Why is Building the Wall Wrong?

[Porter Rockwell]

So, like Ray, you think that rights are inalienable? Do you, like he, believe that our Rights come through mortal men who can vote for or against what they will or will not give you in terms of Liberty?

So, when an employer hires a foreigner, how do you justify taking away his Rights? As I see it, owning private property is one of the greatest hallmarks of our constitutional Republic. Do you disagree with that?

I already answered that. Father builds better life for their children, through the generations I benefit from my ancestors sweat, work, blood, bullets and have the life I have now. We Americans earned our lives as they exist here and now. These foreigners did not.

You have accused me of lying. I'm now asking you honest questions and am ready to ignore all others IF you have a question for me. But, right now you are deflecting.

The subject of the OP is: Why is building the wall wrong? How can I formulate an answer to that if the criteria are subjective as opposed to objective? I'm not trying to insult you, but your thinking regarding our foundational principles prevents you and I from having an objective discussion about the topic. To repeating a point, the Declaration of Independence states:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

In this discussion, in my mind, that is the most important issue to be addressed. Our forefathers believed that your Rights are unalienable. That means they are above the reach of the law. Liberty is one of them. So, I have concluded, unless you clarify it for me, that the majority can revoke a person's Liberty on the basis of a popularity vote. Is that your view?

The wall is not wrong because saying so means trying to keep people out of our country is wrong and that's not wrong because foreigners do not have a right to come here unless we let them.

It would be wrong if:

A) All Americans have the equal protection of the laws (though I'm opposed to the 14th Amendment) and you violate them

B) That you interfere with the free market, the Rights of others to openly do business with us and use a wall as a means of control - which is the antithesis of Liberty.

Were allowed to collect tariffs and regulate the market through port of entry. Doesn't mean you can practice trade just anywhere along the border you want to.

Irrelevant, besides I have acknowledged your concession of defeat. I I'm not going to try and fight three people at a time this late at night.

Let's face the facts: If you can't take me alone, you're fucked.

 

[Slyhunter]

Post # 2086 isn't yours, care to try again?

.

At 80 wpm, it is possible to be imperfect. It is actually post # 2806

Hey thanks for the laugh, all the supremes did in that case was uphold the commerce clause and the immigration powers the Constitution vested in congress after 1808. But goo try.

.

You cannot read. In 1808 state immigration officials were to collect a $10 tax per person they had in their states. That is why, in 1875, California had state immigration officials. That is over half a century AFTER your misrepresentation of the facts.

BTW, I'm in one discussion tonight. Any way you can wait til tomorrow to give me a sporting chance to respond to you?

Dude that isn't how this forum works. Anyone who wants to can reply to anything I say and I can't demand they wait their turn.

Now you are bringing in reinforcements because yo cannot defend a position you realize is wrong. Okay, I accept your concession of defeat.

This isn't a contest of skill. This isn't a game. This isn't a Debate class in school. You need to grow up.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

At 80 wpm, it is possible to be imperfect. It is actually post # 2806

Hey thanks for the laugh, all the supremes did in that case was uphold the commerce clause and the immigration powers the Constitution vested in congress after 1808. But goo try.

.

You cannot read. In 1808 state immigration officials were to collect a $10 tax per person they had in their states. That is why, in 1875, California had state immigration officials. That is over half a century AFTER your misrepresentation of the facts.

BTW, I'm in one discussion tonight. Any way you can wait til tomorrow to give me a sporting chance to respond to you?

Dude that isn't how this forum works. Anyone who wants to can reply to anything I say and I can't demand they wait their turn.

Now you are bringing in reinforcements because yo cannot defend a position you realize is wrong. Okay, I accept your concession of defeat.

You are so full of shit. You sound like a Liberal.

You should know because everything you've posted leads back to socialism - which is liberalism, Since you cannot answer questions, I accept your concession of defeat.

 

[Slyhunter]

I already answered that. Father builds better life for their children, through the generations I benefit from my ancestors sweat, work, blood, bullets and have the life I have now. We Americans earned our lives as they exist here and now. These foreigners did not.

You have accused me of lying. I'm now asking you honest questions and am ready to ignore all others IF you have a question for me. But, right now you are deflecting.

The subject of the OP is: Why is building the wall wrong? How can I formulate an answer to that if the criteria are subjective as opposed to objective? I'm not trying to insult you, but your thinking regarding our foundational principles prevents you and I from having an objective discussion about the topic. To repeating a point, the Declaration of Independence states:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

In this discussion, in my mind, that is the most important issue to be addressed. Our forefathers believed that your Rights are unalienable. That means they are above the reach of the law. Liberty is one of them. So, I have concluded, unless you clarify it for me, that the majority can revoke a person's Liberty on the basis of a popularity vote. Is that your view?

