Homeland Security just announced. It is at a crisis!!!
That would be quite traumatic for the economy as well as the workers who are already here.quash said:That's not actually true. If it were he would enforce the law where it would do the most good: on employers.Sam Lowry said:Law enforcement. As in, Trump insists on actually doing it.riflebear said:Did you just say this isn't a crime of drugs or crime or refugees? What is it a crisis of then?quash said:I, and the LP, have proposed solutions that will work.riflebear said:And that's the difference between liberals and conservatives. You are trying to exploit this for future political gain instead of fixing the problem. I'm not saying you are wrong because we know that's exactly what the Dems will do but the title of this thread is hilarious. You are more worried about the 'talk' or terminology of this crisis instead of the actual crisis.quash said:RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:
Young Justin is gonna be sad!
Gonna be a lot of sad to go around when a Democrat in the White House looks around and sees emergencies everywhere.
And terminology matters: this is not a crisis of drugs, or crime, refugees. It is a policy cluster****. A wall or nothing approach misses the point.
How does wall make it worse?quash said:Start by changing from "invaders" to "workers". Problem shrinks to statistical insignificance. Anecdotal crises, but statistical insignificance.Doc Holliday said:
1,000,000 invaders in a single year, most of whom get to stay (catch-and-release), is more than the population of six states (Delaware, South Dakota, North Dakota, Alaska, Vermont, Wyoming).
How can anyone believe this isn't a HUGE problem?!
Oldbear83 said:Prussians, Russians, you guys on the left always look for the wrong threats to worry about.BrooksBearLives said:riflebear said:What 'created' problem are you talking about? The same CRISIS at the border Obama Hillary & all the other Dems admitted there was a few years ago? That 'created' problem?BrooksBearLives said:riflebear said:And that's the difference between liberals and conservatives. You are trying to exploit this for future political gain instead of fixing the problem. I'm not saying you are wrong because we know that's exactly what the Dems will do but the title of this thread is hilarious. You are more worried about the 'talk' or terminology of this crisis instead of the actual crisis.quash said:RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:
Young Justin is gonna be sad!
Gonna be a lot of sad to go around when a Democrat in the White House looks around and sees emergencies everywhere.
As opposed to using a created problem to fix one that mostly existed years ago?
Interesting take.
You do realize that situations change, right?
Just checking. Because I am wondering if i should still be worried about the Prussians.
So I guess you don't lock your doors? Another ancient solution that - surprise - still works.BrooksBearLives said:Oldbear83 said:Prussians, Russians, you guys on the left always look for the wrong threats to worry about.BrooksBearLives said:riflebear said:What 'created' problem are you talking about? The same CRISIS at the border Obama Hillary & all the other Dems admitted there was a few years ago? That 'created' problem?BrooksBearLives said:riflebear said:And that's the difference between liberals and conservatives. You are trying to exploit this for future political gain instead of fixing the problem. I'm not saying you are wrong because we know that's exactly what the Dems will do but the title of this thread is hilarious. You are more worried about the 'talk' or terminology of this crisis instead of the actual crisis.quash said:RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:
Young Justin is gonna be sad!
Gonna be a lot of sad to go around when a Democrat in the White House looks around and sees emergencies everywhere.
As opposed to using a created problem to fix one that mostly existed years ago?
Interesting take.
You do realize that situations change, right?
Just checking. Because I am wondering if i should still be worried about the Prussians.
Yeah, says the guy trying to build a wall to apply a 4th century solution to a problem that doesn't exist anymore.
BrooksBearLives said:Oldbear83 said:Prussians, Russians, you guys on the left always look for the wrong threats to worry about.BrooksBearLives said:riflebear said:What 'created' problem are you talking about? The same CRISIS at the border Obama Hillary & all the other Dems admitted there was a few years ago? That 'created' problem?BrooksBearLives said:riflebear said:And that's the difference between liberals and conservatives. You are trying to exploit this for future political gain instead of fixing the problem. I'm not saying you are wrong because we know that's exactly what the Dems will do but the title of this thread is hilarious. You are more worried about the 'talk' or terminology of this crisis instead of the actual crisis.quash said:RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:
Young Justin is gonna be sad!
Gonna be a lot of sad to go around when a Democrat in the White House looks around and sees emergencies everywhere.
As opposed to using a created problem to fix one that mostly existed years ago?
Interesting take.
You do realize that situations change, right?
