Can anyone justify NOT having the Wall?

Mr. Deez said:
It might be possible to justify waiving some rules, but when open competition is waived, it's almost always for a sleazy reason and frequently ends up in litigation. You should be suspicious of this move, not excited about it. You won't be suspicious of it, because it's Trump, but you should be.
Click to expand...

I'm fairly convinced almost no deal gets done without some sleaze politician benefitting from it financially with or without oversight. I had hope's that this country would never get to a place where one person would have the power to legislate with a pen and dont like it. Obama opened pandora's box and did it with a vengeance. I dont want Trump do do it either.

HOWEVER, we have a democratic party who is willing to do any and everything in its power to block the building of the wall simply for political gain. I am so 100% behind the wall construction to drastically reduce the flow of illegal migration for both fiscal and national security reasons that I am ok with this project getting done by whatever means. Otherwise it wouldn't get done. I can't think of another construction project I could support in this way.
 
Vol Horn 4 Life said:
I'm fairly convinced almost no deal gets done without some sleaze politician benefitting from it financially with or without oversight. I had hope's that this country would never get to a place where one person would have the power to legislate with a pen and dont like it. Obama opened pandora's box and did it with a vengeance. I dont want Trump do do it either.

HOWEVER, we have a democratic party who is willing to do any and everything in its power to block the building of the wall simply for political gain. I am so 100% behind the wall construction to drastically reduce the flow of illegal migration for both fiscal and national security reasons that I am ok with this project getting done by whatever means. Otherwise it wouldn't get done. I can't think of another construction project I could support in this way.
Click to expand...
All the great men are dead, and I don't feel too good myself.
 
Otherwise it wouldn't get done. I can't think of another construction project I could support in this way.
Click to expand...

But other people will. There will always be a group of people who support bypassing ethical processes so that "the good" is done as they see it.

Either Processes rule or People rule. The US was set up around the Process of Constitution and State law. Now People rule. Presidents do. But more than that powerful career politician People in the Executive Branch and military do what they want outside of law and democracy.
 
Monahorns said:
But more than that powerful career politician People in the Executive Branch and military do what they want outside of law and democracy.
Click to expand...

And that's especially true when it comes to procurement. Sometimes you have an actual sleazy politician, but far more often, it's just a sleazy procurement officer within the bureaucracy.
 
This thread is so dumb. Suppose I have a house and want to build a fence to keep out the neighbors. The fence is tall and deep but is only on one side ( front back dont matter). It costs a **** ton and I think this is gonna keep people out, I guess they never realize people can just go around where there is no fence. Also, you have a gate in the fence where you let people through, they come in and stay as long as they want. Sounds like a great plan to me boys, you bunch of morons.
 
I, like most people on this board, have a fence around my yard. It’s a deterrent, but not an absolute way of keeping people out. It slows them down though, then my cameras and alarms kick in. Then my Sig provides the last defense.

I know I’m dumb. My degrees from UT and Rice are evidence. I’m just clinging to my Bible and gun I guess. I feel deplorable about it.
 
Last edited:
Monahorns said:
There will always be a group of people who support bypassing ethical processes so that "the good" is done as they see it.
Click to expand...

There's hardly anything ethical in our government anymore. They use the "ethics" and "oversight" excuses when they want to stop something. And I'm talking about all of them not just some of them. I want that back in our system because it's the right way of conducting business and running the country, but it's not going to happen because the people in power won't let it happen.
 
OrngNugz said:
This thread is so dumb. Suppose I have a house and want to build a fence to keep out the neighbors. The fence is tall and deep but is only on one side ( front back dont matter). It costs a **** ton and I think this is gonna keep people out, I guess they never realize people can just go around where there is no fence. Also, you have a gate in the fence where you let people through, they come in and stay as long as they want. Sounds like a great plan to me boys, you bunch of morons.
Click to expand...


LOL, why build jails? There's a door on every cell and a door to exit every cell block and a gate in the.....wait for it....fence surrounding the prison. Why even try, just let them all go free because it won't work.

Your argument is just about as dumb as it gets.
 
You may want to be sitting down for this one, but a 9th Cir judge is pointing out that it is the Congress itself that needs to step up on immigration and stop trying to dump it all on the 9th Circuit to fix it for them.

