Overall, the Minuteman Project was a success. The goal was to raise awareness about America’s serious southern border problem, and they accomplished the goal.
They also embarrassed the Bush administration, an unintended consequence of their efforts. In what was largely a symbolic gesture, Bush commissioned more border patrol agents shortly before the Minuteman volunteers began a month-long vigil on the Arizona-Mexico border. But we know he’s not really interested in stopping the scourge.
The Minuteman Civil Defense Corps was formed to keep the immigration debate front and center, and I’m glad. The organization is rounding up volunteers for a patrol in New Mexico and Texas. From the El Paso Times:
The group wants to enlist 1,000 civilian volunteers to look for undocumented immigrants [euphemism for illegal aliens] along the border and call the Border Patrol on cell phones if they spot anyone. They will patrol Sunland Park but not El Paso, group officials said.“The goal is not for the Minuteman (group) to control the border, but to put enough pressure on the government to secure the border properly,” said Bob Wright, a Eunice, N.M., natural gas operator and one of the project’s organizers. (Emphasis added)
Thank goodness for real Americans. They understand there’s much more at stake than stopping Mexicans from jumping the border; we need to stop Arab terrorists from jumping the border.
No thanks to gullible American leftists bound and determined to instigate anti-American sentiment around the world, Muslims think we’re suckers. Al-Jazeera, also known as the Al Qaeda News Network, wants to interview Minuteman Civil Defense Corps president Chris Simcox. And film the volunteers on patrol.
Then again, some of us are suckers.
{ 126 comments }
It’s even worse than that, La Shawn. Check this out:
The Arab TV news network criticized by the new Iraqi government and others for its anti-American bias and willingness to carry the messages of terrorist organizations, including al-Qaida, is headed for the U.S.-Mexico border to document how easy it is to enter America illegally.
Al-Jazeera has contacted Minuteman Civil Defense Corps leader Chris Simcox to try to arrange interviews. Simcox, who rejected the request for cooperation with the TV network, says al-Jazeera, seen by millions throughout the Arab world and elsewhere, is producing an hour-long documentary news special on lack of security at the U.S. southern border.
There’s a word for this: reconnaissance. If Germans had been caught doing this 60 years ago they would have been executed as spies.
Oops, no HTML? Here’s the link:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44987
Neither foreign spies nor American traitors are executed anymore.
WHY does no one have the courage to entertain my common sense solution of using land mines to deter illegal invasion across our sovereign border. Anti-personnel mines are inexpensive, easily dispersed, easily maintained and as sentries, you don’t have to pay them, feed them, clothe them or speak nicely to them. They don’t sexually harrass each other. None of them are gay and they don’t disobey orders.
Land mines are by definition used DEFENSIVELY to prevent an unauthorized entity from entering an area where it is not allowed. Duuuuuuuuuh!
Putting the mines out would not be inhumane either. The areas would be CLEARLY MARKED in Spanish and English in BRIGHT, DAY-GLO LETTERS indicating the consequences of trying to cross the border illegally. The signs would also contain information on how to seek LEGAL entry into the United States.
What is so wrong with this idea and why doesn’t anyone have the courage to bring it up as at least an option?
No, that might thin out a few places like [cough cough] Congress [cough cough].
Sorry Lashawn,
Forgot about this point regarding the mines.
But you could also arm the mines with non-lethal, permanent DAY-GLO dye packs that douse the criminal trespasser with a bright, highly visible and infrared sensitive dye from head to toe. It can only come off with a very special solvent available ONLY at Border Patrol stations on the Mexican Border. You could even mix in a concentrated pepper spray or CS powder with the dye.
Neither foreign spies nor American traitors are executed anymore.
Pitty.
–Raymond-that’s actually an excellent idea me thinks. Shame you’re right about nobody having the courage to suggest.
Chris is the man. Thank you Chris for telling Al Qaeda “NO” and stating clearly why.
“Neither foreign spies nor American traitors are executed anymore.”
Do you have any suggestions for either category? I’m curious.
“Putting the mines out would not be inhumane either.”
Just as inhumane as shooting people as they cross, I guess.
Shooting an INVADING UNAUTHORIZED INTRUDER INTENT ON COMMITTING CRIME, TAKING LAND, INSTALLING ITS OWN POLITICAL LEADERS (LA Mayor Villarigosa) AND STEALING RESOURCES FROM SOVERIGN CITIZENS!
Hmmmmmm. Shooting an intruder who comes into your house or country without permission. What a “novel” concept.
How about using the minefields to “herd” the invaders to LEGAL entry points for adjudication?
I”d have less of a problem with a sniper than with landmines, since one is descriminate, the other is not. And landmines have a tendency to get lost and forgoten (witness the french cows that still go boom every so often).
However, I think if you are going to to have an active presences, catch and release (on the Mexican side of the border) is the better option.
And when catching, finger print, photo, retinal scan, whatever ID tech is available.
Snipers? Bad idea…..They miss sometimes and the process is an active process. Disputes would develop as to where the perp was located when put down. You have to feed, house and train them.
Now, I was saving this because some people just don’t have the stomach for security issues, but what you could do is post the snipers in areas where mines would be ineffective. Areas like rocky zones and rocky hills.
Snipers wouuld be great for taking out the drug runners. Arm them with Barret .50 cals to take out vehicles.
The beauty of mines and snipers is that they only have to do their dirty deed ONE TIME and the world will spread like wildfire that the US is NOT SCREWING AROUND ANYMORE! Enough is enough. Vincente, take care of your own people dude.
“The beauty of mines and snipers is that they only have to do their dirty deed ONE TIME and the world will spread like wildfire that the US is NOT SCREWING AROUND ANYMORE!”
And then who is going to clean up the landmines? That’s a pain.
“Hmmmmmm. Shooting an intruder who comes into your house or country without permission. What a “novel†concept.”
I think the usual concept is proportionality.
Bad ideas. I’m 100% pro-border enforcement, but I also know that killing people who are trying to come here illegally will HURT our cause.
The best way to convince people is with reason and responsible fact based rhetoric. I’d hate so see people convinced that pro-border enforcement people are whacky and tune away from our points.
Pray tell Actus, what is your concept of proportionality when you don’t even think it is a crime to come here illegally and you are harboring a criminal (your cousin) by not informing the authorities of your cousin’s presence?
Again what is your concept of proportionality. (you never ever state what you are for can you do it this once?)
There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING wacky about protecting your sovereignty and citzenry from unlawful attack.
PROPORTIONALITY is te quickest way to lose a war. See Vietnam, Somalia and Iraq. Proportionality kills…FRIENDLIES!
