up. Nobody cares about the rest of this soulless vermin any more. Frankly, I don't see a difference between Rubio and Clinton and that San Antonio mayor and Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich and Al Gore. If the contrast is not there, people won't care any more and 2016 is a free win for the Democrats. Because the Republicans have all these soulless losers in prominence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still whining that Obama somehow didn't win fairly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny thing happen on the way to the voting booth...democrats are still whining about 2000 and 2004.
Click to expand...


----------



## daveman

Synthaholic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a long history of posts saying illegals should be deported.  I've even posted that when we find them, they should be dropped off at the southern tip of Mexico.
> 
> So, another FAIL for you!
> 
> But a wall is just a colossal waste of money for something that has no hope of working.
> 
> 
> 
> That's odd.  *Here in this thread *about illegal immigration, I believe this is the first time you've mentioned that you want to deport illegals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes - here in this thread.  But this thread is about Republicans wasting taxpayer money on a wall, not a thread about illegal immigration.
Click to expand...

What's the wall intended to reduce, Skippy?

Besides, you've had several opportunities.  You've said what you'd like to do to businesses that knowingly hire illegals -- that would have been a perfect opportunity to say, "...and the illegals should be deported."

Simple, huh?


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

Synthaholic said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tyroneweaver said:
> 
> 
> 
> Senate rejects amendment to build border fence | The Daily Caller
> 
> 
> and you rino's thought voters sat home during Romney, you ain't seen nothing yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a myth that avid Republicans sat at home for Romney. The GOP was sufficiently galvanized and the totals reflect that. *Obama paid for a result though.* You think he's gettin 90 percent of the vote in the inner cities? Give me an f'ing break.
> 
> However, the GOP doesn't realize that Romney was a classy guy with a real vision and principles and that's why people showed up. Nobody cares about the rest of this soulless vermin any more. Frankly, I don't see a difference between Rubio and Clinton and that San Antonio mayor and Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich and Al Gore. If the contrast is not there, people won't care any more and 2016 is a free win for the Democrats. Because the Republicans have all these soulless losers in prominence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still whining that Obama somehow didn't win fairly?
Click to expand...


Somehow, I knew you'd troll that one part. Get over yourself. I have my viewpoint. I don't need to apologize to you for it.


----------



## Synthaholic

daveman said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's odd.  *Here in this thread *about illegal immigration, *I believe this is the first time you've mentioned that you want to deport illegals.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes - here in this thread.  But this thread is about Republicans wasting taxpayer money on a wall, not a thread about illegal immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What's the wall intended to reduce, Skippy?
> 
> Besides, you've had several opportunities.  You've said what you'd like to do to businesses that knowingly hire illegals --* that would have been a perfect opportunity to say, "...and the illegals should be deported."*
> 
> Simple, huh?
Click to expand...


Considering the fact that you and I have posted together on boards for years now, you really have no clue what my positions are, do you?  

You're too busy painting with that broad brush.




Synthaholic said:


> driveby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you for amnesty? If so, why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *No, I'm for shipping all illegals to the southernmost tip of Mexico.  Let them first cross their own country before attempting to get into our again.
> 
> I'm also for severely restricting immigration to friendly countries.  We don't need Pakistanis, Saudis, etc. getting great educations here, then going back with that knowledge to their countries to figure out how best to fuck us.*
Click to expand...



I await your latest apology.


----------



## Synthaholic

Oh, daaaaave....


----------



## daveman

Synthaholic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes - here in this thread.  But this thread is about Republicans wasting taxpayer money on a wall, not a thread about illegal immigration.
> 
> 
> 
> What's the wall intended to reduce, Skippy?
> 
> Besides, you've had several opportunities.  You've said what you'd like to do to businesses that knowingly hire illegals --* that would have been a perfect opportunity to say, "...and the illegals should be deported."*
> 
> Simple, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Considering the fact that you and I have posted together on boards for years now, you really have no clue what my positions are, do you?
> 
> You're too busy painting with that broad brush.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> driveby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you for amnesty? If so, why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *No, I'm for shipping all illegals to the southernmost tip of Mexico.  Let them first cross their own country before attempting to get into our again.
> 
> I'm also for severely restricting immigration to friendly countries.  We don't need Pakistanis, Saudis, etc. getting great educations here, then going back with that knowledge to their countries to figure out how best to fuck us.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I await your latest apology.
Click to expand...

