Why is Building the Wall Wrong?

[Lesh]

Build the Slat Fence !

Build the Slat Fence !

Build the Slat Fence !

 

[Lesh]

Because front doors and gated communities are likewise immoral. Anyone who has a front door hates everyone outside their house, especially if they ever lock it. If they were truly humane, they would have an "open door" policy. People in gated communities are even more immoral, obviously.

Israel's West Bank border wall has worked remarkably well. That's the problem. Liberals know the wall would drastically curtail the flow of illegal immigrants.

Because building walls is the province of private property owners, not government.

That is a point well taken. If the wall must be built on private property, it then calls into question how far we will go in allowing the government to abuse eminent domain abuse. BTW, BEFORE 9 / 11 the same people worrying about a wall were worried about government over-reach with eminent domain abuse. Times change.

It has nothing to do with "how far we will go" it has to do with legality. The Supreme court ruled (a few years back) that eminent domain even applies to private companies wishing to make improvements to an area. In other words, being able to buy structures and evicting people out of them to tear those homes down and build new ones.

That's what you get when you have a "conservative" (corporatist) SCOTUS

I'm curious about your usage of corporatist. What definition? It's a word that get equivocated on a lot.

It's pretty simple. These "conservatives" will always rule in favor of corporations over people...in fact they think corporations should have the same rights as citizens

Eminent Domain

CItizens United...and on and on

 

[dblack]

Because building walls is the province of private property owners, not government.

That is a point well taken. If the wall must be built on private property, it then calls into question how far we will go in allowing the government to abuse eminent domain abuse. BTW, BEFORE 9 / 11 the same people worrying about a wall were worried about government over-reach with eminent domain abuse. Times change.

It has nothing to do with "how far we will go" it has to do with legality. The Supreme court ruled (a few years back) that eminent domain even applies to private companies wishing to make improvements to an area. In other words, being able to buy structures and evicting people out of them to tear those homes down and build new ones.

That's what you get when you have a "conservative" (corporatist) SCOTUS

I'm curious about your usage of corporatist. What definition? It's a word that get equivocated on a lot.

It's pretty simple. These "conservatives" will always rule in favor of corporations over people...in fact they think corporations should have the same rights as citizens

Eminent Domain

CItizens United...and on and on

Ok. Just checking. For what it's worth, that's not what I mean when I use the term. And if you hear folks like Ron Paul, or other libertarians, using the term, it's not referring to what you cited. Here's what I'm referring to: Corporatism - Wikipedia. It's essentially "special interest politics", where one's rights and power in society depend on what interest group they belong to.

 

[Flopper]

Back on topic...
We should be building barriers with new technologies such as drones, electronic monitoring, smart fencing. Walls were great 5,000 years ago but they will be no match for the technologies of the future.

So what's wrong with a wall AND technology?

When you build a wall it will be there for a hundred years.

Why do you think the Democrats are so scared to death of a wall they are even willing to shutdown the government?

Yes, we could add technology to the cost of the wall and we it could be upgraded as new technology becomes available but adding 5 feet to the top or the foundation of a 1000 mile wall is another story.

My point is that we are not living in stagnation. More Mexicans are returning to Mexico than arriving. This trend started over 10 years ago and seems to be accelerating. The problems in the northern triangle are responsible for the large number of Central Americans arriving in the US. There have been proposals from both sides to increase aid and provide US personal to assist in clearing out the drug cartels and gangs that have made life a living hell for the people. Lastly, immigration reform is far from dead. It can't happen with Republican control of government but certain can and will happen with Democrat control. Even if democrats only control one House of congress, we can still get immigration reform because many republicans agree with democrats on a number of immigration issues. These changes will dramatically reduce illegal immigration without spending tens of billions of dollars on a wall, taking property away from hundreds of land owners, destruction of a fragile environment, and a sending a message to the world that the United States seeks to isolate itself by hiding behind a wall.

It is not the wall democrats fear. It is what it represents, isolationism and the victory of hate and racism over reason.

So they have you brainwashed too.......a damn shame.

Racism is what Democrats have used for many years to get their way. It has nothing to do with racism. This isn't a race issue. If it were Canadians or Europeans attacking our country, we would feel the same way. We don't need more uneducated diseased unskilled people in our country no matter who they are.