The wall is not wrong because saying so means trying to keep people out of our country is wrong and that's not wrong because foreigners do not have a right to come here unless we let them.

It would be wrong if:

A) All Americans have the equal protection of the laws (though I'm opposed to the 14th Amendment) and you violate them

B) That you interfere with the free market, the Rights of others to openly do business with us and use a wall as a means of control - which is the antithesis of Liberty.

Were allowed to collect tariffs and regulate the market through port of entry. Doesn't mean you can practice trade just anywhere along the border you want to.

Irrelevant, besides I have acknowledged your concession of defeat. I I'm not going to try and fight three people at a time this late at night.

Let's face the facts: If you can't take me alone, you're fucked.

Dude you were a bully in school weren't you. Or were you a nerd and your trying to be a bully online. Either way I'm not the one fucked.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

I'm a minister with a jobs program. We have temp, temp to perm and permanent jobs in many fields from laborers to farm workers and from warehouse workers to construction / handymen positions.

Whites will not work the jobs.

Your anecdotal stories don't hold true across the country, I have 5 guys numbers, all white, all citizens, I can call for handyman work, brush clearing and other things. I have 5 acres and the forest is constantly trying to reclaim cleared areas.

.

Anecdotal? They do tv segments on it here. It's statewide and we ran # 4 in the nation for the number of undocumented foreigners.

Yeah, it's anecdotal, what is happening in your State doesn't necessarily apply to others. If they're running TV segments I'm sure the print media is doing it also, yet you haven't provided one link to substantiate your claims.

.

Liar liar pants on fire. Throughout this thread I've provided irrefutable links - just not going to keep looking them up and repeating them over and over. It's childish and a waste of time. READ THE DAMN THREAD.

I don't recall a link on this particular topic, but I be glad to take a look if you can point to one.

.

Okay, slyhunter threw in the towel. I'm not going to research that entire conversation and then read all the previous posts for you to answer a question. Repeat the question you want answered.

 

[Slyhunter]

Hey thanks for the laugh, all the supremes did in that case was uphold the commerce clause and the immigration powers the Constitution vested in congress after 1808. But goo try.

.

You cannot read. In 1808 state immigration officials were to collect a $10 tax per person they had in their states. That is why, in 1875, California had state immigration officials. That is over half a century AFTER your misrepresentation of the facts.

BTW, I'm in one discussion tonight. Any way you can wait til tomorrow to give me a sporting chance to respond to you?

Dude that isn't how this forum works. Anyone who wants to can reply to anything I say and I can't demand they wait their turn.

Now you are bringing in reinforcements because yo cannot defend a position you realize is wrong. Okay, I accept your concession of defeat.

You are so full of shit. You sound like a Liberal.

You should know because everything you've posted leads back to socialism - which is liberalism, Since you cannot answer questions, I accept your concession of defeat.

The fact that you don't like my answers does not mean I did not answer. Your bolded statement shows me you are actually immature. I'm not trying to win a game here just stating facts.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

You have accused me of lying. I'm now asking you honest questions and am ready to ignore all others IF you have a question for me. But, right now you are deflecting.

The subject of the OP is: Why is building the wall wrong? How can I formulate an answer to that if the criteria are subjective as opposed to objective? I'm not trying to insult you, but your thinking regarding our foundational principles prevents you and I from having an objective discussion about the topic. To repeating a point, the Declaration of Independence states:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

In this discussion, in my mind, that is the most important issue to be addressed. Our forefathers believed that your Rights are unalienable. That means they are above the reach of the law. Liberty is one of them. So, I have concluded, unless you clarify it for me, that the majority can revoke a person's Liberty on the basis of a popularity vote. Is that your view?

The wall is not wrong because saying so means trying to keep people out of our country is wrong and that's not wrong because foreigners do not have a right to come here unless we let them.

It would be wrong if:

A) All Americans have the equal protection of the laws (though I'm opposed to the 14th Amendment) and you violate them

B) That you interfere with the free market, the Rights of others to openly do business with us and use a wall as a means of control - which is the antithesis of Liberty.

Were allowed to collect tariffs and regulate the market through port of entry. Doesn't mean you can practice trade just anywhere along the border you want to.

Irrelevant, besides I have acknowledged your concession of defeat. I I'm not going to try and fight three people at a time this late at night.

Let's face the facts: If you can't take me alone, you're fucked.

