Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I want all incentive cut off. All of it. I think there is a decent enough argument to challenge the sc previous rulings on healthcare and schooling.My answer is simple.We have a serious problem in our country and it's not illegal drugs or illegal immigration. The problem, in a nutshell, is making up our minds when it comes to government policies.
We want to curtail illegal immigration, but we need the labor force that immigration provides... so we make a lot of theater about catching illegal immigrants, but we don't secure the border.
The stated goal of our government is that illegal drugs are bad, but Billions of dollars in drug money is deposited in our banks and invested in our property and financial markets. It helps sustain our economy... so me make a lot of theater about fighting illegal drugs, but we don't do what is required to stop them.
Our indecision manifests itself in many ways. We want to intercede in foreign conflicts, but we can't actually make up our minds on whose side to intervene, the goals of our intervention, and an exit strategy for the intervention ... so we make a lot of theater about fighting for oppressed peoples.
These are all complex problems and if we're going to take a stand against something, we should probably decide if that stand is what we really want.
The question isn't what we do about illegal immigration, illegal drugs, or foreign wars ... the question is, do we do anything at all.
Creating ineffective theater is expensive and counter-productive.
Fuck all illegals.
Cut of all incentive
We want to curtail illegal immigration. But, our legal immigration process (thanks to government bureaucracy) has become onerous and inefficient. We can't bring in the workers we need or want. Overseas workers have to apply sometimes years in advance to come and work in America.
If we were really serious about curtailing illegal immigration, we would streamline or legal immigration system while simultaneously punishing companies who hire and exploit illegal immigrants as a deterrent.
Building a wall is only one step in eliminating the issues around illegal immigration.
It is the cause of most, and solution to few.I say we should let individual liberty be the governing principle in making all these decisions. That would solve ALL the problems.We have a serious problem in our country and it's not illegal drugs or illegal immigration. The problem, in a nutshell, is making up our minds when it comes to government policies.
We want to curtail illegal immigration, but we need the labor force that immigration provides... so we make a lot of theater about catching illegal immigrants, but we don't secure the border.
The stated goal of our government is that illegal drugs are bad, but Billions of dollars in drug money is deposited in our banks and invested in our property and financial markets. It helps sustain our economy... so me make a lot of theater about fighting illegal drugs, but we don't do what is required to stop them.
Our indecision manifests itself in many ways. We want to intercede in foreign conflicts, but we can't actually make up our minds on whose side to intervene, the goals of our intervention, and an exit strategy for the intervention ... so we make a lot of theater about fighting for oppressed peoples.
These are all complex problems and if we're going to take a stand against something, we should probably decide if that stand is what we really want.
The question isn't what we do about illegal immigration, illegal drugs, or foreign wars ... the question is, do we do anything at all.
Creating ineffective theater is expensive and counter-productive.
But, statist authoritarian shits don't like liberty. They want control.
.
I tend to agree ... but people on both sides of the political spectrum see government as simultaneously the cause of and the solution to their problems.
it appears they arent - the article is over a month old.
I live in south central Tx. ... not a word on ANY news stations
ergo;
THERE AINT GONNA BE NO GODDAMN WALL !!
There is going to be a GD wall, and it's already going up. Maybe you should find a better "news" source. The fake "Indians" are already out protesting it but they'll most likely be arrested.
From today:
U.S. to Begin Border Wall Construction near Protesters Who Vow to Stop It
"This month, U.S. Customs and Border Protection announced it would begin construction of a wall-fence system running six miles along the border. The system would include a concrete wall that would stand up to an existing river levee and an 18-foot bollard fence on top. The project also calls for the removal of 150 feet of brush in what is considered an enforcement zone. The government would also include detection technology, lighting, an all-weather parallel road, and video surveillance. According to CBP, $145 million has already been awarded for the project..."
it appears they arent - the article is over a month old.
I live in south central Tx. ... not a word on ANY news stations
ergo;
THERE AINT GONNA BE NO GODDAMN WALL !!
There is going to be a GD wall, and it's already going up. Maybe you should find a better "news" source. The fake "Indians" are already out protesting it but they'll most likely be arrested.