And what immigration reform do we need? There is nothing wrong with our immigration system now. Do you know what immigration reform means? It means surrendering to those who can't easily get in now.

Uneducated, diseased, unskilled people, is this how you see immigrants to the US? If so, I feel sorry for you because you are delusional.

Just because these people are poor does not mean they are uneducated, diseased, and unskilled. Many of these people are skilled and can be an asset to the country. Plus many of them have more intestinal fortitude than a dozen native born American. With the right kind of immigration reform we can bring these people into the country and keep out those that mean us harm.

Our immigration system is incredibly fucked up. We select immigrants based on country of origin and having some relative living in the US. Immigration agents spend 10 mins selecting who is allowed to immigrate and months on deportation. We deny people the right to work in the US even if they have skills we need. Our laws would deport people who have lived in this country for decades and have been an asset to their community. Those same laws would also deport people who were brought to the US as children and raised as Americans. We force people to break our laws in order apply for asylum. We were instrumental in creating the international refugee system and protocols and we violate the very rules we created. The biggest problem in illegal immigration is not people coming into the country illegally but overstaying visa and our immigration laws don't even consider this a crime in most cases and there is no provision for tracking these people. Our E-Verify system is completely voluntary and it's data is as much as 6 months out of date. Employers that use contract labor are shielded from immigration law that forbids employing of undocumented immigrants.
And you say there's nothing wrong with our immigration system

Immigration reform for the anti-white party means getting more foreigners into this country. They don't care who they are: unskilled, scientists, diseased, uneducated, they don't care, just as long as they are wiping out the white vote in this country.

People who are here illegally being model citizens, paying taxes, being here since children is no reason to let them stay. They are still here breaking our laws. They are still here illegally. I don't know what you on the left don't understand about that. You think being here illegally is okay in most cases.

We don't need to set the precedent that if you come here illegally and be a good boy for X amount of years, you won't be bothered the least. That's a blanket invitation to the other 7.2 billion people in the world that America is weak on immigration which we really are. But we don't need to amplify that.

I could go through the points in democrat plans for immigration reform but why waste the time. Discussing immigration with you is lot like discussing the need for green vegetables with a 5 year old. You don't want any part of it. You have made that abundantly clear.

You seem to believe that America can prosper by hiding behind walls and creating laws that keeps the rest of the world out but you're dead wrong.

 

[danielpalos]

Good Capitalists build new cities not new walls.

 

[Flopper]

Because front doors and gated communities are likewise immoral. Anyone who has a front door hates everyone outside their house, especially if they ever lock it. If they were truly humane, they would have an "open door" policy. People in gated communities are even more immoral, obviously.

Israel's West Bank border wall has worked remarkably well. That's the problem. Liberals know the wall would drastically curtail the flow of illegal immigrants.

Your analogy is faulty. You can't compare an individual's home with a country that is shared by hundreds of millions of people.

 

[Flopper]

Because front doors and gated communities are likewise immoral. Anyone who has a front door hates everyone outside their house, especially if they ever lock it. If they were truly humane, they would have an "open door" policy. People in gated communities are even more immoral, obviously.

Israel's West Bank border wall has worked remarkably well. That's the problem. Liberals know the wall would drastically curtail the flow of illegal immigrants.

Because building walls is the province of private property owners, not government.

That is a point well taken. If the wall must be built on private property, it then calls into question how far we will go in allowing the government to abuse eminent domain abuse. BTW, BEFORE 9 / 11 the same people worrying about a wall were worried about government over-reach with eminent domain abuse. Times change.

You could be very right. I'm not willing to look through the posts when we're approaching 1100 of them to find where you said something positive about drugs and ADD ADHD, claiming you had that very condition.

There are other ways of changing laws without amending the Constitution. The United States Supreme Court has done it; Obama did it; Trump tries to do it on a regular basis... and the people have many ways of changing the laws WITHOUT amending the Constitution. If it's good enough for the government, it's good enough for the people.

In a de jure / lawful / constitutional / legal Republic you do NOT have a Right to government records. It's simply NOT in the Constitution. Just because someone has the POWER to declare something "legal" does not make it so.

