We the People Will Build the Beautiful Steel Slat Barrier

I'll give it one more go. If we don't have open borders to the north, then that must mean we have border security to the north, just not to the extent as we do to the south, and that's because the southern border is where the vast majority of illegals have been crossing. I think everyone agrees on those points.

The disagreement comes on how much border security is needed, what form it should take, and where money can be most wisely spent. That's fine and good and as it should be. The right's continued bellowing that anyone who does not support Trump's "wall" is some sort of open border loving socialist/globalist is asinine. Trump chose to poison the debate. He chose to tout some 30 foot high concrete wall from sea to sea that Mexico would pay for. All of Trump's calculated hate speak has come home to roost. Everyone had to have known that it would.

I see we've moved from answering the question I quoted earlier to a new context so there's no "one more go", it's a "new go".

So now that we've ducked the "But what about Canada?" silliness you've now just gone straight political. I've really little interest in engaging in that part of the equation. I'm not 100% convinced The Wall (love the album though) is the best balance of efficacy and cost efficiency but the sheer stridency of much of the Left's take on the matter along with the pathetic bleating about the idea of a physical border being "immoral" makes me believe it's more about Trump and less about sincere concerns of a secure border.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 0nelilreb
Ordinarily I would agree but you guys can’t seem to get on the same page about most things. It’s why you haven’t any real traction.
There are extremists like any other party but the core beliefs are held by the vast majority. Smaller, localized government that protects individual freedoms.
 
No. That is fear driving you.
No it's not. So you think with open borders Radical Muslim terrorist, Mexican Gangs, even enemy foreign governments wouldn't use that as a way to come into this country and do us harm? If your answer is no, you are very naive. An open border is a recipe for disaster. I'm going to start calling you Bagdad Newt.
 
But you said that they don't come over here illegally. You said that we don't have a problem with illegal aliens entering our country at the southern border.
I didn't say any of those things but you said a wall would stop them. I can't help that you are a fool.
 
Well I'm a hell of a lot smarter than you so I'm not sure what that makes you. I doubt you and luther together could generate an IQ that wouldn't result in some kind of government assistance though.
You probably believed Mexico was going to pay for it too.
 
I see we've moved from answering the question I quoted earlier to a new context so there's no "one more go", it's a "new go".

So now that we've ducked the "But what about Canada?" silliness you've now just gone straight political. I've really little interest in engaging in that part of the equation. I'm not 100% convinced The Wall (love the album though) is the best balance of efficacy and cost efficiency but the sheer stridency of much of the Left's take on the matter along with the pathetic bleating about the idea of a physical border being "immoral" makes me believe it's more about Trump and less about sincere concerns of a secure border.
I flat out said it was about Trump. I've said it multiple times. He poisoned the "wall" from the start. You certainly seem to miss the overriding points.
And it's no "new go." Just because you do not get the point until it's been re-explained in a couple of different ways in no way means it is a "new go". It's the "original go".
I'm in no way ducking the "what about Canada" angle. It highlighted my point perfectly.
 
I flat out said it was about Trump. I've said it multiple times. He poisoned the "wall" from the start. You certainly seem to miss the overriding points.
And it's no "new go." Just because you do not get the point until it's been re-explained in a couple of different ways in no way means it is a "new go". It's the "original go".
I'm in no way ducking the "what about Canada" angle. It highlighted my point perfectly.

I...QUOTED...YOU. The instant you brought the conflation of the two borders into play you screwed up. Whatever obfuscation of that you're trying to trot out now isn't my concern nor will be replying to more of same.
 
I'm libertarian, I don't believe in strict border enforcement or drug laws for that matter. Having security at major points of entry to control livestock and goods is sufficient in my mind. I also want to severely cut welfare and taxation. Your "illegals" will not be so keen to cross over if they can't suck the welfare teat. If they want to come to do honest work for honest pay like the vast majority do then I say let them.
Ofcourse they would. That wouldn't stop them. As long as there's sanctuary cities they will be here.


Inside Tijuana now.

Thousands of Central American migrants are camped out in Tijuana, Mexico, the town that borders San Diego, California.

Tijuana officials have expressed their anger and frustration over the financial strain these migrants are putting on the local community.

A large percentage of the Central American migrants have diseases such as AIDS, tuberculosis and hepatitis.
 
They were for border controls until Trump wanted border controls so they decided an open border was mo betta. Muh Trump.
It wouldn't matter. Here's the fence that Pelosi and Schumer voted for in 2006 & 2013. When you build it to stop a car but not people that isn't a solution. But for them it is, cars can't vote.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Obsessed

VN Store



Back
Top