From today:
U.S. to Begin Border Wall Construction near Protesters Who Vow to Stop It
"This month, U.S. Customs and Border Protection announced it would begin construction of a wall-fence system running six miles along the border. The system would include a concrete wall that would stand up to an existing river levee and an 18-foot bollard fence on top. The project also calls for the removal of 150 feet of brush in what is considered an enforcement zone. The government would also include detection technology, lighting, an all-weather parallel road, and video surveillance. According to CBP, $145 million has already been awarded for the project..."
$145 million has already been awarded for the project..."
it appears they arent - the article is over a month old.
I live in south central Tx. ... not a word on ANY news stations
ergo;
THERE AINT GONNA BE NO GODDAMN WALL !!
There is going to be a GD wall, and it's already going up. Maybe you should find a better "news" source. The fake "Indians" are already out protesting it but they'll most likely be arrested.
From today:
U.S. to Begin Border Wall Construction near Protesters Who Vow to Stop It
"This month, U.S. Customs and Border Protection announced it would begin construction of a wall-fence system running six miles along the border. The system would include a concrete wall that would stand up to an existing river levee and an 18-foot bollard fence on top. The project also calls for the removal of 150 feet of brush in what is considered an enforcement zone. The government would also include detection technology, lighting, an all-weather parallel road, and video surveillance. According to CBP, $145 million has already been awarded for the project..."
$145 million has already been awarded for the project..."
HORSE SHIT ! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
show me the bill congress passed !
hint
it doesnt exist.
You're assuming Trump gets funding for his 230 miles of wall, that the next president and the next congress continue the wall, migrants don't climb the wall, tunnel under it, fly over it, don't enter through ports of enter as they do now, and immigration reform doesn't let's most of them in legally. That's a hell of a lot of assumptions.You know, a wall would have done zero to stop the largest fentanyl bust in US history, because they found it and some meth, in a false bottom of a truck, entering in via a regular port of entry.
If they really want to make a difference, more agents, and better detection equipment would be far more beneficial than a static wall, that apparently, a lot of people in the OP's link don't want.
You know
that's fucking nonsense.
The more walls , fences, and other security you have the more people are FORCED to use the port of entries to try to get in, increasing our chances of catching them.
If what you said were true, we could just say "screw it" and not having anyone or anything patrolling between the ports of entry, because most of the people and drugs come in through the ports anyway right?
That's just basic security, you funnel security risks to a central point, or many central points, where you can concentrate your security forces to defeat them.
Those walls will come down eventually, like most walls.I'm talking west Germany...who was gonna run to the east part from the west at that time?.Berlin wall, didn't stop the migration
As a matter of fact, it did just that. It kept East Germans contained in a state of involuntary Socialism for over 30 years.
The only a bit of a successful wall is made by the apartheid in Israel and it's a matter of time before it goes down, and borders gets pushed back a ton.
The wall, built by East Germany and Russia, did precisely what it was intended to do. It worked.
The walls that separate Israel from aggressive enemies on their borders have done a lot to save the lives of innocent Israeli civilians. As long as those threats remain, those walls will be in place.
I personally understand the needs for borders...but I would love for open borders, and helping other countries get better so their citizens have a decent lives....but a wall by this racist **** and his racist cult ? i'm against.What has changed since 2013 that walls are now illogical, racist, mean, too expensive, don't work, and are against Jesus?Complete strawmannot True....Berlin wall, didn't stop the migration, China's great wall, didn't stop both migration and invasions....Europe has a body of water and still get illegal immigration....Immigration legal or illegal is a natural human movement....Just because you ended up here earlier your or your ancestors doesn't mean that you can stop the course of migration that has been happening for thousands of years. It's dumb and selfish.You are a dumbass. The more walls and security, the more that try at legal entry. Where entry is personal...You know, a wall would have done zero to stop the largest fentanyl bust in US history, because they found it and some meth, in a false bottom of a truck, entering in via a regular port of entry.
If they really want to make a difference, more agents, and better detection equipment would be far more beneficial than a static wall, that apparently, a lot of people in the OP's link don't want.