Just checking. Because I am wondering if i should still be worried about the Prussians.
Yeah, says the guy trying to build a wall to apply a 4th century solution to a problem that doesn't exist anymore.
Canada2017 said:BrooksBearLives said:Oldbear83 said:Prussians, Russians, you guys on the left always look for the wrong threats to worry about.BrooksBearLives said:riflebear said:What 'created' problem are you talking about? The same CRISIS at the border Obama Hillary & all the other Dems admitted there was a few years ago? That 'created' problem?BrooksBearLives said:riflebear said:And that's the difference between liberals and conservatives. You are trying to exploit this for future political gain instead of fixing the problem. I'm not saying you are wrong because we know that's exactly what the Dems will do but the title of this thread is hilarious. You are more worried about the 'talk' or terminology of this crisis instead of the actual crisis.quash said:RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:
Young Justin is gonna be sad!
Gonna be a lot of sad to go around when a Democrat in the White House looks around and sees emergencies everywhere.
As opposed to using a created problem to fix one that mostly existed years ago?
Interesting take.
You do realize that situations change, right?
Just checking. Because I am wondering if i should still be worried about the Prussians.
Yeah, says the guy trying to build a wall to apply a 4th century solution to a problem that doesn't exist anymore.
How many millions of illegals need to reside in US before you consider the situation a problem ?
Florda_mike said:Canada2017 said:BrooksBearLives said:Oldbear83 said:Prussians, Russians, you guys on the left always look for the wrong threats to worry about.BrooksBearLives said:riflebear said:What 'created' problem are you talking about? The same CRISIS at the border Obama Hillary & all the other Dems admitted there was a few years ago? That 'created' problem?BrooksBearLives said:riflebear said:And that's the difference between liberals and conservatives. You are trying to exploit this for future political gain instead of fixing the problem. I'm not saying you are wrong because we know that's exactly what the Dems will do but the title of this thread is hilarious. You are more worried about the 'talk' or terminology of this crisis instead of the actual crisis.quash said:RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:
Young Justin is gonna be sad!
Gonna be a lot of sad to go around when a Democrat in the White House looks around and sees emergencies everywhere.
As opposed to using a created problem to fix one that mostly existed years ago?
Interesting take.
You do realize that situations change, right?
Just checking. Because I am wondering if i should still be worried about the Prussians.
Yeah, says the guy trying to build a wall to apply a 4th century solution to a problem that doesn't exist anymore.
How many millions of illegals need to reside in US before you consider the situation a problem ?
BBL is just another closet liberal that needs him them democrat voters
Country be dammed
Canada2017 said:Florda_mike said:Canada2017 said:BrooksBearLives said:Oldbear83 said:Prussians, Russians, you guys on the left always look for the wrong threats to worry about.BrooksBearLives said:riflebear said:What 'created' problem are you talking about? The same CRISIS at the border Obama Hillary & all the other Dems admitted there was a few years ago? That 'created' problem?BrooksBearLives said:riflebear said:And that's the difference between liberals and conservatives. You are trying to exploit this for future political gain instead of fixing the problem. I'm not saying you are wrong because we know that's exactly what the Dems will do but the title of this thread is hilarious. You are more worried about the 'talk' or terminology of this crisis instead of the actual crisis.quash said:RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:
Young Justin is gonna be sad!
Gonna be a lot of sad to go around when a Democrat in the White House looks around and sees emergencies everywhere.
As opposed to using a created problem to fix one that mostly existed years ago?
Interesting take.
You do realize that situations change, right?
Just checking. Because I am wondering if i should still be worried about the Prussians.
Yeah, says the guy trying to build a wall to apply a 4th century solution to a problem that doesn't exist anymore.
How many millions of illegals need to reside in US before you consider the situation a problem ?
BBL is just another closet liberal that needs him them democrat voters
Country be dammed
We all have our opinions my friend.......and all of us think we are right .
BBL has to be pretty smart to be accepted at Baylor as a PhD candidate in statistics.
Took two such graduate level courses at A&M....was lucky to get out of them alive .
I think she is already out of the closet.Florda_mike said:
BBL is just another closet liberal that needs him them democrat voters
Country be dammed
They cost more than they contribute in taxes...quash said:Start by changing from "invaders" to "workers". Problem shrinks to statistical insignificance. Anecdotal crises, but statistical insignificance.Doc Holliday said:
1,000,000 invaders in a single year, most of whom get to stay (catch-and-release), is more than the population of six states (Delaware, South Dakota, North Dakota, Alaska, Vermont, Wyoming).