The whole thing is worth a read (its not that long). Judge Bybee took the somewhat unusual step of writing both the court’s opinion and a separate concurring opinion. Here is the case City & County of San Francisco v. US CITIZENSHIP, 944 F. 3d 773 - Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 2019 - Google Scholar

"....We as a nation are engaged in titanic struggles over the future of immigration in the United States. These are difficult conversations. As a court, the Ninth Circuit in particular has felt the effects of the recent surge in immigration. As we observed last year with respect to the asylum problem:

We have experienced a staggering increase in asylum applications. Ten years ago we received about 5,000 applications for asylum. In fiscal year 2018 we received about 97,000 — nearly a twenty-fold increase. Our obligation to process these applications in a timely manner, consistent with our statutes and regulations, is overburdened. The current backlog of asylum cases exceeds 200,000 — about 26% of the immigration courts' total backlog of nearly 800,000 removal cases. In the meantime, while applications are processed, thousands of applicants who had been detained by immigration authorities have been released into the United States.​
Because of our proximity to Mexico, Central America, and East Asia, the brunt of these cases will find their way into our court. And we are well aware that we are only seeing the matters that find their way into federal court, and that the burdens of the increase in immigration are borne not only by our judges, but by the men and women in the executive branch charged with enforcing the immigration laws.
* * *
By constitutional design, the branch that is qualified to establish immigration policy and check any excesses in the implementation of that policy is Congress. See U.S. Const. Art. I, § 8, cl. 4. And, so far as we can tell from our modest perch in the Ninth Circuit, Congress is no place to be found in these debates. We have seen case after case come through our courts, serious and earnest efforts, even as they are controversial, to address the nation's immigration challenges. Yet we have seen little engagement and no actual legislation from Congress. It matters not to me as a judge whether Congress embraces or disapproves of the administration's actions, but it is time for a feckless Congress to come to the table and grapple with these issues. Don't leave the table and expect us to clean up."​

And here is the full quote from this judge --
BYBEE, Circuit Judge, concurring, perplexed and perturbed:

I join the majority opinion in full. I write separately to emphasize two points — points that I feel must be made, but are better said in a separate opinion.

We as a nation are engaged in titanic struggles over the future of immigration in the United States. These are difficult conversations. As a court, the Ninth Circuit in particular has felt the effects of the recent surge in immigration. As we observed last year with respect to the asylum problem:

We have experienced a staggering increase in asylum applications. Ten years ago we received about 5,000 applications for asylum. In fiscal year 2018 we received about 97,000 — nearly a twenty-fold increase. Our obligation to process these applications in a timely manner, consistent with our statutes and regulations, is overburdened. The current backlog of asylum cases exceeds 200,000 — about 26% of the immigration courts' total backlog of nearly 800,000 removal cases. In the meantime, while applications are processed, thousands of applicants who had been detained by immigration authorities have been released into the United States.​
Because of our proximity to Mexico, Central America, and East Asia, the brunt of these cases will find their way into our court. And we are well aware that we are only seeing the matters that find their way into federal court, and that the burdens of the increase in immigration are borne not only by our judges, but by the men and women in the executive branch charged with enforcing the immigration laws.

Our court has faced an unprecedented increase in emergency petitions arising out of the administration's efforts to administer the immigration laws and secure our borders. These controversial efforts have met with mixed success in our court and the Supreme Court.

My first point is that even as we are embroiled in these controversies, no one should mistake our judgments for our policy preferences. Whether "the iron fist [or an extended velvet glove] would be the preferable policy. ... our thoughts on the efficacy of the one approach versus the other are beside the point, since our business is not to judge the wisdom of the National Government's policy."

Oh, I am not so naive as to think that a simple declaration of judicial neutrality will quell inquiry into judges' backgrounds, prior writings, and opinions. The battles over judicial nominations provide ample proof that our generation of lawyers bear a diverse set of assumptions about the nature of law, proper modes of constitutional interpretation, and the role of the judiciary. These are fair debates and they are likely to continue for some time. We can only hope that over time our differences can be resolved by reason and persuasion rather than by politics by other means. But I don't know of any judge — at least not this judge — who can say that every opinion and judgment she issued was in accord with her preferred policy outcomes. "In our private opinions, we need not concur in Congress' policies to hold its enactments constitutional. Judicially we must tolerate what personally we may regard as a legislative mistake."

My second point is less politic. In this case, we are called upon to review the merits of DHS's Final Rule through the lens of the judicial review provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act. Our review is quite circumscribed. We can set aside agency action if it is contrary to law, if it exceeds the agency's jurisdiction or authority, or if the agency failed to follow proper procedure. Those are largely legal judgments, which we can address through the traditional tools judges have long used. With respect to the policy behind the agency's action, we are largely relegated to reviewing the action for arbitrariness and caprice. That is not a very rigorous standard and, as a result, an agency has broad discretion to administer the programs entrusted to it by Congress.

