Page 144 of 271

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2019 5:34 pm
by Fartsniffage
The Rich Port wrote:
Vassenor wrote:
Because legally the party cannot do that.


... But they have fundraisers all the time.

What would be the best way to have a legitimate fund?


Propose a tax increase to fund the wall.

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2019 5:37 pm
by Vassenor
The Rich Port wrote:
Vassenor wrote:
Because legally the party cannot do that.


... But they have fundraisers all the time.

What would be the best way to have a legitimate fund?


Not for actual public works projects that are supposed to be funded by the government.

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2019 5:39 pm
by Telconi
Vassenor wrote:
The Rich Port wrote:
... But they have fundraisers all the time.

What would be the best way to have a legitimate fund?


Not for actual public works projects that are supposed to be funded by the government.


That's silly.

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2019 5:42 pm
by Vassenor
Telconi wrote:
Vassenor wrote:
Not for actual public works projects that are supposed to be funded by the government.


That's silly.


Yes, how dare there be actual checks and balances to stop Trump bypassing the government to get his useless white elephant of a monument funded.

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2019 5:43 pm
by Brittany Normandy Aquitaine
quickly imma say build the wall, a majority of people able to illegally enter and commit crimes and/or try to live here is through the border, the wall will stop any land illegal immigration, and people coming in by seas and planes is unlikely, you expect a plane to land far from civilization and then for them to track some sort of town/city and try to blend in, and that is without the plane crashing rather than landing? i'd think not, but yeah build the wall, deal with illegal immigration.

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2019 5:45 pm
by Telconi
Vassenor wrote:
Telconi wrote:
That's silly.


Yes, how dare there be actual checks and balances to stop Trump bypassing the government to get his useless white elephant of a monument funded.


Other people can't spend their money on stuff you don't like?

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2019 5:45 pm
by The Rich Port
Vassenor wrote:
Telconi wrote:
That's silly.


Yes, how dare there be actual checks and balances to stop Trump bypassing the government to get his useless white elephant of a monument funded.


Granted, I would be all for the burden of this fucking stupid-ass wall falling squarely on the people who think it's a good idea.

Telconi wrote:
Vassenor wrote:
Not for actual public works projects that are supposed to be funded by the government.


That's silly.


Yeah it's silly to shutdown the government over a shitty wall that doesn't work, but here we fucking are.

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2019 5:45 pm
by Fartsniffage
Brittany Normandy Aquitaine wrote:quickly imma say build the wall, a majority of people able to illegally enter and commit crimes and/or try to live here is through the border, the wall will stop any land illegal immigration, and people coming in by seas and planes is unlikely, you expect a plane to land far from civilization and then for them to track some sort of town/city and try to blend in, and that is without the plane crashing rather than landing? i'd think not, but yeah build the wall, deal with illegal immigration.


Yes, I'm sure an obstacle that takes a few minutes to climb over will stop the kind of people who are willing to ford a fucking river in the freezing night to get to the US....

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2019 5:46 pm
by Telconi
The Rich Port wrote:
Vassenor wrote:
Yes, how dare there be actual checks and balances to stop Trump bypassing the government to get his useless white elephant of a monument funded.


Granted, I would be all for the burden of this fucking stupid-ass wall falling squarely on the people who think it's a good idea.

Telconi wrote:
That's silly.


Yeah it's silly to shutdown the government over a shitty wall that doesn't work, but here we fucking are.


Yes, I'm aware of where we are, thanks for checking in...

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2019 5:47 pm
by Telconi
Fartsniffage wrote:
Brittany Normandy Aquitaine wrote:quickly imma say build the wall, a majority of people able to illegally enter and commit crimes and/or try to live here is through the border, the wall will stop any land illegal immigration, and people coming in by seas and planes is unlikely, you expect a plane to land far from civilization and then for them to track some sort of town/city and try to blend in, and that is without the plane crashing rather than landing? i'd think not, but yeah build the wall, deal with illegal immigration.


Yes, I'm sure an obstacle that takes a few minutes to climb over will stop the kind of people who are willing to ford a fucking river in the freezing night to get to the US....


Which is a problem isn't it, there is no relative deterrence.