How can anyone believe this isn't a HUGE problem?!
Yummy beef enchiladas slathered in meat sauce with a side of rice and beansDoc Holliday said:They cost more than they contribute in taxes...quash said:Start by changing from "invaders" to "workers". Problem shrinks to statistical insignificance. Anecdotal crises, but statistical insignificance.Doc Holliday said:
1,000,000 invaders in a single year, most of whom get to stay (catch-and-release), is more than the population of six states (Delaware, South Dakota, North Dakota, Alaska, Vermont, Wyoming).
How can anyone believe this isn't a HUGE problem?!
What benefits do I personally receive from the mass invasion?
That's not beef ...ValhallaBear said:Yummy beef enchiladas slathered in meat sauce with a side of rice and beansDoc Holliday said:They cost more than they contribute in taxes...quash said:Start by changing from "invaders" to "workers". Problem shrinks to statistical insignificance. Anecdotal crises, but statistical insignificance.Doc Holliday said:
1,000,000 invaders in a single year, most of whom get to stay (catch-and-release), is more than the population of six states (Delaware, South Dakota, North Dakota, Alaska, Vermont, Wyoming).
How can anyone believe this isn't a HUGE problem?!
What benefits do I personally receive from the mass invasion?
Oldbear83 said:That's not beef ...ValhallaBear said:Yummy beef enchiladas slathered in meat sauce with a side of rice and beansDoc Holliday said:They cost more than they contribute in taxes...quash said:Start by changing from "invaders" to "workers". Problem shrinks to statistical insignificance. Anecdotal crises, but statistical insignificance.Doc Holliday said:
1,000,000 invaders in a single year, most of whom get to stay (catch-and-release), is more than the population of six states (Delaware, South Dakota, North Dakota, Alaska, Vermont, Wyoming).
How can anyone believe this isn't a HUGE problem?!
What benefits do I personally receive from the mass invasion?
You don't need to extend the school zone the length of the road. We can significanlyt slow illegal crossing by enforcing our laws, prison for violators, deportation after prison sentence, manpower, and technology, including border wall where it is practical and useful. Legalization of drugs, regulating them, and taxing them will go a long way to eliminating criminal drug trafficking and associated crimes. What we are doing now is not working and won't work unless the penalty is so severe no one will take the risk. Our country won't stand for those kinds of penalties. I don't think this country is willing to allow law enforcement to execute illegal crossers on the spot, and shooting down of undeclared aircraft flying into the country, which is what it would take to significantly curtail trafficking. We can make it easy for legitimate workers to come here and work and pay taxes.Oldbear83 said:
Opposing a border wall is like opposing school zones,
We need 'em, I don't give a rat's ass if you find them inconvenient.
Who runs Homeland Security? Is it a Trump appointee?Wichitabear said:
Homeland Security just announced. It is at a crisis!!!
Sam Lowry said:That would be quite traumatic for the economy as well as the workers who are already here.quash said:That's not actually true. If it were he would enforce the law where it would do the most good: on employers.Sam Lowry said:Law enforcement. As in, Trump insists on actually doing it.riflebear said:Did you just say this isn't a crime of drugs or crime or refugees? What is it a crisis of then?quash said:I, and the LP, have proposed solutions that will work.riflebear said:And that's the difference between liberals and conservatives. You are trying to exploit this for future political gain instead of fixing the problem. I'm not saying you are wrong because we know that's exactly what the Dems will do but the title of this thread is hilarious. You are more worried about the 'talk' or terminology of this crisis instead of the actual crisis.quash said:RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:
Young Justin is gonna be sad!
Gonna be a lot of sad to go around when a Democrat in the White House looks around and sees emergencies everywhere.
And terminology matters: this is not a crisis of drugs, or crime, refugees. It is a policy cluster****. A wall or nothing approach misses the point.
Doc Holliday said:
Why the hell does anyone think just because most of the drugs are seized at the port of entry that somehow this means that only drugs are going through the ports of entry?
Common sense says of course they're being caught there because that's where law enforcement is.
The drugs that are coming from the border are going through areas where there are no barriers or enforcement.