If you were not for telling employers who they can and cannot hire, you'd quit hiding behind the pretext of this crap being legal or illegal. Simply put, if the farmer down the road can hire 100 Mexicans, but I can't due to some unconstitutional quota system, it puts me, as an employer in an UNEQUAL position, denying to me the equal protection of the laws as guaranteed in the 14th Amendment... UNLESS you want to join in with me in dismantling it.

You hide behind the POWER of Democracy shielded by "it's legal" regardless of its unconstitutionality. So, who are you really trying to convince - me or you? You like BIG GOVERNMENT.

I can give you options that give everyone involved something. You're going to reject them because you are part of a political movement that smells blood. You're going to get your wall so I can't imagine what you're crying about. It's just that you cannot face the fact that you got played and when it comes time to pay - not in terms of dollars and cents, but in terms of lost Liberties, I'm still going to come back and tell you I told you so. You don't get something for nothing.

There is no constitutional protection of criminal records. Search and Seizure is in regards to a persons personal records--not government records. Furthermore there is a huge difference between supporting medications for certain conditions and using them.

Criminal records ARE government records. Nothing in the Constitution gives the government the authority to give out the information for the general public to go on a fishing expedition. You shouldn't argue this as one day, you or a loved one WILL be denied a constitutional protection and it will because of people just like you.

One last time: the government can lie to you and they can lie about you... AND THEY DO. By their own estimates 30 percent of the people in jails and prisons never actually committed a crime.

You were given an alternative, so if you choose to be a subject of the NEW WORLD ORDER, that is your prerogative. It's mine not to subject myself to a foreign jurisdiction just because a de facto government makes a false claim against me.

Wow, you really are off your rocker. Public records equate to a New World Order? And let me see this evidence that 30% of inmates never did anything wrong to be imprisoned; not that I believe you have any credible link (but it will be fun if you try to post something) however I just want to see where you make this stuff up from.

Yes, criminal records are government records, and nothing in the Constitution "prohibits" government from sharing those records with the people. It would be an injustice to not warn people of potentially dangerous people. But I'm sure in the name of privacy, you wouldn't mind a rapist to move in next door to your mother or sister without your knowledge.

If you would not believe it, then there is no point in posting a link. It would be wasted verification.

One thing is for sure. You live on this board to argue the wall as if it were your lifeblood - your religion. Yet you fail to comprehend simple truths. For example:

Not too long back the liberals wanted to declare that any veteran who had been diagnosed with PTSD be denied the Right to keep and bear Arms. You won't believe that either, but it's true. The point is, the liberals would use your mental health records to deny you the Right to keep and bear Arms.

You argued against ADD / ADHD, claiming you are afflicted with such, but then denying that you are not on the drugs for it. Well, I hate to be the bearer of bad news but, if you have a real condition, you either have it or you don't. If you're born with juvenile diabetes, you have it. You don't wake up one morning and say I feel fine so I must be cured.

You cannot understand that I'm sometimes on YOUR side for IF ADD / ADHD were real conditions and IF you were not on your meds, the liberals would most assuredly pass legislation to address people like you. IF you think a person's criminal record is something the public should know about, then ditto for their mental health records.

WHEN mental health records become fair game, then you can be denied the Right to keep and bear Arms as well as be turned down for a job because you have a "mental health record." Does it matter that you went to see the psychologist because you lost interest in sex or that you needed a referral from a psychologist to go out of network and be hypnotized so that you could quit smoking? HELL NO. It will be just like a "criminal record." Nobody is going to read the transcripts nor weigh the value of the treatment nor more than they read court transcripts to find out that you were threatened with pleading guilty or facing a maximum prison sentence when the facts clearly dictate you were innocent. I leave you with the wisdom of Thomas Paine:

"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."

Read more at: Thomas Paine Quotes

You're right about one thing, I have no idea where you're at half the time.

ADD is difficulty paying attention or your mind drifting off of a subject. It's something you can live with without taking medication. We were talking about criminal records, not mental records. You keep detouring the subject all the time.

What you don't understand is the Doctor/ patient relationship is sacred. Criminal records are not. Doctors take an oath to protect the confidence between themselves and their clients unless they believe a serious threat to the public is at large.

