Can anyone justify NOT having the Wall?

Last edited:
mchammer said:
In politics it does. I thought this debate was solely within the political sphere.
Click to expand...

It depends on the issue, and it depends on the advocate. For example, most people who are pro-life don't choose that position because of money.

mchammer said:
Why would WSJ write an editorial about school choice in Texas? What’s the link between school choice in Texas and corporatism? Again, if anything, businesses would generally support public education, not oppose it.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/texas-...imary-endorsements-house-republicans-049d97cb
Click to expand...

It varies according to the business interest, which is why you see business on both sides of the issue. Some businesses that are in the sack with government (especially with school districts) are opposed to school vouchers for the obvious reasons. Some are afraid school choice will directly cost them money. Some are being prodded by slimy politicians on the other sides that are shaking them down. Some businesses are just naive and oppose them because they think they'll hurt education and the competence of their hiring options.

In the case of Dunn, it's about taxes and specifically local taxes. Though I've only met Dunn twice, I've known his political operatives (the guys he pays) for 20+ years. He resents the hell out of what he pays both directly and indirectly, and because of that he does everything he can to screw with city government and school districts. School choice obviously screws with and weakens school districts that take his money. He thinks it will reduce his long term costs. And school choice is just one of many things he does on this front. He does all kinds of things to anatagonize local officials.

That doesn't make Dunn's advocacy bad. Certainly on this issue, he's doing the right thing, even if he's motivated by money. I'm sure he believes he's doing the right thing too, but money is his primary motive.
 
Good for both Abbott and head of BP Union in Texas.
Even now more barbed wire and devices are being constructed to prevent illegals from coming into country
And BP will not interfere with Texas erecting barriers.
 
So the Reconquista begins and the congressional leader is named Castro. The Reconquista movement is the one and only thing about which both current Mexican political parties have always agreed. There’s a very high probability that China and Russia finance the movement throughout the Americas including here in the United States.

This border is the only First World-Third World border on Earth. If Texas turns blue then the border will essentially cease to exist. Not just this border but also the Canadian Border will effectively cease to exist. IMHO, that is The One World Order plan.

China and Russia will never succumb to the New World Order…..they are loving that it is happening to us. They, of course, have no immigration problems, unless you include people trying to leave.
 
Last edited:
Gylcomer said:
China and Russia will never succumb to the New World Order…..they are loving that it is happening to us. They, of course, have no immigration problems, unless you include people trying to leave.
Click to expand...
China and Russia have huge depopulation issues. It may take 75 years, but they are going to implode.
 
mchammer said:
China and Russia have huge depopulation issues. It may take 75 years, but they are going to implode.
Click to expand...
Yes that’s true but position as the world’s default currency collapses way before that. Perhaps you too are listening to Peter Zeihan? He’s predicting a nuclear exchange so, of course, there are other depopulation risks besides declining demographics.
 
Last edited:
Sanctuary Cities when the rubber meets the road:
GFHfxByWkAAHrSU
 
Hard to believe Biden really said
"Every day between now and November, the American people are going to know that the only reason the border is not secure is Donald Trump and his MAGA Republican friends,”.
angles_00.jpg


They didn't show Biden's shoes
 
The failure of this bill isn't going to shift the blame to Republicans. Way too much denial that it was a problem and celebration of their non-enforcement to play that card.

And the GOP shouldn't pass this bill. It has some ok things in it but far too many downsides, and no serious person thinks the Adminstration will actually enforce the upsides in good faith.
 
Less than half of the bill is for American border security - the rest is for Ukraine and Israel. It allows 5,000 in a day or 1,825,000 per year not counting the ones who do not get processed. It is a sham and the "bi-partisan" republicans need to be voted out.
 
theiioftx said:
Less than half of the bill is for American border security - the rest is for Ukraine and Israel. It allows 5,000 in a day or 1,825,000 per year not counting the ones who do not get processed. It is a sham and the "bi-partisan" republicans need to be voted out.
Click to expand...

I'm not even particularly concerned about the money side of it. Even if the bil put all the money into the border, I wouldn't want it, because the lack of money isn't the problem. The problem is a willful decision through executive action not to enforce the law. Adding more money and laws just creates diversions. It doesn't fix anything.
 
Mr. Deez said:
I'm not even particularly concerned about the money side of it. Even if the bil put all the money into the border, I wouldn't want it, because the lack of money isn't the problem. The problem is a willful decision through executive action not to enforce the law. Adding more money and laws just creates diversions. It doesn't fix anything.
Click to expand...

I think I agree. What would enforcing the current law look like? If we enforced it completely?
 
Monahorns said:
I think I agree. What would enforcing the current law look like? If we enforced it completely?
Click to expand...

We'd act like we actually want to stop illegal immigration. Don't try to dump Remain in Mexico. If Mexico is willing to help out in that regard, take them up on it. Detain those who cross illegally and quickly deport them, and nobody should be released into the country to await their hearings. Basically, I'd reinstate Trump's policy. Though I wasn't a big fan of the wall, his broad policy was good. But of course, Biden wanted to look righteous to the woke idiots, so he dropped it and said, "give me your drug dealers, prostitutes, and human traffickers yearning to make money." And they came and are still coming.
 
Mr. Deez said:
We'd act like we actually want to stop illegal immigration. Don't try to dump Remain in Mexico. If Mexico is willing to help out in that regard, take them up on it. Detain those who cross illegally and quickly deport them, and nobody should be released into the country to await their hearings. Basically, I'd reinstate Trump's policy. Though I wasn't a big fan of the wall, his broad policy was good. But of course, Biden wanted to look righteous to the woke idiots, so he dropped it and said, "give me your drug dealers, prostitutes, and human traffickers yearning to make money." And they came and are still coming.
Click to expand...

That all sounds good. Do you think some arm of the government should pursue those already in the US illegally to deport them? Is that something e-verify would help with if it was properly used?
 
Mona agree completely.
Everify should be easier to use.
And You should be able to ask an applicant if they are legal to work here before you offer a job.
 
Mr. Deez said:
I'm not even particularly concerned about the money side of it. Even if the bil put all the money into the border, I wouldn't want it, because the lack of money isn't the problem. The problem is a willful decision through executive action not to enforce the law. Adding more money and laws just creates diversions. It doesn't fix anything.
Click to expand...
and the piece that makes the DC courts the sole course of appeal. Why bother if that is the case?
 
Mr. Deez said:
I'm not even particularly concerned about the money side of it. Even if the bil put all the money into the border, I wouldn't want it, because the lack of money isn't the problem. The problem is a willful decision through executive action not to enforce the law. Adding more money and laws just creates diversions. It doesn't fix anything.
Click to expand...
Well the concern for me is that in order to make it “bi-partisan” they bought some votes by adding in Ukraine and Israel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top