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2019 5:47 pm
by Vassenor
Brittany Normandy Aquitaine wrote:quickly imma say build the wall, a majority of people able to illegally enter and commit crimes and/or try to live here is through the border, the wall will stop any land illegal immigration, and people coming in by seas and planes is unlikely, you expect a plane to land far from civilization and then for them to track some sort of town/city and try to blend in, and that is without the plane crashing rather than landing? i'd think not, but yeah build the wall, deal with illegal immigration.


We already know that the current design of the wall is incredibly easy to breach.

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2019 5:49 pm
by The Rich Port
Telconi wrote:
The Rich Port wrote:
Granted, I would be all for the burden of this fucking stupid-ass wall falling squarely on the people who think it's a good idea.



Yeah it's silly to shutdown the government over a shitty wall that doesn't work, but here we fucking are.


Yes, I'm aware of where we are, thanks for checking in...


Coulda fucking fooled me.

Fartsniffage wrote:
Brittany Normandy Aquitaine wrote:quickly imma say build the wall, a majority of people able to illegally enter and commit crimes and/or try to live here is through the border, the wall will stop any land illegal immigration, and people coming in by seas and planes is unlikely, you expect a plane to land far from civilization and then for them to track some sort of town/city and try to blend in, and that is without the plane crashing rather than landing? i'd think not, but yeah build the wall, deal with illegal immigration.


Yes, I'm sure an obstacle that takes a few minutes to climb over will stop the kind of people who are willing to ford a fucking river in the freezing night to get to the US....


Or the majority of them, which come to the U.S. legally on comfy boats and planes and overstay their work visas.

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2019 5:50 pm
by Telconi
The Rich Port wrote:
Telconi wrote:
Yes, I'm aware of where we are, thanks for checking in...


Coulda fucking fooled me.

Fartsniffage wrote:
Yes, I'm sure an obstacle that takes a few minutes to climb over will stop the kind of people who are willing to ford a fucking river in the freezing night to get to the US....


Or the majority of them, which come to the U.S. legally on comfy boats and planes and overstay their work visas.


Indeed...

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2019 5:51 pm
by Kannap
Brittany Normandy Aquitaine wrote:quickly imma say build the wall, a majority of people able to illegally enter and commit crimes and/or try to live here is through the border, the wall will stop any land illegal immigration, and people coming in by seas and planes is unlikely, you expect a plane to land far from civilization and then for them to track some sort of town/city and try to blend in, and that is without the plane crashing rather than landing? i'd think not, but yeah build the wall, deal with illegal immigration.


The majority of illegal immigrants enter legally through border checkpoints or airplanes into airports and then they overstay their visas, but sure, a wall will stop them.

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2019 5:52 pm
by Kannap
Telconi wrote:
Fartsniffage wrote:
Yes, I'm sure an obstacle that takes a few minutes to climb over will stop the kind of people who are willing to ford a fucking river in the freezing night to get to the US....


Which is a problem isn't it, there is no relative deterrence.


Was this the thread that exploded into a huge debacle about whether the army should shoot people attacking the wall or was that another thread?

Is it time for round two?

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2019 5:53 pm
by Fartsniffage
Telconi wrote:
Fartsniffage wrote:
Yes, I'm sure an obstacle that takes a few minutes to climb over will stop the kind of people who are willing to ford a fucking river in the freezing night to get to the US....


Which is a problem isn't it, there is no relative deterrence.


I mean, a few hundred each year die just trying to cross the boarder. That's kinda a deterrence.

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2019 5:54 pm
by The Rich Port
Telconi wrote:
Fartsniffage wrote:
Yes, I'm sure an obstacle that takes a few minutes to climb over will stop the kind of people who are willing to ford a fucking river in the freezing night to get to the US....


Which is a problem isn't it, there is no relative deterrence.


No, that's not the problem at all. The problem is that ignorant people think there needs to be deterrence in the first place.

Granted, I'm not one for letting dangerous criminals in, but they're a MINORITY of the people coming in. We SHOULD NOT be spending this much money keeping out innocent civilians who are just looking for a better life.

So instead of admitting that's the problem, you and people like you lie about it.

So I take it you're not aware, then?

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2019 5:55 pm
by Telconi
Fartsniffage wrote:
Telconi wrote:
Which is a problem isn't it, there is no relative deterrence.


I mean, a few hundred each year die just trying to cross the boarder. That's kinda a deterrence.


But it isn't a relative one.