The government puts guardrails on our roads so you don't accidentally drive off a cliff or into a river. The government forces companies to put warnings on medications and various devices so you don't get hurt. The government forces companies to put something in front of dock doors so an employee doesn't fall out of it or a tow motor drive off of it. The government regulation is that we truck drivers chock our wheels (putting a rubber or metal wedge under the tire) even though tractor-trailers have two independent brake systems that make it virtually impossible for the system to fail.

In other words, government takes measures to insure our safety. So if government is aware of a potentially dangerous person; a person who may cause me serious grief; a person who may be a threat to my business or family, it's governments duty to warn me of this potential--not hide it from me so I have no idea.

No, it is not the government's duty to warn you of a "potentially" dangerous person. It maybe governments duty to warn you of "known" dangerous person.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Because front doors and gated communities are likewise immoral. Anyone who has a front door hates everyone outside their house, especially if they ever lock it. If they were truly humane, they would have an "open door" policy. People in gated communities are even more immoral, obviously.

Israel's West Bank border wall has worked remarkably well. That's the problem. Liberals know the wall would drastically curtail the flow of illegal immigrants.

Because building walls is the province of private property owners, not government.

That is a point well taken. If the wall must be built on private property, it then calls into question how far we will go in allowing the government to abuse eminent domain abuse. BTW, BEFORE 9 / 11 the same people worrying about a wall were worried about government over-reach with eminent domain abuse. Times change.

There is no constitutional protection of criminal records. Search and Seizure is in regards to a persons personal records--not government records. Furthermore there is a huge difference between supporting medications for certain conditions and using them.

Criminal records ARE government records. Nothing in the Constitution gives the government the authority to give out the information for the general public to go on a fishing expedition. You shouldn't argue this as one day, you or a loved one WILL be denied a constitutional protection and it will because of people just like you.

One last time: the government can lie to you and they can lie about you... AND THEY DO. By their own estimates 30 percent of the people in jails and prisons never actually committed a crime.

You were given an alternative, so if you choose to be a subject of the NEW WORLD ORDER, that is your prerogative. It's mine not to subject myself to a foreign jurisdiction just because a de facto government makes a false claim against me.

Wow, you really are off your rocker. Public records equate to a New World Order? And let me see this evidence that 30% of inmates never did anything wrong to be imprisoned; not that I believe you have any credible link (but it will be fun if you try to post something) however I just want to see where you make this stuff up from.

Yes, criminal records are government records, and nothing in the Constitution "prohibits" government from sharing those records with the people. It would be an injustice to not warn people of potentially dangerous people. But I'm sure in the name of privacy, you wouldn't mind a rapist to move in next door to your mother or sister without your knowledge.

If you would not believe it, then there is no point in posting a link. It would be wasted verification.

One thing is for sure. You live on this board to argue the wall as if it were your lifeblood - your religion. Yet you fail to comprehend simple truths. For example:

Not too long back the liberals wanted to declare that any veteran who had been diagnosed with PTSD be denied the Right to keep and bear Arms. You won't believe that either, but it's true. The point is, the liberals would use your mental health records to deny you the Right to keep and bear Arms.

You argued against ADD / ADHD, claiming you are afflicted with such, but then denying that you are not on the drugs for it. Well, I hate to be the bearer of bad news but, if you have a real condition, you either have it or you don't. If you're born with juvenile diabetes, you have it. You don't wake up one morning and say I feel fine so I must be cured.

You cannot understand that I'm sometimes on YOUR side for IF ADD / ADHD were real conditions and IF you were not on your meds, the liberals would most assuredly pass legislation to address people like you. IF you think a person's criminal record is something the public should know about, then ditto for their mental health records.

WHEN mental health records become fair game, then you can be denied the Right to keep and bear Arms as well as be turned down for a job because you have a "mental health record." Does it matter that you went to see the psychologist because you lost interest in sex or that you needed a referral from a psychologist to go out of network and be hypnotized so that you could quit smoking? HELL NO. It will be just like a "criminal record." Nobody is going to read the transcripts nor weigh the value of the treatment nor more than they read court transcripts to find out that you were threatened with pleading guilty or facing a maximum prison sentence when the facts clearly dictate you were innocent. I leave you with the wisdom of Thomas Paine:

"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."