Like I have said repeatedly in the past. A country unwilling to kill to protect itself and its interests cannot survive. You are either wolf or sheep. You either fight and WIN or you die. Simple. Worrying about what the world thinks about your actions is the quickest way to create more Kennedy’s, Souters, O’Connors and Ginsburgs.
THIS is the United States of America. Only WE matter.
“Pray tell Actus, what is your concept of proportionality ”
Its not really my concept of proportionality. Its the idea that even if we accept all the arguments of the minute men, we still are not facing a threat to life proportional to justify a blanket shooting policy.
Its the same sort of concept that led us to be horrified at the thought of how the berlin wall guards used to shoot people for crossing. Not proportional to the harm.
No. There is nothing whacky about protecting our sovereignty and citizenry from unlawful attack.
But we won’t protect our nation with those ideas. We won’t be backed by many. People will either be apathetic or be convinced to work against us. We’ll lose our sovereignty with those ideas. Those ideas will work against OUR WISHES.
I wasn’t the one arguing for proportionality. For heaven’s sake we don’t do ANYTHING right now. We have 100’s of options starting with bringing illegal immigrants to their capital of their country (not right back to the border), not giving financial benefits, enforcing the law with employers and the I-9 forms, etc. We can make the case much more effectively and win the argument and move Congress in the direction we wish if we get ENOUGH voices saying the same thing.
I’m asking for your concept Actus not a criticism of others. You only harbor a criminal and act like there isn’t a law broken when there is. You ask for proportionality and won’t state what that is.
“I’m asking for your concept Actus not a criticism of others.”
I adhere to it like other people do. Its not really mine in that i haven’t made it up.
“You ask for proportionality and won’t state what that is.”
Its the idea that we don’t have a policy that raymond advocates. Is that enough?
Nope. You harbor a criminal and you have no room to ask for proportionality if you won’t even belive it’s a crime and then ask for proportionality.
You say absolutely nothing. You don’t make sense. Your logic is absolutely flawed.
Bak, good points. Again Actus demonstrates moral relativity in that he adheres (falls) for whatever ideas, not prnciples, that sound good. IOW, it’s not really anything to stand up for since he hasn’t made it up.
Ray, if the only ones sneaking across the border were Jihadis, yeah blow ‘em away.
However, the majority are from the category refered to, and sought out, by the Statue of Liberty:
“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
There’s a big difference between what our lady represents and that of the Colossus of Rhodes which would be more akin to your concept:
http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/a/j/ajg247/colossus.htm
Do we need to fix the border situation? Yes, of course, but we haven’t even done the basic border protection, let alone the drastic stuff as advocated by some. This is where we need to start first of all.
More power to the minutemen if they can shame the govt into getting serious.
If people of your own persuasion (conservatives) don’t stand with you how much support will you get for your ideas?
You can either try to really convince us that they are good (won’t happen) or moderate your ideas.
The more conservatives and then maybe even people of other persuasions we get to see our point the faster something will get done.
This country allows more legal immigrants than all other countries combined and we don’t need illegal immigrants as well. Especially in light of 9/11. 15 of the 19 hijackers were not here legally anymore. We need to find a way to protect this nation and additionally stop the red ink of state and federal spending that is caused by the problem and the inflated housing prices due to increased demand. CA has had 50% rise in housing prices in the last year.
I hope you see our points Raymond.
First of all the big green androgynous freak with the torch was made by the FRENCH! If she fell into the sea tomorrow, I would not care and as for bring me your tired and poor and all of that stuff? Sure, just make sure they stay on the white line and don’t stray from the path to the processing gate. Anyone disobeying these commands may step on a mine.
In other words, you are welcome IF you enter through legal processes. If not, you will be treated as a criminal invader and deadly force may be applied.
I see your points, but your ideas would not be as effective as mine and comparing my ideas to the Berlin Wall? LOL!! Last I checked, the other PRIMARY purpose for THAT wall was to keep freedom seeking humans IN!
I don’t think many if any people were shot trying to get in. Duuuh. I was wondering how long it would take for someone to fall into that trap.
“You harbor a criminal and you have no room to ask for proportionality if you won’t even belive it’s a crime and then ask for proportionality.”
no room? I’m not even the one asking for it. Its not really my idea that we don’t use deadly force when the harm is an economic or other nuisance.
“I see your points, but your ideas would not be as effective as mine and comparing my ideas to the Berlin Wall? LOL!! Last I checked, the other PRIMARY purpose for THAT wall was to keep freedom seeking humans IN!”
Sure. and its disproprotionate to the harm to use deadly force.
You were the one asking for it. Use your browser and search this page.
Raymond, I dont’ stand with you and I don’t think Andy does either. I’d venture to say you have less than half of conservatives standing with you.
Therefore you would NOT be obtaining what you wish (securing our border).
I don’t care what trap you think any of us are in. My goal is securing the border. We can work together or you can alienate people from what our goal is.
What is your intention?
“What is your intention?”
I suspect raymond is a leftist plant. Too much of a caricature.
Bak, less then half?
Try, handful.
And damn it actus, you’re not allowed to make me laugh twice in one day.
You got me there!
Ray, re the Berlin Wall, there’s been a Western victim a time or two, or even 3.
It’s your perogative to dismiss the green lady, but you know what? That’s who Reagan, Bush 1 & 2 were referring to and acknowledging that; we’re a nation of immigrants who for the most part found liberty, and for sure, the opportunity for a better life for their offspring, if not themselves.
We are that shiny city on the hill that draws all kinds of people far and wide. I don’t blame illegals to our south for wanting a piece of the American pie. The largest net importer of aliens notwithstanding, we have a convoluted process that doesn’t help the problem.
If after streamlining our immigration processes, to include the issue of employment practices, IF after we’ve done all we can to stem the human tide and they keep pouring in and threatening to sink us, then I might consider your option.
Simply put your final solution is not even close to prime time — IMO never — and to implement it now as you suggest means we have irrationally given up.
Its the same sort of concept that led us to be horrified at the thought of how the berlin wall guards used to shoot people for crossing
Uh, actus…they were leaving, not entering. Even here in the ‘murderous’ US you cannot legally shoot someone leaving your property.
Raymond’s idea is simply stupid…mines on the borders? That would play into the hands of the move0n.org crowd…I can see Michael Moore-less-than-more’s movie now Yours or Mines?
A cause for concern other than terrorism?
TB seen in many aliens
Take heart however: Mexican officials take blame in controlling illegals
Help on the way?
Darn! Forgot, no html links.
The TB story appeared in the Washington Times 6/8/05 and the second one referenced on 6/14/05.
“Uh, actus…they were leaving, not entering. Even here in the ‘murderous’ US you cannot legally shoot someone leaving your property.”
So we would be up in arms if mexico started shooting people who tried to enter the US illegally? Ok.