If there's enforcement everywhere then how are 2000+ crossing illegally everyday?quash said:Doc Holliday said:
Why the hell does anyone think just because most of the drugs are seized at the port of entry that somehow this means that only drugs are going through the ports of entry?
Common sense says of course they're being caught there because that's where law enforcement is.
The drugs that are coming from the border are going through areas where there are no barriers or enforcement.
There is enforcement, what are you talking about?
Canada2017 said:Florda_mike said:Canada2017 said:BrooksBearLives said:Oldbear83 said:Prussians, Russians, you guys on the left always look for the wrong threats to worry about.BrooksBearLives said:riflebear said:What 'created' problem are you talking about? The same CRISIS at the border Obama Hillary & all the other Dems admitted there was a few years ago? That 'created' problem?BrooksBearLives said:riflebear said:And that's the difference between liberals and conservatives. You are trying to exploit this for future political gain instead of fixing the problem. I'm not saying you are wrong because we know that's exactly what the Dems will do but the title of this thread is hilarious. You are more worried about the 'talk' or terminology of this crisis instead of the actual crisis.quash said:RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:
Young Justin is gonna be sad!
Gonna be a lot of sad to go around when a Democrat in the White House looks around and sees emergencies everywhere.
As opposed to using a created problem to fix one that mostly existed years ago?
Interesting take.
You do realize that situations change, right?
Just checking. Because I am wondering if i should still be worried about the Prussians.
Yeah, says the guy trying to build a wall to apply a 4th century solution to a problem that doesn't exist anymore.
How many millions of illegals need to reside in US before you consider the situation a problem ?
BBL is just another closet liberal that needs him them democrat voters
Country be dammed
We all have our opinions my friend.......and all of us think we are right .
BBL has to be pretty smart to be accepted at Baylor as a PhD candidate in statistics.
Took two such graduate level courses at A&M....was lucky to get out of them alive .
Doc Holliday said:If there's enforcement everywhere then how are 2000+ crossing illegally everyday?quash said:Doc Holliday said:
Why the hell does anyone think just because most of the drugs are seized at the port of entry that somehow this means that only drugs are going through the ports of entry?
Common sense says of course they're being caught there because that's where law enforcement is.
The drugs that are coming from the border are going through areas where there are no barriers or enforcement.
There is enforcement, what are you talking about?
I didn't say there was no enforcement altogether...just that there is no enforcement in plenty of areas, especially where there is no border wall.quash said:Doc Holliday said:If there's enforcement everywhere then how are 2000+ crossing illegally everyday?quash said:Doc Holliday said:
Why the hell does anyone think just because most of the drugs are seized at the port of entry that somehow this means that only drugs are going through the ports of entry?
Common sense says of course they're being caught there because that's where law enforcement is.
The drugs that are coming from the border are going through areas where there are no barriers or enforcement.
There is enforcement, what are you talking about?
If there is no enforcement why are so many caught?
OK, I see we have to go to basics:quash said:Doc Holliday said:If there's enforcement everywhere then how are 2000+ crossing illegally everyday?quash said:Doc Holliday said:
Why the hell does anyone think just because most of the drugs are seized at the port of entry that somehow this means that only drugs are going through the ports of entry?
Common sense says of course they're being caught there because that's where law enforcement is.
The drugs that are coming from the border are going through areas where there are no barriers or enforcement.
There is enforcement, what are you talking about?
If there is no enforcement why are so many caught?
He won't even acknowledge that illegal immigrants cost more than they give back.Oldbear83 said:OK, I see we have to go to basics:quash said:Doc Holliday said:If there's enforcement everywhere then how are 2000+ crossing illegally everyday?quash said:Doc Holliday said:
Why the hell does anyone think just because most of the drugs are seized at the port of entry that somehow this means that only drugs are going through the ports of entry?
Common sense says of course they're being caught there because that's where law enforcement is.
The drugs that are coming from the border are going through areas where there are no barriers or enforcement.
There is enforcement, what are you talking about?
If there is no enforcement why are so many caught?
Where there are barriers and enforcement, illegals get caught
Where there are no barriers or law enforcement, illegals are not caught and enter the country.
Building walls costs a lot less than man-hours, and historically is very effective.
