Can anyone justify NOT having the Wall?

[Horn6721]

Interesting interview with Abbott by Tucker

 

[Horn6721]

And the other side
https://webcache.googleusercontent....der-abbott-biden-national-guard-20240125.html
The high-stakes game of Texas Hold ’em taking place on the banks of the Rio Grande between the tin soldiers of that state’s Republican Gov. Greg Abbott and U.S. Border Patrol has reached a tension level that some writers and online pundits have compared to the standoff at Fort Sumter, the South Carolina outpost where the first shots of the Civil War were fired in 1861.

That comparison might be a little unfair, though.

No one was actually killed* during the bombardment of the federal fort off Charleston by rebel forces of the newly formed Confederacy. But four migrants trying to reach U.S. soil at or near the disputed park in Eagle Pass, Texas, have drowned under circumstances that are arguably linked to the dispute between the militaristic approach of the Texas National Guard and the comparatively humane, locked-out agents of President Joe Biden’s administration."

Abbott's next loads needs to go to Philadelphia

 

[mchammer]

 

[Horn6721]

 

[LonghornCatholic]

 

[Horn6721]

IF it does nothing more than force MSM to cover it it will be worth it

 

[Mr. Deez]

I wouldn't call either one of you cucks. However, even now the establishment is willing to sell us out with the new Senate border bill and I'm willing to bet the National Review is or will go along with it. Sorry, I have no use for these people.

I meant nothing as a personal attack on you.

I didn't think you meant anything by it. However, I have not seen NR defend the Senate on illegal immigration - certainly not in this most recent controversy.

 

[BrntOrngStmpeDe]

I'm not DJT's biggest fan but I really don't have an issue with him or the GOP really holding the Dem's feet to the fire over immigration. I think everyone recognizes this is our Roe v. Wade issue for 2024. As much as RvW animated the left and left leaning moderates in 2020, the illegal immigration issue is animating the right and right leaning moderates now (and even a few blue that are traditional blue collar union Dem's). Dem's know that this is their Achilles heel. More than the economy, more than trans-XXX. more than anything else. I think we are right to hold out for much, much more on this. People everywhere are fed up with Biden's lying on this issue. And as I've said before, if we lose the immigration battle, we lose the war. All immigrants might not vote blue, but a large enough percentage of them do/will that it is just a matter of time before they turn some red's to purple, and purple's to blue.

This is the time to start talking E-Verify.

 

[Garmel]

I didn't think you meant anything by it. However, I have not seen NR defend the Senate on illegal immigration - certainly not in this most recent controversy.

The WSJ editorial board already has. I imagine NR won't be far behind.

 

[Mr. Deez]

The WSJ editorial board already has. I imagine NR won't be far behind.

NR is not the same as WSJ. There's some overlap, but there are significant differences. WSJ is more corporate and doesn't care about social issues.

 

[mchammer]

NR is not the same as WSJ. There's some overlap, but there are significant differences. WSJ is more corporate and doesn't care about social issues.

Wrong! WSJ is strong on individual freedoms such as gun rights and freedom of religion, just to name two. These are at least tangential to, if not overlap, social issues.

 

[EDT]

 

[Mr. Deez]

Wrong! WSJ is strong on individual freedoms such as gun rights and freedom of religion, just to name two. These are at least tangential to, if not overlap, social issues.

I see very little evidence of WSJ being very concerned about those issues without it comporting with a business interest. Keep in mind that gun rights are an individual liberty issue, but they're also very much of a business issue.

 

[mchammer]

I see very little evidence of WSJ being very concerned about those issues without it comporting with a business interest. Keep in mind that gun rights are an individual liberty issue, but they're also very much of a business issue.

I am a WSJ subscriber since 2005. WSJ editorial page extremely strong on religious freedom, such as the Colorado baker case. If anything, you would think the WSJ would oppose the baker based on your reasoning.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I am a WSJ subscriber since 2005. WSJ editorial page extremely strong on religious freedom, such as the Colorado baker case. If anything, you would think the WSJ would oppose the baker based on your reasoning.

Really? The baker is a business. Hobby Lobby is a business. That doesn't make them wrong, but it is what it is. WSJ is conservative, but it's first and foremost a business-friendly conservative media outlet - more so than NR is. It takes the business side more often than not, but it will attack woke business practices. It will take on the trans issue very hard in contexts that business interests wouldn't care about. I see far less of that from WSJ.

 

[ViperHorn]

WSJ is owned by Murdoch.

 

[mchammer]

Really? The baker is a business. Hobby Lobby is a business. That doesn't make them wrong, but it is what it is. WSJ is conservative, but it's first and foremost a business-friendly conservative media outlet - more so than NR is. It takes the business side more often than not, but it will attack woke business practices. It will take on the trans issue very hard in contexts that business interests wouldn't care about. I see far less of that from WSJ.