So we would be up in arms if mexico started shooting people who tried to enter the US illegally? Ok.
You seem to be making less sense than ever. I don’t recall anyone on this side of the wall cheering when the Stasi shot people escaping E.Germany.
maybe you all could put down your arsenal and see a root problem. there are endless employment opportunities for the illegals. until the employers either find other workers or are justifiably threatened by legal action they will continue to hire these people and the problem will never cease.
you might also consider the economic impact of supplanting low wage illegals for much higher wage U.S. workers, if they can be found, to pick the strawberries and the apples and mow the lawns etc. like it or not the constant flow of immigrants is an important part of the mainstream economy, there are no simple solutions here.
The solution is to enforce the law. Period.
Legal immigrant/migrant workers, fine. Illegals, not fine.
Why is this so difficult for Congress and the White House to grasp?
because they know the net impact on the economy
” I don’t recall anyone on this side of the wall cheering when the Stasi shot people escaping E.Germany.”
right. we didn’t cheer because it wasn’t proportional to the harm. Not because of some distinction between leaving and entering. Just like we wouldn’t cheer if mexico shot at people, and we shouldn’t cheer if the US shot them too.
Since when do leaders need others to “stand with them” in order for them to BE RIGHT? You see, that is the problem with people in this nation right now and certainly our leaders.
ZERO SPINE AND PRINCIPLE. I don’t need people to “stand with me.” I need people to do the right thing and my idea is as valid as any other idea and would be 100x more effective and you all know this. What you are AFRAID of is the backlash and people not liking you for implementing it.
Let’s get it done and move on to the next problem that needs solving.
You don’t think people stand with me? Not YET anyway, but the topic will make national debate. I PROMISE YOU?
Remember when people said the fair tax was a stupid idea? NOW check out where the book on it has risen on the bestseller charts and what Congressmen are now talking about it.
All a good idea needs is a platform.
I BET YOU I could sell my idea to those living and putting up with this crap in the Soutwestern border states.
The Nexus of Illegal Immigration and the new “Property Theft Law.”
Now that those black-robed retards on the Supreme Court have allowed property theft by cities:
Check out the Drudge Report this morning. A man has already filed to go after land owned by Justice Souter and where his house is located.
Read in its entirety to see how easy it may possibly be.
BUT THERE IS MORE. What laws are now in place to prevent 10 million MEXICAN ILLEGALS from voting (YES, they do vote!) in their own people to city councils and mayorships…..er…uh…WHAT? They have already and are doing that? OK, then it follows logically that they can vote property out of the evil, White, American’s (any American) hands and into theirs.
Don’t think they can pull it off? Then go back and check who won the mayoral race in Los Angeles.
GOTTA LOVE IT!
“Check out the Drudge Report this morning. A man has already filed to go after land owned by Justice Souter and where his house is located. Read in its entirety to see how easy it may possibly be.”
Per the Kelo ruling, its clearly a frivolous claim.
I think the claim is meant to be frivolous.
“I think the claim is meant to be frivolous.”
Meaning that Kelo doesn’t allow it? Its meant to point out that under the Kelo ruling, such a taking would not work? I don’t think that’s what it meant to be.
Why wouldn’t it work? Frivolous or not, the law and the very same courts this monkey in the black robe protects, ALLOWS frivolous rationale.
If the CITY LEADERSHIP votes for this takeover of land, Souter could not even hear the case for conflict of interest reasons.
In other words, this guy and the rest of the morons made a bad decision and the slippery slope is now being negotiated.
Nothing friviolous about the economic development proposition. All the hotel needs is 3 city council members to vote in favor of taking Souter’s place to build it and it’s off to the races. Of course there would be a suit to stay the plan, but that’s the point of the whole effort.
When it gets to that point SCOTUS has a dilemna, do they nip it in the bud when they reconvene, thereby admitting that they actually screwed up a decison and that they are merely fallible men/women?
Or does Souter have to bite it one way or another? 1) fight it at his expense — I think there would be conflict of interest issues if anyone were to donate to his legal funds, 2) give up the property to show he is comitted to the idea of ED for private interests.
“Why wouldn’t it work? Frivolous or not, the law and the very same courts this monkey in the black robe protects, ALLOWS frivolous rationale.”
It does not allow naked, punitive, transfers from A to B. That’s what the intent here is. The intent is not economic development. The intent is to make a point, punishing a judge for his ruling.
See andy’s comments.
Since we’re so concerned with the motivation of the guy wanting to take Souter’s property, maybe we should define it as a hate crime and prosecute the guy for what he’s thinking.
So… What you’re say is, what’s good for the goose is not good for the gander?
I dunno why, but I am thinking of anti gun advocates that own guns, or employe people to wield guns on their behalf.
I hope the guys going after his property is not bluffing. This will make one heck of a TV drama. Talk about Court TV!!!
“So… What you’re say is, what’s good for the goose is not good for the gander?”
Are you talking to my point? Because what’s going on in this hypothetical takings, aimed at a judge because of his opinion, is different than Kelo.
How so actus?
Both are hotels, that will make more money for the governement than the current private citizen who owns it.
Or is your beef that someone is making the point that if it can happen to Kelo, it can happen to anyone?
To misquote Niemoller: “In Michigan they first came for the Poles, but I didn’t speak up beacuse I didn’t live in Poletown. Then Conneticut came for Kelo, but I didn’t speak up, for I was not in New London…” und zo weitter.
PAY ATTENTION PEOPLE! The battles (literally) over land rights are underway. One mainstream conservative website is even promoting a “civil war.” Hopefully not a “hot” war.
And as I have mentioned. The 2nd Amendment is appearing in darned near EVERY discussion on this topic on other outlets.
I told you so.
“Or is your beef that someone is making the point that if it can happen to Kelo, it can happen to anyone?”
Its not really my beef with it. It’s that if the point is to target this judge, then that is too punitive, and not allowed by Kelo.
So, a judge’s land is off limits, but Kelo’s was not. Interesting.
“So, a judge’s land is off limits, but Kelo’s was not. Interesting. ”
What’s off limits is targetting a judge because of his opinion. Just like it is off limits to target someone’s house because you want to punish them for something else. Say, voting the wrong way, or having the wrong religion or race.
The purpose for the taking can be economic development, but it can’t be punishing a judge for his opinion. In the first case, you could still take a judges house, but not in the second.
Oh I see!!!
You can’t punish someone for their opinion by taking their land in the name of economic development, BUT you can punish someone for acting out their opinion under hate crime.
Thanks for making it so clear Actus. Are you dizzy yet?
“You can’t punish someone for their opinion by taking their land in the name of economic development,”
Well its not a “public use.”