Read more at: Thomas Paine Quotes

You're right about one thing, I have no idea where you're at half the time.

ADD is difficulty paying attention or your mind drifting off of a subject. It's something you can live with without taking medication. We were talking about criminal records, not mental records. You keep detouring the subject all the time.

What you don't understand is the Doctor/ patient relationship is sacred. Criminal records are not. Doctors take an oath to protect the confidence between themselves and their clients unless they believe a serious threat to the public is at large.

The government puts guardrails on our roads so you don't accidentally drive off a cliff or into a river. The government forces companies to put warnings on medications and various devices so you don't get hurt. The government forces companies to put something in front of dock doors so an employee doesn't fall out of it or a tow motor drive off of it. The government regulation is that we truck drivers chock our wheels (putting a rubber or metal wedge under the tire) even though tractor-trailers have two independent brake systems that make it virtually impossible for the system to fail.

In other words, government takes measures to insure our safety. So if government is aware of a potentially dangerous person; a person who may cause me serious grief; a person who may be a threat to my business or family, it's governments duty to warn me of this potential--not hide it from me so I have no idea.

No, it is not the government's duty to warn you of a "potentially" dangerous person. It maybe governments duty to warn you of "known" dangerous person.

No, a person who is a criminal is potentially dangerous. The government is we the people. When the government sends somebody to jail, we the people sent them to jail. We have a right to know who our government sent to prison for our own protection.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Because front doors and gated communities are likewise immoral. Anyone who has a front door hates everyone outside their house, especially if they ever lock it. If they were truly humane, they would have an "open door" policy. People in gated communities are even more immoral, obviously.

Israel's West Bank border wall has worked remarkably well. That's the problem. Liberals know the wall would drastically curtail the flow of illegal immigrants.

Your analogy is faulty. You can't compare an individual's home with a country that is shared by hundreds of millions of people.

Why not?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So what's wrong with a wall AND technology?

Why do you think the Democrats are so scared to death of a wall they are even willing to shutdown the government?

Yes, we could add technology to the cost of the wall and we it could be upgraded as new technology becomes available but adding 5 feet to the top or the foundation of a 1000 mile wall is another story.

My point is that we are not living in stagnation. More Mexicans are returning to Mexico than arriving. This trend started over 10 years ago and seems to be accelerating. The problems in the northern triangle are responsible for the large number of Central Americans arriving in the US. There have been proposals from both sides to increase aid and provide US personal to assist in clearing out the drug cartels and gangs that have made life a living hell for the people. Lastly, immigration reform is far from dead. It can't happen with Republican control of government but certain can and will happen with Democrat control. Even if democrats only control one House of congress, we can still get immigration reform because many republicans agree with democrats on a number of immigration issues. These changes will dramatically reduce illegal immigration without spending tens of billions of dollars on a wall, taking property away from hundreds of land owners, destruction of a fragile environment, and a sending a message to the world that the United States seeks to isolate itself by hiding behind a wall.

It is not the wall democrats fear. It is what it represents, isolationism and the victory of hate and racism over reason.

So they have you brainwashed too.......a damn shame.

Racism is what Democrats have used for many years to get their way. It has nothing to do with racism. This isn't a race issue. If it were Canadians or Europeans attacking our country, we would feel the same way. We don't need more uneducated diseased unskilled people in our country no matter who they are.

And what immigration reform do we need? There is nothing wrong with our immigration system now. Do you know what immigration reform means? It means surrendering to those who can't easily get in now.

Uneducated, diseased, unskilled people, is this how you see immigrants to the US? If so, I feel sorry for you because you are delusional.

Just because these people are poor does not mean they are uneducated, diseased, and unskilled. Many of these people are skilled and can be an asset to the country. Plus many of them have more intestinal fortitude than a dozen native born American. With the right kind of immigration reform we can bring these people into the country and keep out those that mean us harm.