I also see low tax and smaller government stances from WSJ in support of individuals, not just businesses. Obviously there is overlap here, but note many businesses in Europe have no issue with limiting individual rights and have no issue with overly aggressive government.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I also see low tax and smaller government stances from WSJ in support of individuals, not just businesses.

Lower taxes (even on individuals) and smaller government are pro-business stances. Obviously tons of businesses and investors are taxed as individuals, not corporations.

Obviously there is overlap here, but note many businesses in Europe have no issue with limiting individual rights and have no issue with overly aggressive government.

Businesses in Europe like the same things that businesses in the United States do. They want low taxes and low regulation, unless they've achieved agency capture (as most big businesses have) or are otherwise in the sack with government.

The businesses aren't concerned with individual rights. When was the last time you saw business interests take up the individual rights of a criminal defendant? I'm not saying they should do that, but the point is that they're not ideologically pro-individual rights. They're self-interested. They like individual rights when they're good for them and are indifferent or hostile when they're not.

 

[theiioftx]

https://babylonbee.com/news/texas-p...-offer-to-send-offensive-line-to-guard-border

 

[mchammer]

I see very little evidence of WSJ being very concerned about those issues without it comporting with a business interest. Keep in mind that gun rights are an individual liberty issue, but they're also very much of a business issue.

Here’s your evidence. I just went through some old newspapers. On the 2nd try, I see an editorial on school choice. WSJ editorial has been STRONGLY supportive of school choice. Can you get more involved in a social issue than school choice?

 

[mchammer]

Really? The baker is a business. Hobby Lobby is a business. That doesn't make them wrong, but it is what it is. WSJ is conservative, but it's first and foremost a business-friendly conservative media outlet - more so than NR is. It takes the business side more often than not, but it will attack woke business practices. It will take on the trans issue very hard in contexts that business interests wouldn't care about. I see far less of that from WSJ.

There has been support for other freedom of religion issues besides the baker case. I wish had physical evidence, but I can assure you that you don’t know what you are talking about.

 

[mchammer]

Okay, on 3rd paper opened, an editorial supporting pro-life. Are pro-life issues considered a social issue in your world?

 

[mchammer]

Wrong! WSJ is strong on individual freedoms such as gun rights and freedom of religion, just to name two. These are at least tangential to, if not overlap, social issues.

I reiterate my initial position.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Here’s your evidence. I just went through some old newspapers. On the 2nd try, I see an editorial on school choice. WSJ editorial has been STRONGLY supportive of school choice. Can you get more involved in a social issue than school choice? Take the loss dude.

Okay, on 3rd paper opened, an editorial supporting pro-life. Are pro-life issues considered a social issue in your world?

I will concede that they don't totally ignore social issues and give you due points on the abortion article. (However, I think you have to ask if they're bringing it up because they actually care about abortion or because it's an opportunity to attack an anti-business, pro-union politician.) On school choice? No. That is a social issue, but there are very significant business interests associated with it. There's a reason why Tim Dunn and the Wilks Brothers throw money at it.

And comparing WSJ with NR on social issues (which was the original controversy) isn't even close. NR puts far more into social issues than WSJ does. You found two articles in the last few months that arguably touch on social issues. NR has that many every few days.

 

[mchammer]

I will concede that they don't totally ignore social issues and give you due points on the abortion article. (However, I think you have to ask if they're bringing it up because they actually care about abortion or because it's an opportunity to attack an anti-business, pro-union politician.) On school choice? No. That is a social issue, but there are very significant business interests associated with it. There's a reason why Tim Dunn and the Wilks Brothers throw money at it.

And comparing WSJ with NR on social issues (which was the original controversy) isn't even close. NR puts far more into social issues than WSJ does. You found two articles in the last few months that arguably touch on social issues. NR has that many every few days.

I wasn’t disagreeing with you regarding NR vs WSJ. It was your last sentence where you posited that WSJ didn’t care about social issues. Well they care enough to spill ink on it. Also, Bill McGurn at WSJ has been accused of being a social scold by haters.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I wasn’t disagreeing with you regarding NR vs WSJ. It was your last sentence where you posited that WSJ didn’t care about social issues. Well they care enough to spill ink on it. Also, Bill McGurn at WSJ has been accused of being a social scold by haters.

Bill McGurn might care about them, but the paper broadly cares about them when they're useful to help a pro-business political figure or to harm an anti-business figure.

 

[mchammer]

Bill McGurn might care about them, but the paper broadly cares about them when they're useful to help a pro-business political figure or to harm an anti-business figure.

Another social issue editorial:

 

[Mr. Deez]

Another social issue editorial:

A 2-year old article covering a social issue that's really about money.

 

[mchammer]

A 2-year old article covering a social issue that's really about money.

Everything boils down to money. Also, water is wet counselor.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Everything boils down to money. Also, water is wet counselor.

Not everything boils down to money.