“BUT you can punish someone for acting out their opinion under hate crime.”
Sure. Its just fine to punish criminals. Like, we could take their houses. Without compensation.
So then you’ll have no problem with us taking his house and turning it into a museum for the public to visit and learn about the law of unintended consequences?
Quit torturing us with your pretzel logic.
It has nothing to do with punishing him for his opinion and everything to do with complying with his authorization to do so.
It’s all about the money and would be a 5x win situation. Souter just happens to have an underutilized piece of property that the local government can compensate him for while putting it to better use by turning it over to a private consortium consisting of the Kelo-7 who will repackage it, thereby tripling the city’s rate of income and lowering taxes for the local residents.
“Quit torturing us with your pretzel logic.”
Its not really pretzel logic. Its a very straightforward intent question. Whats the point of the taking? to make a point against the judge? to single him out? or to have economic development, blind to the transfer?
Is it really that hard to understand that the former are not allowed and the latter is?
“It has nothing to do with punishing him for his opinion and everything to do with complying with his authorization to do so.”
Well, you’re trying to make a point against him right? That’s what I mean by punishing him. Its not criminal punishment, no. but you understand what I mean. you’re picking on him for who he is and what he has done, not for his property.
“It’s all about the money and would be a 5x win situation.”
It could be all about the money. But then we would have to disbelieve people who say that there is a “point” being made here. That’s why I have a hard time imagining that it is all about the money
When you tell me about your museum idea, it gets closer to being about singling him out, than about pure economic development.
Actus, you’re spending WAY too much time in Moot Court.
“Actus, you’re spending WAY too much time in Moot Court. ”
Its all for the benefit of andy not going around sounding silly.
Actually, actus, it’s the state that cannot take the land as punishment. The motive of the person who gave them the idea, is immaterial in most states.
It’s common practice, esp in liberal (but not limited to) circles to file a case which has the sole purpose of challenging a law or a courts ruling.
The only way to get by a SCOTUS ruling is to get them to overturn it, or to get the legislature to create a new law or Constitutional ammendment to spell out clearly to the courts what is intended.
As citizens, our options are to put pressure on elected officials and/or work through the courts to reach the SCOTUS.
OR, we could be good little sheeple and just lie back and take it. Something that to me, is anathema to American character. I’d rather take a flawed action and risk losing than take no action, and ensure losing.
“Actually, actus, it’s the state that cannot take the land as punishment. The motive of the person who gave them the idea, is immaterial in most states.”
I think we can convince a court/jury that this singling out is motivating the state actor too. But its good that you recognize this motivation point.
“The only way to get by a SCOTUS ruling is to get them to overturn it, or to get the legislature to create a new law or Constitutional ammendment to spell out clearly to the courts what is intended.”
There’s several ways to mitigate Kelo. States and localities could not implement certain takings. Also, they could have their own “public use” requirements that are higher than Kelo, set by their own laws, courts, constitutions, referenda, etc . . .
This would stop all but federal takings.
#45 Raymond wrote, “Since when do leaders need others to “stand with them—
Since we are a democracy and the result could be being voted out of office due to their extremism and the people left in office might be even more illegal immigrant friendly than now.
If we were in a dictatorship you’d be right Raymond. There would be no consequences to their actions and they could do whatever they want to protect this country. But we need to solve the illegal immigration problem and YOU can’t do it if you can’t even get a handful of conservatives to agree with your position.
Either moderate or alienate people.
Raymond wrote, “Not YET anyway”
Not ever. I stand for the goal of stopping illegal immigration and as RedBeard said Congress needs to enforce the law. But I don’t think the solution to that goal is land mines and I NEVER will.
Actus: There’s several ways to mitigate Kelo. States and localities could not implement certain takings. Also, they could have their own “public use†requirements that are higher than Kelo, set by their own laws, courts, constitutions, referenda, etc . . .
Which is what I said. Our recourse is to get the legislators to … legislate around this ruling, to get the court to overturn.
And any state or local changes can and will be challenged in hopes of a higher court ruling in line with SCOTUS.
Baklava, for once I think actus is right: Raymond is either a plant, or he’s the type that thinks the Birch society are a bunch of pinko liberals. Or 12.
PRINCIPLED people do not fear being voted out of office. Nothing lower than a liberal than of course a fence-walking moderate!
Leaders should never worry about what “the middle” thinks and they should never be so worry about achieving consensus and making both sides feel good that they make a bad decision that ultimately falls way short of solving the problem.
The problem that you otherwise clear thinking people have with the land-minde issue is that I forced you to look at an absolute and effective solution to a problem. Due to your enculturation where liberalism has infected our collective psyche’s towards mot winning, you think there is always a win-win solution to a problem, well there is NOT! Sometimes you just have to solved the dadgum problem and then move on to the next one.
Rather than lose up to a half a million men in a proposed invasion of Japan, very smart men used COMMON SENSE and said NO! Why should our people suffer anymore. We were viciously attacked in this war. We are going to end it and world opinion be damned. WE DROPPED THE ATOMIC BOMB, KILLED SCORES OF THE ENEMY, THEY QUIT FIGHTING, THEY LOST , THEY SURRENDERED AND THE WAR WAS OVER!….Simple.
A leader doesn’t care what the status quo thinks IF he was elected to do the right thing in the name of the people. I don’t know where you guys live, but I live in Florida. I was born and raised in South Florida and ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION IS A PROBLEM! They don’t assimilate and the Miami Cubans (those of European descent) ARE DOWNRIGHT RACIST! They are not victims. I’d support Fidel Castro over those evil people any day. The only reason they are so angry with Castro is that he replaced their Bautista form of evil with his communistic brand and they lost power in the process. If you want an analogy to understand, the Miami Cubans in Little Havana and surrounding areas are Baathist Sunnis and Castro represent the Shiites. BOTH are evil.
To make this long story short, just because YOU don’t like my solution, ivalidates it in no way at some point if this problem is not solved, there will be an escalation in violence along the border. Then the troops will be sent in and …..you know the rest.
Anti-personnel mines would solve the problem for a fraction of the price and stop illegal immigration COLD! Only one or two criminals would have to lose a leg or foot or life for the rest to get the word and pass it around.
So quit with your moral highgrounding. My solution would work, you know it and you just can’t stomach the implementation. A sign of weakness and being UNFIT for leadership if youask me.
Raymond wrote, “PRINCIPLED people do not fear being voted out of office”
I’m not talking about fear. I’m talking about not achieving your goal. Failing to acheive your goal. Failing to move the country in the right direction. Failing. Failing. Failing.
Thing about what your GOAL is Raymond. Think about what solutions you were offering again. See who would even consider your ideas and who might walk away from you. Then think would you achieve your goal or fail. I’m 100% certain you would fail.