Dude you were a bully in school weren't you. Or were you a nerd and your trying to be a bully online. Either way I'm not the one fucked.

No, I was the really kind of quiet guy and one day I had enough of a bully. It was like that scene in A Christmas Story. Now, you've used your time to be dishonest while calling me a liar; you've deflected; you vied for my attention more than any other and when given the chance, you folded like a cheap accordion.

I'm giving OKTexas his shot now, so sin loi victor charlie.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

You cannot read. In 1808 state immigration officials were to collect a $10 tax per person they had in their states. That is why, in 1875, California had state immigration officials. That is over half a century AFTER your misrepresentation of the facts.

BTW, I'm in one discussion tonight. Any way you can wait til tomorrow to give me a sporting chance to respond to you?

Dude that isn't how this forum works. Anyone who wants to can reply to anything I say and I can't demand they wait their turn.

Now you are bringing in reinforcements because yo cannot defend a position you realize is wrong. Okay, I accept your concession of defeat.

You are so full of shit. You sound like a Liberal.

You should know because everything you've posted leads back to socialism - which is liberalism, Since you cannot answer questions, I accept your concession of defeat.

The fact that you don't like my answers does not mean I did not answer. Your bolded statement shows me you are actually immature. I'm not trying to win a game here just stating facts.

Deflections are not facts. Going to bed, OKTexas has to get someone else to help him try and take me down.

 

[Slyhunter]

Dude that isn't how this forum works. Anyone who wants to can reply to anything I say and I can't demand they wait their turn.

Now you are bringing in reinforcements because yo cannot defend a position you realize is wrong. Okay, I accept your concession of defeat.

You are so full of shit. You sound like a Liberal.

You should know because everything you've posted leads back to socialism - which is liberalism, Since you cannot answer questions, I accept your concession of defeat.

The fact that you don't like my answers does not mean I did not answer. Your bolded statement shows me you are actually immature. I'm not trying to win a game here just stating facts.

Deflections are not facts.

I answered your question directly. We don't have to let them in if we don't want to.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Now you are bringing in reinforcements because yo cannot defend a position you realize is wrong. Okay, I accept your concession of defeat.

You are so full of shit. You sound like a Liberal.

You should know because everything you've posted leads back to socialism - which is liberalism, Since you cannot answer questions, I accept your concession of defeat.

The fact that you don't like my answers does not mean I did not answer. Your bolded statement shows me you are actually immature. I'm not trying to win a game here just stating facts.

Deflections are not facts.

I answered your question directly. We don't have to let them in if we don't want to.

But the majority of Americans DO want them in... even your savior Donnie Trump hired 'em. See you tomorrow.

 

[Slyhunter]

Dude that isn't how this forum works. Anyone who wants to can reply to anything I say and I can't demand they wait their turn.

Now you are bringing in reinforcements because yo cannot defend a position you realize is wrong. Okay, I accept your concession of defeat.

You are so full of shit. You sound like a Liberal.

You should know because everything you've posted leads back to socialism - which is liberalism, Since you cannot answer questions, I accept your concession of defeat.

The fact that you don't like my answers does not mean I did not answer. Your bolded statement shows me you are actually immature. I'm not trying to win a game here just stating facts.

Deflections are not facts. Going to bed, OKTexas has to get someone else to help him try and take me down.

Hows this for a poll
A poll on Fox showed 50% of Independents supported a wall, vast majority of GOP, only Dems didn't
So apparently you lied about most of the people polled being against the wall.

I don't limit myself to just a single thread.

 

[Slyhunter]

You are so full of shit. You sound like a Liberal.

You should know because everything you've posted leads back to socialism - which is liberalism, Since you cannot answer questions, I accept your concession of defeat.

The fact that you don't like my answers does not mean I did not answer. Your bolded statement shows me you are actually immature. I'm not trying to win a game here just stating facts.

Deflections are not facts.

I answered your question directly. We don't have to let them in if we don't want to.

But the majority of Americans DO want them in... even your savior Donnie Trump hired 'em. See you tomorrow.

That would be a lie.

 

[OKTexas]

Walls stop people from crossing the point the wall crossed. Logic and common sense is all I need to know that.

As has been said, walls can be breached in this day and time.

You miss the whole point. Walls work to keep people out ONLY when those on the inside want to help keep them out. The American people don't want to keep them out and that is why the legislators are having this discussion as a heated debate.

They are better than no wall.
The American people want to keep them out.
The establishment doesn't. Republicans want cheap labor, Dems want cheap votes. That is why we elected Trump to take out the establishment.