Walls are like door locks on your house. It wont STOP them but it will SLOW them.
I dint even support a wall, i support solutions.
However, the arguments against a wall not doing its job is illogical. Kinda like you debating an argument i didnt make.
Oh , that's right.
For that matter, why did Democrats who now hate walls build a wall around their convention center in 2016? Hell, why have the same Democrats who are now refusing to vote to fund a wall on our border in just the last 3 years voted to help build walls on the borders of OTHER countries?
This is yet another subject where Democrats are full of shit, and their minions are too stupid to notice.
Those walls will come down eventually, like most walls.I'm talking west Germany...who was gonna run to the east part from the west at that time?.Berlin wall, didn't stop the migration
As a matter of fact, it did just that. It kept East Germans contained in a state of involuntary Socialism for over 30 years.
The only a bit of a successful wall is made by the apartheid in Israel and it's a matter of time before it goes down, and borders gets pushed back a ton.
The wall, built by East Germany and Russia, did precisely what it was intended to do. It worked.
The walls that separate Israel from aggressive enemies on their borders have done a lot to save the lives of innocent Israeli civilians. As long as those threats remain, those walls will be in place.
Negotiations Phooey! Wall Being Built.
President Donald Trump’s fight to get border wall funding from Congress aside, construction on new segments of a barrier is already beginning in Texas, according to reports on Monday.
The U.S. government is preparing to begin construction of new segments of the border wall and fencing in the Rio Grande Valley.
The U.S. Customs and Border Protection said that heavy construction equipment is expected to start arriving Monday, according to the Associated Press.
Everybody says the president is going to declare a state of emergency to build more wall. Why? He already has the authority to spend far more than the $5.7 billion talked about from other monies not otherwise committed.
To heck with the Congressional farcial negotiations.
More @ Construction Begins on New Border Wall Segment Even as Political Fight Continues and US prepares to start building portion of Texas border wall
Congress negotiators struggle to reach border security deal @ Congressional negotiators still face unresolved border security issues | One America News Network
Golly. Is that a picture of more barriers being constructed?
Open borders in the strictest sense means people are free to travel across borders without any special papers such as a visa. There are no limits as to where you can go or how long you can stay. You simple have to have adequate identification such as a passport. A country may open it's borders only to certain countries. However, whether you are allowed to work, enjoy social safety nets, take advantage of things like free public education and other government services, or face importation restrictions depends how an open border is defined. One of the things that goes along with open borders is the requirement that everyone have identification plus you may have to show your identification often. Not having it is a crime.I personally understand the needs for borders...but I would love for open borders, and helping other countries get better so their citizens have a decent lives....but a wall by this racist **** and his racist cult ? i'm against.What has changed since 2013 that walls are now illogical, racist, mean, too expensive, don't work, and are against Jesus?Complete strawmannot True....Berlin wall, didn't stop the migration, China's great wall, didn't stop both migration and invasions....Europe has a body of water and still get illegal immigration....Immigration legal or illegal is a natural human movement....Just because you ended up here earlier your or your ancestors doesn't mean that you can stop the course of migration that has been happening for thousands of years. It's dumb and selfish.You are a dumbass. The more walls and security, the more that try at legal entry. Where entry is personal...You know, a wall would have done zero to stop the largest fentanyl bust in US history, because they found it and some meth, in a false bottom of a truck, entering in via a regular port of entry.
If they really want to make a difference, more agents, and better detection equipment would be far more beneficial than a static wall, that apparently, a lot of people in the OP's link don't want.
Walls are like door locks on your house. It wont STOP them but it will SLOW them.
I dint even support a wall, i support solutions.
However, the arguments against a wall not doing its job is illogical. Kinda like you debating an argument i didnt make.
Oh , that's right.
For that matter, why did Democrats who now hate walls build a wall around their convention center in 2016? Hell, why have the same Democrats who are now refusing to vote to fund a wall on our border in just the last 3 years voted to help build walls on the borders of OTHER countries?
This is yet another subject where Democrats are full of shit, and their minions are too stupid to notice.