So. then. You go back and look at your goal and come up with different solutions or keep arguing with us. I have the same goal. No illegal immigrants. Period. You will ruin my goal, Andy’s goal, SCSI’s goal, La Shawn’s goal with your rhetoric. So. then. I wonder if it really is your goal. I asked you to state your intention above and you failed that also (because you didn’t).
Raymond wrote, “My solution would work, you know it and you just can’t stomach the implementation.”
It’s not just me Raymond. It’s way more than half the conservatives I believe. What would be the consequences Raymond. That’s all I ask you to look at. Me thinks you are a liberal because it is a liberal tendency to not look at the RESULTS of the implemented POLICY and implement policies based on EMOTION without analyzing HISTORY or FACTS.
SCSI, I believe you are right.
Baklava. AGAIN, you worry about whom would walk away from us? That question begs me to ask who the heck is with us now man?
We have to stop worrying about what other people think of us UNTIL we get our house in order.
If a burglar breaks into my house and I bust a cap in his culo, I could care less what Mrs. Kravitz across the street thinks of my actions. Geesh! What is so hard for you to understand here? it appears to me that you have bought into that Princess Diana crap about land mines being inhumane.
Land mines rarely fail and I dare you to tell other than MAYBE on a policy or image front (which we have never won at any point in our history) how a blanket of anti-personnel mines would NOT stop an invasion of people on foot racing across our borders?
My GOAL is simply to stop hordes of CRIMINALS from invading MY house (country).
Raymond wrote, “Baklava. AGAIN, you worry about whom would walk away from us?”
No. I worry about acheiving the goal. A goal I want to realize which won’t be realized with your solution.
What is your intention?
Don’t go there friend. Just because you lose an argument does not in anyway mean you need to insult me by calling me a liberal. Call me the “N” word before ever calling me that.
Sorry Bak. English is the only language I know how to write in.
Raymond wrote, “Just because you lose an argument does not in anyway mean you need to insult me by calling me a liberal.”
Nobody’s siding with you on your solution and I’m losing?
I question your intentions for good reason. Your solution would end up with the results of whoever implemented the solution being removed from office and the problem in the next few years would be WORSE. Your solution would make things WORSE. It would fail Raymond. That’s why I question your intentions. As did others.
With every solution there needs to be an implementer. With every implementer in a Representative Republlic is accountability. With accountability would be the RESULT of the goal not being achieved if the solution is such that people can’t support it.
Please read that 100 times until you get it. I’m done. You either moderate or alienate and I’ve tried all I can do to help you realize you need to think of way different solutions to achieve the GOAL.
Others? As in a couple of you on this website my good man.
The man who has the courage to do this COULD be removed from office, but my EDUCATED guess is that he would be come a national hero. I don’t think President Tom Tancredo ad Vice-President Simcox would suffer.
the fact that you keep asking the same question as to what my goal is leads me to believe you have problems with absolutes, truths, facts and real solutions to real problems. don’t fret, that just puts you under the fat part of the bell curve where most shallow thinking occurs. You see, successful passing of the test is not in how nuanced you can be, but how robust and sensible your answer to a stated problem is.
Your present thought pattern reminds me of when you ask a woman to tell you what happened as opposed to what you receive when you ask a man. You want the cutesy, fluffy, cover-every-detail discussion as more and more of them run across your lawn. I on the other hand only want to know what pattern the mines will be laid out in and have the cards been accurately drawn.
I know this solution sounds radical to those used to exisiting in a state of “analysis paralysis,” but to me it is as easy as nuking two cities in Hirohito’s Japan.
I bet you are one of the people who thought that Marine shooting that “dead” terrorist in the mosque in Iraq went to far.
Accountability for stopping the flow of MILLIONS OF ILLEGAL ALIENS from sweeping across the border.
Accountability for stopping the raping of our ressources and the tax payers who provide them?
Accountability for stopping cold the crime they cause?
I ACCEPT being held accountable.
Sincerely,
President Tom Tancredo
Raymond wrote, “I don’t think President Tom Tancredo ad Vice-President Simcox would suffer.”
Tom Tancredo isn’t mentioning the solution you recommend. Tom is a great American who understands the issue and is gaining support. HE will be SUCCESSFUL. You’re solution would FAIL.
My solution would NOT fail. I will grant you that the selling of that solution and the public backlash from the sheeple could doom it, but the solution itself would no more fail than a faulty electric chair in ultimately stopping a beating heart.
How would you feel about tying the our policy of another terrorist attack on American soil to the MOABing or conventianal bomb destruction of Mecca?
Is that one too rich for your blood too?
Hey Baklava,
Looks like you are wrong (as I knew your were). Do a search with the terms “land mines, border, Mexico” and you will see that I am NOT the only person who has entertained this great idea.
Raymond offers the peace pipe
I see your points Baklava and sincerely don’t think anyone would entertain the land mines idea, BUT I don’t see anything wrong with the debate.
I apologize for tweaking you today. Your points are valid. I just love a good “fight.”
Truce?
Raymond wrote, “I will grant you that the selling of that solution and the public backlash from the sheeple could doom it,”
The conservatives I know couldn’t be characterized as sheeple.
Raymond asked, “How would you feel about tying the our policy of another terrorist attack on American soil to the MOABing or conventianal bomb destruction of Mecca?”
It depends on how large the terrorist attack was.
Raymond wrote, “Looks like you are wrong (as I knew your were). Do a search with the terms “land mines, border, Mexico†and you will see that I am NOT the only person who has entertained this great idea.”
Which post did I claim you were the only person who has entertained this idea? You have to be a liberal as your Reading Comprehension is as bad as Actus.
oh nooooooo. Not the old proportionality thing.
As for conservatives NOT being sheeple? Hmmmmmmm. I don’t know, BUT I am glad you said conservative and not Republican.
Their is a fallacy named after your battle style. I’ll have to go back to my Critical Thinking notes. It is one of those latin names. LOL!!
We’ve both used some Ad hominem. You have used quite a bit of amphiboly mixed in with a little straw man. The application of non-sequitur also did a bit of damage to the discourse.
No need to respond to this. I am just being a smart you know what.
Raymond wrote, “oh nooooooo. Not the old proportionality thing.”
Yep. If a terrorist attack kills one person there would be no way that 90% of anyone would be in favor of a MOAB (which incinerates anything in a 6 football field range) unless it was just plants in that area.
But if their evil penetrates to the extent that they kill a million of us, we would need to do more than just one MOAB.
There is a hundred ways to reach the goal of no illegal immigrants and you just would not succeed with the goal with your solution. You would alienate people, more liberals would be in power because anyone associated with that person who implemented such a solution would probably be conservatives would be defeated politically. That would be moving in the wrong direction.