Relative deterrence is like having a dog, If I have a big ol' loud dog, a burglar is more likely to pass on my house to attempt to burgle a house without a big ol' mean dog.

This doesn't work with something like border protection, a migrant cannot pass on to the other United States next door that doesn't have a wall. Therefore, he'll continue attempting to enter.

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2019 5:57 pm
by Telconi
The Rich Port wrote:
Telconi wrote:
Which is a problem isn't it, there is no relative deterrence.


No, that's not the problem at all. The problem is that ignorant people think there needs to be deterrence in the first place.

Granted, I'm not one for letting dangerous criminals in, but they're a MINORITY of the people coming in. We SHOULD NOT be spending this much money keeping out innocent civilians who are just looking for a better life.

So instead of admitting that's the problem, you and people like you lie about it.

So I take it you're not aware, then?


I must have missed that part, perhaps on account of being an invention created in your head.

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2019 5:59 pm
by Fartsniffage
Telconi wrote:
Fartsniffage wrote:
I mean, a few hundred each year die just trying to cross the boarder. That's kinda a deterrence.


But it isn't a relative one.

Relative deterrence is like having a dog, If I have a big ol' loud dog, a burglar is more likely to pass on my house to attempt to burgle a house without a big ol' mean dog.

This doesn't work with something like border protection, a migrant cannot pass on to the other United States next door that doesn't have a wall. Therefore, he'll continue attempting to enter.


A where does this chain of logic take you?

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2019 6:00 pm
by New haven america
Fartsniffage wrote:
Telconi wrote:
But it isn't a relative one.

Relative deterrence is like having a dog, If I have a big ol' loud dog, a burglar is more likely to pass on my house to attempt to burgle a house without a big ol' mean dog.

This doesn't work with something like border protection, a migrant cannot pass on to the other United States next door that doesn't have a wall. Therefore, he'll continue attempting to enter.


A where does this chain of logic take you?

>Implying the chain of logic actually makes some semblance of sense

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2019 6:00 pm
by The Rich Port
Telconi wrote:
Fartsniffage wrote:
I mean, a few hundred each year die just trying to cross the boarder. That's kinda a deterrence.


But it isn't a relative one.

Relative deterrence is like having a dog, If I have a big ol' loud dog, a burglar is more likely to pass on my house to attempt to burgle a house without a big ol' mean dog.

This doesn't work with something like border protection, a migrant cannot pass on to the other United States next door that doesn't have a wall. Therefore, he'll continue attempting to enter.


You need to stop taking rhetoric analogy notes from Donald Trump.

Border Patrol has K9 units, so. :roll:

https://www.cbp.gov/border-security/alo ... ciplines-2

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2019 6:01 pm
by Telconi
Fartsniffage wrote:
Telconi wrote:
But it isn't a relative one.

Relative deterrence is like having a dog, If I have a big ol' loud dog, a burglar is more likely to pass on my house to attempt to burgle a house without a big ol' mean dog.

This doesn't work with something like border protection, a migrant cannot pass on to the other United States next door that doesn't have a wall. Therefore, he'll continue attempting to enter.


A where does this chain of logic take you?


Right back to your original post in which I quoted, that's generally how agreement functions.

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2019 6:02 pm
by New haven america
Telconi wrote:
Fartsniffage wrote:
I mean, a few hundred each year die just trying to cross the boarder. That's kinda a deterrence.


But it isn't a relative one.

Relative deterrence is like having a dog, If I have a big ol' loud dog, a burglar is more likely to pass on my house to attempt to burgle a house without a big ol' mean dog.

This doesn't work with something like border protection, a migrant cannot pass on to the other United States next door that doesn't have a wall. Therefore, he'll continue attempting to enter.

Border patrol has K9 units, deary.

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2019 6:03 pm
by Telconi
The Rich Port wrote:
Telconi wrote:
But it isn't a relative one.

Relative deterrence is like having a dog, If I have a big ol' loud dog, a burglar is more likely to pass on my house to attempt to burgle a house without a big ol' mean dog.

This doesn't work with something like border protection, a migrant cannot pass on to the other United States next door that doesn't have a wall. Therefore, he'll continue attempting to enter.


You need to stop taking rhetoric analogy notes from Donald Trump.

Border Patrol has K9 units, so. :roll:

https://www.cbp.gov/border-security/alo ... ciplines-2


And this is relevant how?