Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A wall, defending the border to our country, is repugnant
to those who have walls defending them from us commoners.
Just as guns in the hands of common citizens are perceived
as a threat to those who have armed guards protecting them.
(And, in each case, those elitists are supported by useful idiots.)
Since these people have know about this problem and the proposed wall/fence/barrier encroachments for over fifty years, the only reason they are not embracing this is that they are part of the human and drug trafficking problem, and they don't want to see it end.
This thread is already inundated with plenty of non prepardness subforum trolls.
You know, that new, legal pot you can now buy across the counter in Oregon and Washington is considerably more potent than the "weed" you might have toked as a kid back in the 60's or 70's. Just sayin'.
Use it in good health with care. You may want to stop at a considerably smaller dose than you remembered as a kid. At least until you get familiar with it.
You know, that new, legal pot you can now buy across the counter in Oregon and Washington is considerably more potent than the "weed" you might have toked as a kid back in the 60's or 70's. Just sayin'.
Use it in good health with care. You may want to stop at a considerably smaller dose than you remembered as a kid. At least until you get familiar with it.
Thousands of people attempting to enter a country illegally, especially en masse, is an invasion. Invasions, especially by those who choose not to respect the laws of the country they are attempting to enter, need to be repelled. A physical barrier to such an invasion causes the least harm to the invaders. In times past, invaders would be repelled with violence/deadly force, the folks who reject the idea of a 'barrier' would [most likely] be even more horrified by the idea of actually defending our borders with the full force of military might once commonly used to repel invaders. A 'wall' is the kinder, gentler way of dealing with invaders, perhaps the most 'peaceful' method possible.
Last edited by Zymer; 01-09-2019 at 05:37 PM..
Reason: Forgot a comma.
No, everyone knows the wall wouldn't actually do anything. It's a political tool for the right to try and 'win' this fight with the left and get a leg up in future election cycles.
All the debate around 'the wall' has nothing to do with keeping anyone out of the US.
^^This. The wall is nothing more than a political stunt for the 2020 election.
I don't support illegal immigration. I don't believe there is an illegal immigration "crisis." I have no fear of MS13 gangs or terrorists coming in through Mexico. The wall would be a waste of money.
^^This. The wall is nothing more than a political stunt for the 2020 election.
I don't support illegal immigration. I don't believe there is an illegal immigration "crisis." I have no fear of MS13 gangs or terrorists coming in through Mexico. The wall would be a waste of money.
No money that Americans earn is a 'waste of money'.
Haven't you realized yet that we simply print the stuff, and have done so quite successfully for 46 years out of the last FIFTY?
And if we fund it out of the defense budget, EVEN BETTER YET!
Just think of it as a public works defense project.
What's not to like?
^^This. The wall is nothing more than a political stunt for the 2020 election.
I don't support illegal immigration. I don't believe there is an illegal immigration "crisis." I have no fear of MS13 gangs or terrorists coming in through Mexico. The wall would be a waste of money.
Know what is a bigger waste of money? Spending 150billion a year on taking care of non US citizens.
It's pretty plain that the border wall with Mexico is a survivalist program. As much as they try to deny global warming, rich people well know that it is happening, and the first areas to become uninhabitable will be the tropics. They want a defensible barrier where they can hold off tens of millions of refugees fleeing an ecological disaster. Essentially, they want to make America into a gated community.
On the fun side, wait until they try to pull eminent domain on those border ranchers. The Bundy Ranch standoff would be a Sunday school picnic by comparison. When they try to chop ranches in half, deny cattle ranchers access to the Rio Grande or cut Indian reservations in half you will see Americans in armed conflict with their government. Flying around in those black helicopters might be hazardous to your health.
Anybody who thinks we could really build a wall coast to coast for only $40 billion still believes in the tooth fairy. I worked up a quick guestimate on the project and came up with a minimum of $130 billion, and probably a max of around $300 billion. Then you have to maintain the thing. Forget the steel spike wall. The scrappers would be tearing it down behind you before it ever got built.
Meanwhile, dig those tunnels. We all know how the Great Wall worked for China. It didn't. By the time a civilization falls to invaders, it has already collapsed from within.
So much wrong with that post:
a) "GW" isn't affecting the tropics-- no warming there at all; almost all warming is in the polar third of the globe; warming in the temperate third is limited to increasing nite-time minimum temps, not day-time maximum temps.
b) Problems with eminent domain are minimal-- walls are essentially two dimensional, not three dimensional for practical purposes. How many cattle water at the Rio Grande?- much of which won't require a wall.
c) of the 1954 mile US/Mexican border, 550 miles already have a wall and funding was voted long ago (including votes from some of the biggest, hypocritical mouths against it now) for another 700 miles of wall; of the remaining 700 miles of border, a good deal of it won't require a wall for topological reasons.
Note that the current US govt expenditures are $7 Billion per day. $5 billion is just a rounding error in budgetary estimates. Size & source of funding is a non-issue, comparatively speaking.
The history of Texas should be reviewed to see what a liberal immigration policy can do to a sovereign territory.
^^This. The wall is nothing more than a political stunt for the 2020 election.
I don't support illegal immigration. I don't believe there is an illegal immigration "crisis." I have no fear of MS13 gangs or terrorists coming in through Mexico. The wall would be a waste of money.
Weird all your democrats agreed on a wall before trump decided to pursue it. Why didn't anyone care when they said it?
I've suggested that we take half of our foreign giveaways for a year and build a wall with it - or as much as $25 billion will provide. That's 5x what President Trump is asking for. And it's only half of foreign aid.
If it's "useless and amoral" then we've spent $25 billion on infrastructure, which provides work domestically, benefiting mostly middle class and working class people.
We can then wait and see what the stats are.
Doing nothing doesn't seem to work.
I think the politicians complaining in NY are just complaining because it doesn't provide a pork barrel for their district.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.