Just a few minutes ago, following the news conference, pollsters had it with almost 60 percent of the American people OPPOSING the wall.

Then you have the undecideds. Your major problem, however is that the lawful / de jure / constitutional government in America is a Republic (See Article 4 Section 4 of the Constitution)

So I repeat, from where do YOU get your unalienable Rights from?

I don't trust Liberal pollsters.
Also most conservatives don't answer the phone to those they don't know so they don't get polled so their opinion is never included in the polls. But they are included on voting day.

You would believe the pollsters if the numbers were in your favor. The point is, a significant number of Americans are against the wall.

And so, I ask, from where do YOU get YOUR unalienable Rights from?

Would you expect otherwise with the MSM blasting it 24/7. The media isn't objectively reporting todays occurrences, they are advocating for the commiecrats.

.

 

[Slyhunter]

BTW while the Democrat party is full of socialists, not all liberals are socialists. Read up on Thomas Payne to see what a true Liberal is. I should stop using that word as an insult.

 

[OKTexas]

They are better than no wall.
The American people want to keep them out.
The establishment doesn't. Republicans want cheap labor, Dems want cheap votes. That is why we elected Trump to take out the establishment.

Just a few minutes ago, following the news conference, pollsters had it with almost 60 percent of the American people OPPOSING the wall.

Then you have the undecideds. Your major problem, however is that the lawful / de jure / constitutional government in America is a Republic (See Article 4 Section 4 of the Constitution)

So I repeat, from where do YOU get your unalienable Rights from?

I don't trust Liberal pollsters.
Also most conservatives don't answer the phone to those they don't know so they don't get polled so their opinion is never included in the polls. But they are included on voting day.

You would believe the pollsters if the numbers were in your favor. The point is, a significant number of Americans are against the wall.

And so, I ask, from where do YOU get YOUR unalienable Rights from?

I'm Agnostic.
I believe Intelligent life is more important than other life. I believe individuals should be free to do any damn thing they want to do as long as it doesn't stop another individual from having his rights.
I believe my ancestors built this country for me to appreciate it and I don't have to give away the stuff I take for granted and end up losing it all to a bunch of people from poverty stricken countries unwilling to fix their own damn countries.
I believe there are 158 million poverty folks on this planet and they can't all come here. They are lucky we allow a million a year to come here.

So, like Ray, you think that rights are inalienable? Do you, like he, believe that our Rights come through mortal men who can vote for or against what they will or will not give you in terms of Liberty?

So, when an employer hires a foreigner, how do you justify taking away his Rights? As I see it, owning private property is one of the greatest hallmarks of our constitutional Republic. Do you disagree with that?

That's a strawman, if you want to argue the theoretical it belongs elsewhere, this is a discussion of what is. You have yet to explain how the existing wall on 1/3rd to the border is effecting your or any one else's rights. Or how an additional wall on 10% more would change anything related to rights.

If an employer hires and illegal he just became a criminal, like the person he hired. Criminals forfeit their rights.

.

.

 

[OKTexas]

Hiring them is against the law.

But the law is unconstitutional and is without any relevance - Said so in post # 2086. It's why they have a Hell of a time enforcing it.

Post # 2086 isn't yours, care to try again?

.

At 80 wpm, it is possible to be imperfect. It is actually post # 2806

Hey thanks for the laugh, all the supremes did in that case was uphold the commerce clause and the immigration powers the Constitution vested in congress after 1808. But goo try.

.

You cannot read. In 1808 state immigration officials were to collect a $10 tax per person they had in their states. That is why, in 1875, California had state immigration officials. That is over half a century AFTER your misrepresentation of the facts.

BTW, I'm in one discussion tonight. Any way you can wait til tomorrow to give me a sporting chance to respond to you?

That's not what CA was doing, they were going far above that. A $500 bond in gold, where were they authorized to do that.

Also, this is an open forum, I'll respond to any post I chose.

.

 

[Slyhunter]

Just a few minutes ago, following the news conference, pollsters had it with almost 60 percent of the American people OPPOSING the wall.

Then you have the undecideds. Your major problem, however is that the lawful / de jure / constitutional government in America is a Republic (See Article 4 Section 4 of the Constitution)

So I repeat, from where do YOU get your unalienable Rights from?

I don't trust Liberal pollsters.
Also most conservatives don't answer the phone to those they don't know so they don't get polled so their opinion is never included in the polls. But they are included on voting day.

You would believe the pollsters if the numbers were in your favor. The point is, a significant number of Americans are against the wall.

And so, I ask, from where do YOU get YOUR unalienable Rights from?