Good for you.  But why should I apologize for a thread I never posted in, and never saw?

The following errors occurred with your search:
Sorry - no matches. Please try some different terms.

Search Thread - Sean Hannity Flips On Immigration Reform, Now Supports Pathway To Citizenship
Search by Keyword
Keyword(s):  daveman
​Furthermore, you're being a flaming hypocrite again.  You constantly claim my military service was nothing but working on sump pumps.  I've explained to you many times what all I've done, and none of my primary duties involved sump pumps.  Fire deluge pumps, yes.  Sump pumps, no.

I'd await your apology, but you don't apologize when you've made a mistake.  That's because you never acknowledge you make a mistake, Mr. "The Term 'Record Deal' Is Obsolete".

In other words:  Eat shit.


----------



## daveman

Synthaholic said:


> Oh, daaaaave....



You probably wouldn't have posted that if you knew I was going to make you look like an even bigger idiot than usual.


----------



## Synthaholic

daveman said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's the wall intended to reduce, Skippy?
> 
> Besides, you've had several opportunities.  You've said what you'd like to do to businesses that knowingly hire illegals --* that would have been a perfect opportunity to say, "...and the illegals should be deported."*
> 
> Simple, huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Considering the fact that you and I have posted together on boards for years now, you really have no clue what my positions are, do you?
> 
> You're too busy painting with that broad brush.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> *No, I'm for shipping all illegals to the southernmost tip of Mexico.  Let them first cross their own country before attempting to get into our again.
> 
> I'm also for severely restricting immigration to friendly countries.  We don't need Pakistanis, Saudis, etc. getting great educations here, then going back with that knowledge to their countries to figure out how best to fuck us.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I await your latest apology.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good for you.  But why should I apologize for a thread I never posted in, and never saw?
> The following errors occurred with your search:
> Sorry - no matches. Please try some different terms.
> 
> Search Thread - Sean Hannity Flips On Immigration Reform, Now Supports Pathway To Citizenship
> Search by Keyword
> Keyword(s):  daveman​
Click to expand...


​Because these have been my sentiments forever, and I have posted them in numerous threads on numerous boards, some of them you have posted on.  Actually, I used to argue for even more Draconian measures, but I have moderated those views over the years.

The fact that you don't know this doesn't speak to whether you are following me around, taking notes.  It speaks to the fact that you make huge false assumptions about people, and no amount of evidence to the contrary penetrates your desire to broad brush anyone who is not a wingnut.




> Furthermore, you're being a flaming hypocrite again.  You constantly claim my military service was nothing but working on sump pumps.  I've explained to you many times what all I've done, and none of my primary duties involved sump pumps.  Fire deluge pumps, yes.  Sump pumps, no.
> 
> I'd await your apology, but you don't apologize when you've made a mistake.  That's because you never acknowledge you make a mistake, Mr. "The Term 'Record Deal' Is Obsolete".
> 
> In other words:  Eat shit.



You have NEVER corrected me with 'Fire deluge pumps' whenever I have mentioned sump pumps.  Never.  All you have done is deny you worked on sump pumps.

How about going against your indoctrination and try to share in some of the blame and the lack of communication, for once.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Trypical that the R is blaming the president for this bill even though it was written by McCain, Shumer and Rubio. 

I wish more Americans could see the reality of the southern border. Oh, never mind that bit of wishful thinking. There is nothing that would change the "minds" of the knee jerk haters, least of all FACTS.


----------



## Synthaholic

daveman's conservative icon.


----------



## antiquity

Luddly Neddite said:


> I wish more Americans could see the reality of the southern border. Oh, never mind that bit of wishful thinking. There is nothing that would change the "minds" of the knee jerk haters, least of all FACTS.



This statement sounds almost like a oxymoron? Please explain what the hell you are talking about?