And during this process, there would probably be a court order stopping Trump from spending his new found wealth until the congress act. Plus there would be other lawsuits working their way through the system.just an FYI y'all.......... IF trump declares a 'national' emergency... there will be immediate litigation AND there is this:
If Trump declares a national emergency, Pelosi can jam Republicans. Here’s how.
By Greg Sargent
Opinion writer
February 4 at 9:40 AM
[...]
...Here’s why: According to one of the country’s leading experts on national emergencies, it appears that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) can trigger a process that could require the GOP-controlled Senate to hold a vote on such a declaration by Trump — which would put Senate Republicans in a horrible political position.
[...]
What Pelosi can do
'... if Pelosi exercises this option, it will ultimately require the Senate to vote on it in some form as well. The NEA stipulates that if one chamber (Pelosi’s House) passes such a resolution, which it easily could do, the other (McConnell’s Senate) must act on it within a very short time period — forcing GOP senators to choose whether to support it.
Alternatively, Goitein notes, the Senate could vote not to consider that resolution or change its rules to avoid such a vote. But in those scenarios, the Senate would, in effect, be voting to greenlight Trump’s emergency declaration.
The NEA lays out a timetable for this process, and by Goitein’s reading, it would all take place within the protracted period of barely longer than a month. “In short, there could be 36 days between introduction of the resolution in the House and a vote on the Senate floor,” Goitein told me, “but that vote would have to happen,” and once it did, one way or the other, it would put senators “on record.”
[...]
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...-can-jam-republicans-heres-how/?noredirect=on
You do realize that this extension was planned before Trump took office.Negotiations Phooey! Wall Being Built.
President Donald Trump’s fight to get border wall funding from Congress aside, construction on new segments of a barrier is already beginning in Texas, according to reports on Monday.
The U.S. government is preparing to begin construction of new segments of the border wall and fencing in the Rio Grande Valley.
The U.S. Customs and Border Protection said that heavy construction equipment is expected to start arriving Monday, according to the Associated Press.
Everybody says the president is going to declare a state of emergency to build more wall. Why? He already has the authority to spend far more than the $5.7 billion talked about from other monies not otherwise committed.
To heck with the Congressional farcial negotiations.
More @ Construction Begins on New Border Wall Segment Even as Political Fight Continues and US prepares to start building portion of Texas border wall
Congress negotiators struggle to reach border security deal @ Congressional negotiators still face unresolved border security issues | One America News Network
Golly. Is that a picture of more barriers being constructed?
just an FYI y'all.......... IF trump declares a 'national' emergency... there will be immediate litigation AND there is this:
If Trump declares a national emergency, Pelosi can jam Republicans. Here’s how.
By Greg Sargent
Opinion writer
February 4 at 9:40 AM
[...]
...Here’s why: According to one of the country’s leading experts on national emergencies, it appears that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) can trigger a process that could require the GOP-controlled Senate to hold a vote on such a declaration by Trump — which would put Senate Republicans in a horrible political position.
[...]
What Pelosi can do
'... if Pelosi exercises this option, it will ultimately require the Senate to vote on it in some form as well. The NEA stipulates that if one chamber (Pelosi’s House) passes such a resolution, which it easily could do, the other (McConnell’s Senate) must act on it within a very short time period — forcing GOP senators to choose whether to support it.
Alternatively, Goitein notes, the Senate could vote not to consider that resolution or change its rules to avoid such a vote. But in those scenarios, the Senate would, in effect, be voting to greenlight Trump’s emergency declaration.
The NEA lays out a timetable for this process, and by Goitein’s reading, it would all take place within the protracted period of barely longer than a month. “In short, there could be 36 days between introduction of the resolution in the House and a vote on the Senate floor,” Goitein told me, “but that vote would have to happen,” and once it did, one way or the other, it would put senators “on record.”
[...]
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...-can-jam-republicans-heres-how/?noredirect=on
You rubes eat up that political theater.just an FYI y'all.......... IF trump declares a 'national' emergency... there will be immediate litigation AND there is this:
If Trump declares a national emergency, Pelosi can jam Republicans. Here’s how.
By Greg Sargent
Opinion writer
February 4 at 9:40 AM
[...]