I'm Agnostic.
I believe Intelligent life is more important than other life. I believe individuals should be free to do any damn thing they want to do as long as it doesn't stop another individual from having his rights.
I believe my ancestors built this country for me to appreciate it and I don't have to give away the stuff I take for granted and end up losing it all to a bunch of people from poverty stricken countries unwilling to fix their own damn countries.
I believe there are 158 million poverty folks on this planet and they can't all come here. They are lucky we allow a million a year to come here.

So, like Ray, you think that rights are inalienable? Do you, like he, believe that our Rights come through mortal men who can vote for or against what they will or will not give you in terms of Liberty?

So, when an employer hires a foreigner, how do you justify taking away his Rights? As I see it, owning private property is one of the greatest hallmarks of our constitutional Republic. Do you disagree with that?

That's a strawman, if you want to argue the theoretical it belongs elsewhere, this is a discussion of what is. You have yet to explain how the existing wall on 1/3rd to the border is effecting your or any one else's rights. Or how an additional wall on 10% more would change anything related to rights.

If an employer hires and illegal he just became a criminal, like the person he hired. Criminals forfeit their rights.

.

.

He believes that if an employer wants to hire someone for $1 an hour and someone is desperate enough to take the job that the employer should be free to do so. That not allowing the employer to hire slave labor is the equivalent of having a socialistic society.

I bet this guy is under the age of 25 and was practicing debate for his debate class and is a very immature guy.

 

[otto105]

Just how would this wall stop anything?

People don't have ladders?

People don't have shovels?

How would an airplane land with a wall on the runway?

How does a wall work on a pier?

most of these illegals can't afford to buy food, they're not going to buy ladders. they are unfit and unhealthy and the harder we make it to get here the more likely they'll stay where they're at.

Just when do you get by sean handity talking points?

They're my talking points and they're true.

No, it’s just opinion.

 

[Slyhunter]

Just how would this wall stop anything?

People don't have ladders?

People don't have shovels?

How would an airplane land with a wall on the runway?

How does a wall work on a pier?

most of these illegals can't afford to buy food, they're not going to buy ladders. they are unfit and unhealthy and the harder we make it to get here the more likely they'll stay where they're at.

Just when do you get by sean handity talking points?

They're my talking points and they're true.

No, it’s just opinion.

I can live with that.

 

[OKTexas]

Well child if you have been paying attention you'd know I'm all for jailing people that employ illegal aliens, the supposed charities that are helping fund them and provide lawyers to go south of the border to coach them on what to say and help them get settled once they're here. Anyone who harbors or enables illegal aliens should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

Also you have yet to explain how the current walls that cover about 1/3rd of the southern border has effected my or anyone else's rights. Or why adding an additional 10% would suddenly cause them to do so.

If you have something to say, lay it out in plain language, with credible links, I'm not concerned with your feelings.

.

How many times is it required of me to lay out the links? Damn, son, I've done it at least half a dozen times, complete with irrefutable links. Tell you what - if you will keep a list of the links and present them from here on out, I will redo my work for at least the SEVENTH time and then you promise to NEVER ask me that question and when someone from your side does challenge me, YOU post the post numbers. Deal?

You're dangerous. You would jail people for controlling their own property? And you dare call others commiecrats??? WTH?

I would jail people for engaging in a criminal enterprise, laws prohibit people from hiring, transporting or harboring illegals in any manner. Lawyers who conspire with illegals to defraud the US should also be jailed. Roughly 9% of asylum claims are found to have merit, but they get through the initial screening because they are coached on what to say.

Also the only link you've provided to me was from a left wing academic who ignored the direct and indirect costs of illegal aliens. Your taxes are higher, your auto insurance is higher, your health care is higher, your wages are lower and the list could go on and on and all can be, in part attributed to illegals aliens. It offsets, by far, anything they may contribute. I've already covered the human costs to our citizens, if Americans truly knew the over all costs of illegal aliens they would revolt and demand a stop to it.

.

The link I provided was used by someone ON YOUR SIDE OF THE DISCUSSION in another of these kinds of threads. Culled it from another board. Nice try, but no cigar.

Yet you felt the need to post it here, did you actually read it or just scan the summary? Also if someone on my side used it, they're an idiot. Feel free to tell them I said so.

Now would you care to actually address what I said instead of deflecting to the link?

.

.

ANY chance I can discuss this stuff with slyhunter and come back to you later or do you feel that threatened that he can't fend for himself? Can I please defend myself one at a time?

When you chose to reply to a post is up to you, likewise for myself.

.