----------



## daveman

Synthaholic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Considering the fact that you and I have posted together on boards for years now, you really have no clue what my positions are, do you?
> 
> You're too busy painting with that broad brush.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I await your latest apology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good for you.  But why should I apologize for a thread I never posted in, and never saw?
> The following errors occurred with your search:
> Sorry - no matches. Please try some different terms.
> 
> Search Thread - Sean Hannity Flips On Immigration Reform, Now Supports Pathway To Citizenship
> Search by Keyword
> Keyword(s):  daveman​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ​Because these have been my sentiments forever, and I have posted them in numerous threads on numerous boards, some of them you have posted on.  Actually, I used to argue for even more Draconian measures, but I have moderated those views over the years.
> 
> The fact that you don't know this doesn't speak to whether you are following me around, taking notes.  It speaks to the fact that you make huge false assumptions about people, and no amount of evidence to the contrary penetrates your desire to broad brush anyone who is not a wingnut.
Click to expand...

As opposed to your desire to broad brush anyone you consider to be a wingnut?

Oh, wait, it's different, somehow, when you do it, right?


Synthaholic said:


> Furthermore, you're being a flaming hypocrite again.  You constantly claim my military service was nothing but working on sump pumps.  I've explained to you many times what all I've done, and none of my primary duties involved sump pumps.  Fire deluge pumps, yes.  Sump pumps, no.
> 
> I'd await your apology, but you don't apologize when you've made a mistake.  That's because you never acknowledge you make a mistake, Mr. "The Term 'Record Deal' Is Obsolete".
> 
> In other words:  Eat shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have NEVER corrected me with 'Fire deluge pumps' whenever I have mentioned sump pumps.  Never.  All you have done is deny you worked on sump pumps.
> 
> How about going against your indoctrination and try to share in some of the blame and the lack of communication, for once.
Click to expand...

Good grief.  I've posted my military experience on every board we've been on together...and yes, I HAVE corrected your "sump pump" nonsense.  

I take blame when I've _earned_ it, not when some sissy bedwetter is trying to hand it off to make himself feel better about his own failures.


----------



## daveman

Synthaholic said:


> daveman's conservative icon.


There you go again, broad-brushing.

Where have I ever said Reagan is my icon?

Hint:  Nowhere. 

I admire Reagan for the same reason the left hates him:  After that failed Carter Presidency, he said it was okay to be proud of being an American.


----------



## Synthaholic

daveman said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> daveman's conservative icon.
> 
> 
> 
> There you go again, broad-brushing.
> 
> Where have I ever said Reagan is my icon?
> 
> Hint:  Nowhere.
> 
> I admire Reagan for the same reason the left hates him:  After that failed Carter Presidency, he said it was okay to be proud of being an American.
Click to expand...


I've never needed a B-movie actor to make me proud to be an American.


----------



## Synthaholic

Jimmy Carter was a decorated Naval officer in real life.

Ronald Reagan played officers in the movies.


----------



## antiquity

Synthaholic said:


> Jimmy Carter was a decorated Naval officer in real life.
> 
> Ronald Reagan played officers in the movies.



Clinton skipped out to protest the Vietnam war in England while he claimed not to inhale.

Obama just plain skipped out.

By the way Reagan did serve in the military from 1937-1945. Another one of your half truths.


----------



## Synthaholic

daveman was denigrating Carter.

Carter served honorably.

Reagan was never in the military.


----------



## daveman

Synthaholic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> daveman's conservative icon.
> 
> 
> 
> There you go again, broad-brushing.
> 
> Where have I ever said Reagan is my icon?
> 
> Hint:  Nowhere.
> 
> I admire Reagan for the same reason the left hates him:  After that failed Carter Presidency, he said it was okay to be proud of being an American.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've never needed a B-movie actor to make me proud to be an American.
Click to expand...

Again, you misunderstand.  I wonder, is it intentional, or natural?


----------



## daveman

Synthaholic said:


> Jimmy Carter was a decorated Naval officer in real life.
> 
> Ronald Reagan played officers in the movies.


Jimmy Carter was a crappy President, by any non-partisan measure.

Ronald Reagan was a good President, by any non-partisan measure.


----------



## daveman

Synthaholic said:


> daveman was denigrating Carter.
> 
> Carter served honorably.


Not as President, he didn't.


Synthaholic said:


> Reagan was never in the military.


Ronald Reagan "Performed Well" in World War II | Defense Media Network

Since you've never worn the uniform, you don't get to dictate who did and who didn't serve.

Because you didn't serve.


----------



## antiquity

Synthaholic said:


> daveman was denigrating Carter.
> 
> Carter served honorably.
> 
> Reagan was never in the military.