Next lesson: addition and subtraction
You said he created one, now you want to blame him for not creating two? Let's take one crisis at a time.quash said:Sam Lowry said:That would be quite traumatic for the economy as well as the workers who are already here.quash said:That's not actually true. If it were he would enforce the law where it would do the most good: on employers.Sam Lowry said:Law enforcement. As in, Trump insists on actually doing it.riflebear said:Did you just say this isn't a crime of drugs or crime or refugees? What is it a crisis of then?quash said:I, and the LP, have proposed solutions that will work.riflebear said:And that's the difference between liberals and conservatives. You are trying to exploit this for future political gain instead of fixing the problem. I'm not saying you are wrong because we know that's exactly what the Dems will do but the title of this thread is hilarious. You are more worried about the 'talk' or terminology of this crisis instead of the actual crisis.quash said:RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:
Young Justin is gonna be sad!
Gonna be a lot of sad to go around when a Democrat in the White House looks around and sees emergencies everywhere.
And terminology matters: this is not a crisis of drugs, or crime, refugees. It is a policy cluster****. A wall or nothing approach misses the point.
But, but the "crisis".
I want to blame him for not fulfilling his oath to faithfully execute the law. "The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly." Abraham LincolnSam Lowry said:You said he created one, now you want to blame him for not creating two? Let's take one crisis at a time.quash said:Sam Lowry said:That would be quite traumatic for the economy as well as the workers who are already here.quash said:That's not actually true. If it were he would enforce the law where it would do the most good: on employers.Sam Lowry said:Law enforcement. As in, Trump insists on actually doing it.riflebear said:Did you just say this isn't a crime of drugs or crime or refugees? What is it a crisis of then?quash said:I, and the LP, have proposed solutions that will work.riflebear said:And that's the difference between liberals and conservatives. You are trying to exploit this for future political gain instead of fixing the problem. I'm not saying you are wrong because we know that's exactly what the Dems will do but the title of this thread is hilarious. You are more worried about the 'talk' or terminology of this crisis instead of the actual crisis.quash said:RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:
Young Justin is gonna be sad!
Gonna be a lot of sad to go around when a Democrat in the White House looks around and sees emergencies everywhere.
And terminology matters: this is not a crisis of drugs, or crime, refugees. It is a policy cluster****. A wall or nothing approach misses the point.
But, but the "crisis".
Of course not: it's not true.Doc Holliday said:He won't even acknowledge that illegal immigrants cost more than they give back.Oldbear83 said:OK, I see we have to go to basics:quash said:Doc Holliday said:If there's enforcement everywhere then how are 2000+ crossing illegally everyday?quash said:Doc Holliday said:
Why the hell does anyone think just because most of the drugs are seized at the port of entry that somehow this means that only drugs are going through the ports of entry?
Common sense says of course they're being caught there because that's where law enforcement is.
The drugs that are coming from the border are going through areas where there are no barriers or enforcement.
There is enforcement, what are you talking about?
If there is no enforcement why are so many caught?
Where there are barriers and enforcement, illegals get caught
Where there are no barriers or law enforcement, illegals are not caught and enter the country.
Building walls costs a lot less than man-hours, and historically is very effective.
Next lesson: addition and subtraction
You're blaming him for not executing a law, specifically a law that would be less practical and prudent to fully enforce than the law regarding illegal entry. But he has the discretion, within the faithful execution of the law, to emphasize different aspects at different times.quash said:I want to blame him for not fulfilling his oath to faithfully execute the law. "The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly." Abraham LincolnSam Lowry said:You said he created one, now you want to blame him for not creating two? Let's take one crisis at a time.quash said:Sam Lowry said:That would be quite traumatic for the economy as well as the workers who are already here.quash said:That's not actually true. If it were he would enforce the law where it would do the most good: on employers.Sam Lowry said:Law enforcement. As in, Trump insists on actually doing it.riflebear said:Did you just say this isn't a crime of drugs or crime or refugees? What is it a crisis of then?quash said:I, and the LP, have proposed solutions that will work.riflebear said:And that's the difference between liberals and conservatives. You are trying to exploit this for future political gain instead of fixing the problem. I'm not saying you are wrong because we know that's exactly what the Dems will do but the title of this thread is hilarious. You are more worried about the 'talk' or terminology of this crisis instead of the actual crisis.quash said:RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:
Young Justin is gonna be sad!
Gonna be a lot of sad to go around when a Democrat in the White House looks around and sees emergencies everywhere.
And terminology matters: this is not a crisis of drugs, or crime, refugees. It is a policy cluster****. A wall or nothing approach misses the point.
But, but the "crisis".