Who sad 90% of you had to be in agreement. You and I are DEFINITLEY cut from a different cloth my brother. I am more from the Sean Connery in the “Untouchables” school. They kill one American and we take out a city. We work down from there, but you’d better have a convincing argument as to why I shouldn’take out a city. I admire the Israelis for at least erasing the houses and sometimes city block that terrorists hail from NO MATTER WHO STILL LIVES THERE!
On a serious note, do you need approval from other for EVERYTHING you do. Just curious. You sound like you would admire RINOS like McCain, Specter, Collins, Chafee and Snowe.
You make a lot of assumptions about what the people would and wouldn’t accept. We have already more than proven that conservatives win ONLY when they run on a conservative platform and get re-elected ONLY when they implement the conservative will of the people.
I guess you haven’t been paying attention to the FACT that the President’s poll numbers go up when there are reports of enemy dead and a list of THEIR body counts and his numbers go down when the reports only show our boys dying.
IF your premise were solid, then President Bush should have been SOUNDLY defeated for attacking Iraq and he instead received the most votes of any President in US HISTORY!
I remember a joke from a few years back:
Question: What’s flat, black, oily, and glows in the dark?
Answer: Iraq, when we get done with it.
It’s a good joke. Extreme exaggeration sometimes makes good humor. Taken as serious military policy, though, I somewhat doubt that nuking the place would have been anyone’s choice for ending the threat of Saddam’s Iraq.
Raymond, your notions lead down a path I do not feel America should tread. Rhetoric like yours lead to Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Russia. And Saddam’s Iraq.
“Question: What’s flat, black, oily, and glows in the dark?
Answer: Iraq, when we get done with it.”
And here i thought democracy and pretty flowers is what we was all about.
Ahhh… Actus, you wanna go back and read my post again? That loud swishing noise you heard was The Point sailing over your head.
Here’s a clue, from Merriam Webster:
Main Entry: JOKE
Pronunciation: ‘jOk
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin jocus; perhaps akin to Old High German gehan to say, Sanskrit yAcati he asks
1 a : something said or done to provoke laughter; especially : a brief oral narrative with a climactic humorous twist b (1) : the humorous or ridiculous element in something (2) : an instance of jesting : KIDDING c : PRACTICAL JOKE d : LAUGHINGSTOCK
2 : something not to be taken seriously : a trifling matter — often used in negative construction
SCSIwussy. WRONG! A sense of the loss of national pride created Hitler and Stalin. Their words simply scratched an itch. You guys have already said no one is listening to me so what is the worry.
We have however lost some national luster and pride due to EFFECTIVE liberal indoctrination and the whittling away of our freedoms by an untouchable black robed oligarchy and PLEASE quit with the “Durbinesque” comparisons of me and my exercising free speech to the left wing, socialist, maniacal rantigs of lunatics like Stalin and Hitler.
Geesh. Talk about extremes. Whenever someone doesn’t like an answer, the fall back is now comparing them to Hitler or other demons.
STOP IT!
Raymond, I fully agree with you about lost national pride, the nine untouchables, etc. A great many people do. You have a clear idea of what some of our national problems are today. It’s only your solution to the problem that has folks a bit on edge.
“That loud swishing noise you heard was The Point sailing over your head.”
WEll, I did say flowers, that was a joke too.
Redbeard: Believe you when I tell you. The border-protecting minefield was one of my milder solutions.
The problem with people who are used to just talking is that they are fine when they “THINK” they are working towards a good soulution. Invariably someone with common sense and a clear head who is able to see what the ACTUAL problem is as opposed to a few annoying symptoms and come with a quick, fresh, clean, simple solution.
The problem with doing that is it takes away theses pseudo-intellectuals ability to self-erotically bloviate and promote their own importance.
I have trust in simple solutions while others become paralyzed by the “what ifs.” In the mean time, the inaction exacerbates the problem and now you need an even MORE “radical” solution.
This is why I so abhor the RINOS in the Senate and cannot for the life of me picture a woman trying to lead this nation right now.
No, Raymond. Advocating the killing of outsiders to assuage national pride is EXACTLY what Hitler, Stalin and Saddam had done.
Pick up a history book.
Redbeard is right, in that you see the problem, but your solution (murder) is extreme.
WRONG again! Hitler nor Stalin started building their legends with talks of killing. They did however whip the faithful into a national frenzy with their patriotic rhetoric. This rhetoric based on bewitching charisma THEN lead to their ability as the “chosen ones” to have free reign as dictators. THUS, they were not questioned when they did ultimately call for the death and destruction of Germany’s and Russia’s enemies.
You also must understand even a broken clock is right twice a day and cleaning house (albeit not by a camaign of death and violence) is a good thing. For instance, Sandra Day O’Connor is stepping down. I am ECSTATIC TO SEE HER GO!!! I only wish she would take Ruth Bader-Ginsburg with her I know this sounds sexist and maybe even mysogynistic, but I find it hard to understand why any sane person would place women in positions like the Supreme Court where CLEAR, NON-EMOTIONAL, INTERPRETATION OF US CONSTITUTIONAL LAW IS REQUIRED. This feeling extends also to men who emote rather than think. I draw not distinctions there to be fair.
CLEANING HOUSE IS GOOD. Renquist is now a decrepit, old diseased lazy-thinker. Glad he is there to block the loonies, but he IS TOO OLD and TOO SICK to be making judgements that affect 250 million people’s lives.
CLEANING HOUSE IS GOOD. Blanket cleansings are often better. You can’t scrub just one room and then declare your house clean. Hitler and Stalin took it too far (as Marge Schott would say) when they allowed the new found patriotic pride turn into a maniacal, irrational fantacism based on fear. The bloodshed that followed was the wrong way to get it done, but I fully believe there is some merit to the Chinese Proverb: “Kill one. Control many.” Sometimes the game calls for fast, hard, balls and a STEEL bat.
SCSIwuzzy: You need to correct yourself. In NONE of these posts have I ever advocated murder.
If you are referring to the land-mines, you are being sophomoric and hyperbolic since you know as well as I do that land mines are DEFENSIVE, PASSIVE weapons and letting those entering the zone know they are there is HARDLY murder.
Come on now. Back to Earth.
Raymond wrote, “Redbeard: Believe you when I tell you. The border-protecting minefield was one of my milder solutions.”
I think I’ve established it aint a solution and you would be making the problem worse in a representative republic (read – democracy for those of you in rio linda) if whoever implemented said solution would be removed from office as expeditiously as possible. The problem doesn’t exist in a vacuum. The problem exists in a country with elected leaders who have accountability to us. Not to Raymond but to us.