You are so full of misinformation, you should be ashamed of yourself.



> Military Service of Ronald Reagan
> 
> Ronald Reagan military service was a life long job of President Reagan.  April 29, 1937 Reagan in listed into the army reserves as a private assigned to Troop B, 322nd Calvary in Iowa. He was appointed 2nd in the Officers Reserve Corps of the Cavalry on May 25, 1937, and on June 18 was assigned to the 323rd Cavalry. Reagan was on active duty for the first time on April 18, 1942. Reagan had nearsightedness, so he was classified for limited service only so he could not go over seas. His first assignment was at the San Francisco Port of Embarkation at  Fort Manson, California. As a liaison officer of the Port and Transportation Office. Upon the approval of the AAF, he applied for a transfer from the Cavalry to the AAF on May 15, 1942, and was assigned to AAF Public Relations and subsequently to the First motion picture base in Culver City. On January 14, 1943 he was promoted to First Lieutenant. He returned to the 1st Motion Picture Unit after completing this duty and was promoted to Captain on July 22, 1943. In January 1944, Captain Reagan was ordered to temporary duty in NYC to participate in the opening of the sixth War Loan Drive. He was re-assigned to the 18th AAF Base Unit on November 14, 1944, where he remained until the end of WWII. He returned to Fort Macarther California, where he was separated from active duty on December 9, 1945.



What branch of the service did you serve in?


----------



## daveman

antiquity said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> daveman was denigrating Carter.
> 
> Carter served honorably.
> 
> Reagan was never in the military.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are so full of misinformation, you should be ashamed of yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Military Service of Ronald Reagan
> 
> Ronald Reagan military service was a life long job of President Reagan.  April 29, 1937 Reagan in listed into the army reserves as a private assigned to Troop B, 322nd Calvary in Iowa. He was appointed 2nd in the Officers Reserve Corps of the Cavalry on May 25, 1937, and on June 18 was assigned to the 323rd Cavalry. Reagan was on active duty for the first time on April 18, 1942. Reagan had nearsightedness, so he was classified for limited service only so he could not go over seas. His first assignment was at the San Francisco Port of Embarkation at  Fort Manson, California. As a liaison officer of the Port and Transportation Office. Upon the approval of the AAF, he applied for a transfer from the Cavalry to the AAF on May 15, 1942, and was assigned to AAF Public Relations and subsequently to the First motion picture base in Culver City. On January 14, 1943 he was promoted to First Lieutenant. He returned to the 1st Motion Picture Unit after completing this duty and was promoted to Captain on July 22, 1943. In January 1944, Captain Reagan was ordered to temporary duty in NYC to participate in the opening of the sixth War Loan Drive. He was re-assigned to the 18th AAF Base Unit on November 14, 1944, where he remained until the end of WWII. He returned to Fort Macarther California, where he was separated from active duty on December 9, 1945.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What branch of the service did you serve in?
Click to expand...

Synthia never served.  But he claims to have been in the Middle East.  I believe he toured with a USO band.  He's refused multiple times to say what he did.

No shame in being in a USO band.  I tried to catch whoever was coming though when I was deployed.


----------



## Synthaholic

daveman said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> daveman was denigrating Carter.
> 
> Carter served honorably.
> 
> 
> 
> Not as President, he didn't.
Click to expand...


Carter served dishonorably as President?

Do tell.


----------



## daveman

Synthaholic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> daveman was denigrating Carter.
> 
> Carter served honorably.
> 
> 
> 
> Not as President, he didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Carter served dishonorably as President?
> 
> Do tell.
Click to expand...

When the government has to measure how miserable your citizens are, your Presidency is not a rousing success.


----------



## Synthaholic

daveman said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not as President, he didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carter served dishonorably as President?
> 
> Do tell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When the government has to measure how miserable your citizens are, your Presidency is not a rousing success.
Click to expand...

We're not talking about performance, we are talking about honor.

How was he dishonorable?


----------



## daveman

Synthaholic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Carter served dishonorably as President?
> 
> Do tell.
> 
> 
> 
> When the government has to measure how miserable your citizens are, your Presidency is not a rousing success.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We're not talking about performance, we are talking about honor.
> 
> How was he dishonorable?
Click to expand...

By fucking up America.

You may think that's a good thing.  It isn't.


----------