In the immigration context, whatever dialogue we have been having with the administration over its policies, we are a poor conversant. We are limited in what we can say and in our ability — even if anyone thought we were qualified to do so — to shape our immigration policies. We lack the tools of inquiry, investigation, and fact-finding that a responsible policymaker should have at its disposal. In sum, the APA [Administrative Procedure Act] is the meagerest of checks on the executive. We are not the proper foil to this or any other administration as it crafts our immigration policies.

By constitutional design, the branch that is qualified to establish immigration policy and check any excesses in the implementation of that policy is Congress. See U.S. Const. Art. I, § 8, cl. 4. And, so far as we can tell from our modest perch in the Ninth Circuit, Congress is no place to be found in these debates. We have seen case after case come through our courts, serious and earnest efforts, even as they are controversial, to address the nation's immigration challenges. Yet we have seen little engagement and no actual legislation from Congress. It matters not to me as a judge whether Congress embraces or disapproves of the administration's actions, but it is time for a feckless Congress to come to the table and grapple with these issues. Don't leave the table and expect us to clean up.​
​
 
Vol Horn 4 Life said:
LOL, why build jails? There's a door on every cell and a door to exit every cell block and a gate in the.....wait for it....fence surrounding the prison. Why even try, just let them all go free because it won't work.

Your argument is just about as dumb as it gets.
Click to expand...

That was not the argument, to make it like yours its like building a jail but with only one wall at any side, where the people can walk in and out of doors at will and a fence but just on one side. I knew you guys were dumb around here but I assumed you could at least read, I guess I was wrong. Go read what I posted again, a few times if you have to.
 
theiioftx said:
I, like most people on this board, have a fence around my yard. It’s a deterrent, but not an absolute way of keeping people out. It slows them down though, then my cameras and alarms kick in. Then my Sig provides the last defense.

I know I’m dumb. My degrees from UT and Rice are evidence. I’m just clinging to my Bible and gun I guess. I feel deplorable about it.
Click to expand...

Those could be degrees in liberal arts. Having a degree doesn't make you smart, it only makes you "educated" and even that is relative. At least you admit your dumb, even with your lofty degrees.
 
OrngNugz said:
Those could be degrees in liberal arts. Having a degree doesn't make you smart, it only makes you "educated" and even that is relative.
Click to expand...

You do realize that pretty much defines the modern progressive Left. Lots of "education" but not much wisdom and knowing lots of things that aren't so.
 
OrngNugz said:
Those could be degrees in liberal arts. Having a degree doesn't make you smart, it only makes you "educated" and even that is relative. At least you admit your dumb, even with your lofty degrees.
Click to expand...
Or Accounting from the #1 accounting program in the country for the last 30 years and a masters from Rice. Yes I am dumb. Independently wealthy, happy and dumb, but I like it.
 
OrngNugz said:
That was not the argument, to make it like yours its like building a jail but with only one wall at any side, where the people can walk in and out of doors at will and a fence but just on one side. I knew you guys were dumb around here but I assumed you could at least read, I guess I was wrong. Go read what I posted again, a few times if you have to.
Click to expand...

Incentives (or in this case, disincentives) matter. Progressives routinely ignore the role of incentives in public policy.
 
It is the Progressive conceit that laws change reality. Then when reality doesn't comply, the problem is always culture, capitalism, the patriarchy, white men, etc.

No the problem is Progressivism.
 
mchammer said:
Not necessarily. I hate procurement. Rules are for dumb people. I would rather have a mechanism that punishes poor behavior that enacting rules that hurt the proficient. Lax procurement procedures is not the problem. The problem is that you can’t fire gov employees.
Click to expand...

I've hired people that were govt employees in procurement, yes they can be fired if they violate reg's.

Having a fair amount of experience with procurement contracts for non govt corporations, rules do *prevent* unethical behavior. Apply teeth to the rules and you've dotted the needed i's.

Too often a COO or above will get involved, you tell him/ her "no" to their request to award a bid to a friend / relative. More often than not that sends you on a slow track to the door. That was my experience anyway, involving myself and others. People within the dept normally have no problems staying within the "rules", but the corner offices sometimes get involved and things go awry pretty quick

Got out of that nonsense (Procurement Contracts) many years ago. Besides, nowadays most of the larger contracts of this nature are managed by the COO levels as well as getting legal teams deeply involved.

One other thing ---in regards to the flippin wall , much will probably be sub contracted to different companies that had no business winning such larger bids, yet are fully capable of providing the service needed. With proper coordination, it could work well within budget while providing a quality product. I'm not in that industry but know some that are.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

Predict TEXAS-ARIZONA STATE

CFP Round 2 • Peach Bowl
Wed, Jan 1 • 12:00 PM on ESPN
AZ State game and preview thread


Chick-fil-A Peach Bowl website

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top