If nobody agrees with you you can either moderate or alienate. My rhetoric is designed to make sure you don’t alienate others from Andy/RedBeard/My position and that we do work towards the goal. It seems as if you intend to alienate and work AWAY from the goal as you haven’t took time to understand our points (which is the trait of a liberal). I have a hardnose conservative (anarchist type almost) in my neighborhood and he at least listens and comes around to realizing that to reach the goal you have to have a SOLUTION that would reach the goal.
Raymond wrote, “cannot for the life of me picture a woman trying to lead this nation right now.”
We are glad you aren’t. You’d do so much damage that conservatives would have to work for 40 years denouncing you and making sure that everyone understood that you were a mistake to convince anyone that conservatives really aren’t of your cloth.
Firebreathing politicians and/or those perceived as nasty (insert Pat Buchanan or Bob Dole here) hardly ever win elections. If we want to increase the conservative majority, it has to be done with reason, not anger.
I’ll disagree with you on Bob Dole RedBeard.
He was a compromiser that dissappointed conservatives fairly often. Since he’s been out of office he has spoke a little more vociferously and I thought to myself “boy I wish he was that well spoken when he was in office”.
Raymond,
Landmines are tools of indescriminate killing. You know it, and choose to pretend otherwise. If they were just a passive defense, then why can’t you line the edge of your yard with them?
And I never said Hitler and Stalin started with talk of killings. That came later, but it came. If anything, you’re moving ahead of the pace they set. Luckily, you lack the spotlight or charisma of those ‘men’.
they allowed the new found patriotic pride turn into a maniacal, irrational fantacism based on fear. The bloodshed that followed was the wrong way to get it done, but I fully believe there is some merit to the Chinese Proverb: “Kill one. Control many.†Sometimes the game calls for fast, hard, balls and a STEEL bat.
So, that ISN’T supporting deaths for the simple crime of being a foreigner without papers? And to you the problem with Hitler was that he let himself and his followers get a little out of hand?
As for sophmoric, rhetorical or hyperbole, you need to calm down son, and read your own posts.
You have got to be either a plant or a complete whackjob.
Redbeard, I don’t want to increase the numberical majority of the Republican Party with RINOS. It is not about winning elections. It is about being RIGHT!
Being right and being principled often means standing alone and it often means standing out and looking crazy (e.g. The BRILLIANT Alan Keyes.)
Increasing the conservative majority WILL NOT be accomplished by watering down conservatism and making “wannabe” conservatives comfortable and cozy.
We don’t hand out cookies and milk to attract new members, we speak on that which is right and true and then YOU decide if you can handle it. If we just wanted to increase the numbers, we could continue to just become “Democrats Light” and thusly appeal to the middle of the bell curve infected with weak minds like Specter, Mccain, Collins, Snowe, Voinovich and Chafee
Landmines are tools of indiscriminate killing ONLY WHEN THE INTRUDERS DO NOT KNOW THEY ARE THERE!!!! The reason you can’t line your yard with them is because unlike federal laws governing the use of deadly force, I can’t shoot a Mexican illegal who is already in the country, but I CAN SHOOT a person who has crossed into my lawn and into my house.! Once in my house, I can apply deadly force.
I have CLEARLY stated, that the fields would be labelled as well as the consequences for trying to navigate throught them. You’re sounding like Actus now.
Indiscriminate killing is a term used to describe the ACTIVE and DELIBERATE application of deadly force on targets PURPOSELY SELECTED for their availability as opposed to their value as legitimate targets AND YOU KNOW THIS!
As for working for 40 years to repair the damage I would do? The GOP has been working for about 45 years to repair the supposed “damage” Sen. Joseph McCarthy inflicted, but lo and behold, the man has been proven 1000% correct over and over and over again ya dig?
Raymond wrote, “It is not about winning elections.”
No. It’s not. But if your message doesn’t attact anyone (in fact alienates people) the goal won’t be achieved. At all. In fact the opposite will be achived.
Raymond wrote, “It is about being RIGHT!”
We have been telling you also that it’s not right to blow up people for simply trying to migrate here illegally. There are 100 other ways to take care of illegal immigrants.
Raymond wrote, “Increasing the conservative majority WILL NOT be accomplished by watering down conservatism”
How is it watering down conservativism to NOT allow illegal immigrants with 100 other solutions besides blowing people up with land mines? The word NOT is capitalized because it is a strong conviction. Your solution is the problem not our conviction.
Raymond wrote, “We don’t hand out cookies and milk to attract new members, we speak on that which is right and true and then YOU decide if you can handle it.”
What is right and true is to talk about illegal immigration as the problem that needs to be solved. We need to protect our national security. Solutions to the problem are many but your solution would create more problems and then not even acheive the goal as we would lose in our system of democracy.
Raymond wrote, “I have CLEARLY stated, that the fields would be labelled”
In what language Raymond?
Raymond wrote, “As for working for 40 years to repair the damage I would do? The GOP has been working for about 45 years to repair the supposed “damage†Sen. Joseph McCarthy inflicted, but lo and behold, the man has been proven 1000% correct over and over and over again ya dig?”
And your solution would be even harder to dig out of politically. It would be 100 year rule for the opposition party of the party that implemented your solution.
Luckily, I don’t see any dingbats offering the solution so we don’t have to worry about digging ourselves out for 100 years.
Tom Tancredo is a great American and he is responsible and has been talking about the problem for years with excellent solutions that he has been offering. I would love to see the Congress move forward with any one of Tom’s proposed solutions. They would be productive, fruitful and would not cause adverse reactions, damage to the party, damage to our country, or damage to people (no deaths).
We should do everything we can to move this conversation forward to what Tom wants to do and away from what Raybo wants to do.
I vote that we simply ignore Raymond except for one sentence statements once in a while to make sure the left doesn’t think we agree with him on this thread.
Bak,
Think we will do better ignoring him than we have with actus?
Maybe just a generic disclamer about Raymond being a citizen of a flat world where the sky is not blue. Maybe supported on the back or a turtle.
Flat-earth advocate: “The earth is flat and rests upon the back of a giant turtle.”
Interviewer: “But what is under the giant turtle?”
Flat-earther: “For your information, Mr. Smarty, it’s turtles all the way down.”
So there.
Gamera?
SCSI asked, “Bak,
Think we will do better ignoring him than we have with actus?”
Honestly SCSI, I haven’t tried to ignore Actus. But I think I will with Raymond.