...Here’s why: According to one of the country’s leading experts on national emergencies, it appears that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) can trigger a process that could require the GOP-controlled Senate to hold a vote on such a declaration by Trump — which would put Senate Republicans in a horrible political position.
[...]
What Pelosi can do
'... if Pelosi exercises this option, it will ultimately require the Senate to vote on it in some form as well. The NEA stipulates that if one chamber (Pelosi’s House) passes such a resolution, which it easily could do, the other (McConnell’s Senate) must act on it within a very short time period — forcing GOP senators to choose whether to support it.
Alternatively, Goitein notes, the Senate could vote not to consider that resolution or change its rules to avoid such a vote. But in those scenarios, the Senate would, in effect, be voting to greenlight Trump’s emergency declaration.
The NEA lays out a timetable for this process, and by Goitein’s reading, it would all take place within the protracted period of barely longer than a month. “In short, there could be 36 days between introduction of the resolution in the House and a vote on the Senate floor,” Goitein told me, “but that vote would have to happen,” and once it did, one way or the other, it would put senators “on record.”
[...]
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...-can-jam-republicans-heres-how/?noredirect=on
just an FYI y'all.......... IF trump declares a 'national' emergency... there will be immediate litigation AND there is this:
If Trump declares a national emergency, Pelosi can jam Republicans. Here’s how.
By Greg Sargent
Opinion writer
February 4 at 9:40 AM
[...]
...Here’s why: According to one of the country’s leading experts on national emergencies, it appears that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) can trigger a process that could require the GOP-controlled Senate to hold a vote on such a declaration by Trump — which would put Senate Republicans in a horrible political position.
[...]
What Pelosi can do
'... if Pelosi exercises this option, it will ultimately require the Senate to vote on it in some form as well. The NEA stipulates that if one chamber (Pelosi’s House) passes such a resolution, which it easily could do, the other (McConnell’s Senate) must act on it within a very short time period — forcing GOP senators to choose whether to support it.
Alternatively, Goitein notes, the Senate could vote not to consider that resolution or change its rules to avoid such a vote. But in those scenarios, the Senate would, in effect, be voting to greenlight Trump’s emergency declaration.
The NEA lays out a timetable for this process, and by Goitein’s reading, it would all take place within the protracted period of barely longer than a month. “In short, there could be 36 days between introduction of the resolution in the House and a vote on the Senate floor,” Goitein told me, “but that vote would have to happen,” and once it did, one way or the other, it would put senators “on record.”
[...]
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...-can-jam-republicans-heres-how/?noredirect=on
And what exactly would be the point of that, and more importantly it wouldn't stop shit. It would be a symbolic vote, nothing more.
You rubes eat up that political theater.just an FYI y'all.......... IF trump declares a 'national' emergency... there will be immediate litigation AND there is this:
If Trump declares a national emergency, Pelosi can jam Republicans. Here’s how.
By Greg Sargent
Opinion writer
February 4 at 9:40 AM
[...]
...Here’s why: According to one of the country’s leading experts on national emergencies, it appears that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) can trigger a process that could require the GOP-controlled Senate to hold a vote on such a declaration by Trump — which would put Senate Republicans in a horrible political position.
[...]
What Pelosi can do
'... if Pelosi exercises this option, it will ultimately require the Senate to vote on it in some form as well. The NEA stipulates that if one chamber (Pelosi’s House) passes such a resolution, which it easily could do, the other (McConnell’s Senate) must act on it within a very short time period — forcing GOP senators to choose whether to support it.
Alternatively, Goitein notes, the Senate could vote not to consider that resolution or change its rules to avoid such a vote. But in those scenarios, the Senate would, in effect, be voting to greenlight Trump’s emergency declaration.
The NEA lays out a timetable for this process, and by Goitein’s reading, it would all take place within the protracted period of barely longer than a month. “In short, there could be 36 days between introduction of the resolution in the House and a vote on the Senate floor,” Goitein told me, “but that vote would have to happen,” and once it did, one way or the other, it would put senators “on record.”
[...]
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...-can-jam-republicans-heres-how/?noredirect=on