The funny thing about Actus is that he doesn’t ever really say anything. He doesn’t ever state what he is for/against or what his ideas/suggestions are. I’ve reviewed his comments on many other sites besides this one and they never go past a few sentences (usually) and they are pretty clever little sayings but they miss the point and are really harmless as there aren’t any positions of his where he’s advocating much of anything. Boy, I could’ve said all that in much less words. …
Raymond, I didn’t want to do this publicy, but the e-mail warning didn’t seem to work. You’re going too far. And your forgetting that this blog is my forum, not yours. If you want to berate other commenters and say whatever pops into your head, you’ll have to start your own blog. That way, you can say (mostly) whatever you want. – Admin
Baklava said “What is right and true is to talk about illegal immigration as the problem that needs to be solved.”
Notice his methodolgy for solving a problemand in his own words is to “TALK” about it.
Typical. Talk about exposing oneself. Furthermore if you don’t think anyone besides me is putting forth my solution, then you sepend too much time in your own microcosm of arrogance. IF you had the courage to step away from your “adoring” fans for a second or two per day, you would see that your assertion is wholey false.
By the way, your trusted, smarter than Raymond and most honorable elected officials just voted themselves a pay raise while you TALKED!
Again, this is not the sort of thing I want to see on my blog, unless it’s coming from me and directed toward a politician. – Admin
Raymond, Raymond, Raymond. I truly sympathize with your underlying sentiment that something — actually, a series of things — has to be done about the illegal border-crossing, as I’m sure most of the others here. On some issues, I even entertain a ‘kill ‘em all, let God sort ‘em out’ mentality, but this isn’t one of them.
Simply put, there are many things we have yet to implement that would go a long ways towards de-incentivetize the compelling urges to sneak across the border. If and when we do that, I have no doubt that the only ones crossing illegally will be those with criminal/terrorist intent once they get accross. That is why I’m against beefing up the borders, which is only a band-aid solution and an expensive one at that.
Now having taken the economic illegals out of the equation, if we are left with a high rate of criminals and terrorists sneaking across the border, then laying minefields MIGHT be something to talk about. However, even then, I would still lean towards a method that would allow us to catch them alive so we can find out what their plans were — dead folks telling no tales et al.
I just got back from another roadtrip. In the hotel, I got to watch a little FNC, MSNBC & CNBC. I believe it was on Hannity & Colmes that they had a segment on the minutemen videotaping an illegal coming accross wearing a skimask. They were up on a bridge and this illegal brazenly ran right under their noses into the culvert. After a few minutes, he came out took a peek up on the road and ran back down.
Unfortunately for him, Border Patrol was parked on the shoulder just a ways off and the two agents saw him and ran down to get him. Well, when they did so, out came a bunch of other illegals that were hiding under the bridge unbeknownst to even the Minutemen.
Now this segment amply illustrates why mining the border is unrealistic. That road is only yards (perhaps 20 yards) away from the border. To mine the border, just how much of a deadman’s zone are you expecting?
One mile? If so, you’re talking about the Federal government aquiring 4,000 – 5,000 square miles, some of it already owned by the public, some are private property (Emminent Domain). And in the case of roads and other existing infrastructure, ie border towns/cities, you’re talking about the massive cost of relocating them to accomodate the DZ. Take El Paso, TX, are you going to move a whole city and suburbs back a mile so you can plant a minefield? Is it worth it?
Going back to that Minutemen video, if we don’t do the set-back, imagine the uproar over an innocent American inadvertantly stepping on a mine while taking a roadside leak. Better yet, imagine a family traveling and having an accident where they ran off the road into the minefield. What would have been a surviveable accident now is a deadly accident. At what price is the loss of a family to prevent a handful of criminals/terrorists worth it? Something to think about.
Just because some of us think that mining the border is too extreme doesn’t mean that we’re lily-livered. And as repeatedly pointed out before, there is a host of measures that we should implement before even considering your final solution.
Speaking of final solutions. Back in the 90s I’ve had the privelege of spending a few years of taking care of my grandmother. I got to pick her mind on many topics from Buddhism to Christianity and why she chose Buddha over Jesus; we talked about her perspective on WWI, WWII and the Cold War. With regards to Hitler, she was for him while my grandfather was against him. Over his objections, she eagerly joined the Nazi party. To her credit, she was never ’sheeple’ and with my deaf mother in tow and pregnant with my aunt, she walked into the party HQ in Berlin, fully expecting to be disappeared for wanting to quit the party. For more reasons than I can relate, your idea would indeed lead us down a totaltarian road.
With all that in mind, let’s talk about how best to solve the illegal immigration issue then do it, and leave the pointless rhetoric of mining the borders off the table.
Amazing. You did a great job of trying to explain why the idea would not work. Using the lazy-minded hypothetical approach.
Andy, you know as well as I do that both of us could come up with lists of hypotehtical situatuations all day long.
Imagine if people put predjudices aside and used that same brilliance to come up with a way how it WOULD work. There are always people in the room who could criticize an idea. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could have more people who see an opportunity and make it happen.
Like the Democrats summarily dismiss private accounts as a bad idea before they discuss a solution, you are doing the same in summarily dismissing the minefiled idea without giving any real thought as to how it could work.
Answer me this, how were the Soviets able to keep people from running across their borders during the Cold War. A border that was about 5 times as long as ours and twice as remote. The argument that no one was trying to enter is invalid.
HINT: Minefields WEERE a part of a comprehensive solution that involved FORCE!
Amd you know for a fact that the Russian border was mined to keep out intruders? I seem to recall our SF boys routinely going out on ‘excursions’ with impunity thruout the Warsaw Pact. Also seems that minefields didn’t do a good job of keeping the Chinese from poaching and prospecting for gold across the Russian border.
“Imagine if people put predjudices aside and used that same brilliance to come up with a way how it WOULD work.”
So, I’ve summarily dismissed the minefield without giving any real thot to how it would work? How so? I didn’t give you hypotheticals, I gave you real world scenarios. In fact, I wonder if you’ve ever been across the border, let alone traveled a ways alongside it.
I gave you 3 solid reasons why we should consider the unintended consequences. I’ll give you 3 reasons why it’s DUMB, dumb on many levels:
1) mines are no respector of person/thing, they’d just as soon blow up a illegal, BP agent, armadillo, a snake or cook off in a brush fire. With all of our smart-tech, we’re going to settle for the equivalent of a WWII dumb bomb?
2) who’s going to maintain the field? We certainly wouldn’t leave them out there forever. And before you say, that’s easy because we’ll have a map, then what happens when those coordinates get leaked?
3) finally, but most importantly, to use them is to say we’ve run out of ideas. You have yet to discuss ANY idea to remove incentives that motivate a majority of the illegals to cross the border.
On any other topic, you’re capable of coming up with some note-worthy or even thot-provoking comments. Minefields are a bad idea, I don’t care even if a super-majority of American sheeple are in favor of it. Do us a favor and drop it.
Comments on this entry are closed.