Our immigration system is incredibly fucked up. We select immigrants based on country of origin and having some relative living in the US. Immigration agents spend 10 mins selecting who is allowed to immigrate and months on deportation. We deny people the right to work in the US even if they have skills we need. Our laws would deport people who have lived in this country for decades and have been an asset to their community. Those same laws would also deport people who were brought to the US as children and raised as Americans. We force people to break our laws in order apply for asylum. We were instrumental in creating the international refugee system and protocols and we violate the very rules we created. The biggest problem in illegal immigration is not people coming into the country illegally but overstaying visa and our immigration laws don't even consider this a crime in most cases and there is no provision for tracking these people. Our E-Verify system is completely voluntary and it's data is as much as 6 months out of date. Employers that use contract labor are shielded from immigration law that forbids employing of undocumented immigrants.
And you say there's nothing wrong with our immigration system

Immigration reform for the anti-white party means getting more foreigners into this country. They don't care who they are: unskilled, scientists, diseased, uneducated, they don't care, just as long as they are wiping out the white vote in this country.

People who are here illegally being model citizens, paying taxes, being here since children is no reason to let them stay. They are still here breaking our laws. They are still here illegally. I don't know what you on the left don't understand about that. You think being here illegally is okay in most cases.

We don't need to set the precedent that if you come here illegally and be a good boy for X amount of years, you won't be bothered the least. That's a blanket invitation to the other 7.2 billion people in the world that America is weak on immigration which we really are. But we don't need to amplify that.

I could go through the points in democrat plans for immigration reform but why waste the time. Discussing immigration with you is lot like discussing the need for green vegetables with a 5 year old. You don't want any part of it. You have made that abundantly clear.

You seem to believe that America can prosper by hiding behind walls and creating laws that keeps the rest of the world out but you're dead wrong.

If we build a wall, it's not for US to hide behind. Our country does not belong to the rest of the world where we need to hide. It belongs to us--the American people.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

A- Cost prohibitive
B- Won't work
C- It's racist
D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
E- None of the Above

The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes

You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours

There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.

-Geaux

You don't even list the REAL reasons why the wall is a total waste of time and money. It doesn't work. This is the first, last and most important reason. And it gives a false sense of security. The Southern Border isn't the source of most illegal immigration. The money would be better spent on infrastructure to better track and verify Social Security numbers for employers.

You on the left keep saying that in spite of the fact that borders have worked for every other country that uses them.

Not only am I for a wall, I'm for a bridge from Mexico to Canada. Then you can deal with them and tell us how terrible we are for protecting our country.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Because front doors and gated communities are likewise immoral. Anyone who has a front door hates everyone outside their house, especially if they ever lock it. If they were truly humane, they would have an "open door" policy. People in gated communities are even more immoral, obviously.

Israel's West Bank border wall has worked remarkably well. That's the problem. Liberals know the wall would drastically curtail the flow of illegal immigrants.

Because building walls is the province of private property owners, not government.

That is a point well taken. If the wall must be built on private property, it then calls into question how far we will go in allowing the government to abuse eminent domain abuse. BTW, BEFORE 9 / 11 the same people worrying about a wall were worried about government over-reach with eminent domain abuse. Times change.

It has nothing to do with "how far we will go" it has to do with legality. The Supreme court ruled (a few years back) that eminent domain even applies to private companies wishing to make improvements to an area. In other words, being able to buy structures and evicting people out of them to tear those homes down and build new ones.

That's what you get when you have a "conservative" (corporatist) SCOTUS

We didn't have a conservative corporatist court at the time. We don't even have one now. That's why the Supreme Court just ruled that Trump can't deny asylum to people caught sneaking into the country.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Wow, you really are off your rocker. Public records equate to a New World Order? And let me see this evidence that 30% of inmates never did anything wrong to be imprisoned; not that I believe you have any credible link (but it will be fun if you try to post something) however I just want to see where you make this stuff up from.

Yes, criminal records are government records, and nothing in the Constitution "prohibits" government from sharing those records with the people. It would be an injustice to not warn people of potentially dangerous people. But I'm sure in the name of privacy, you wouldn't mind a rapist to move in next door to your mother or sister without your knowledge.

If you would not believe it, then there is no point in posting a link. It would be wasted verification.

One thing is for sure. You live on this board to argue the wall as if it were your lifeblood - your religion. Yet you fail to comprehend simple truths. For example:

Not too long back the liberals wanted to declare that any veteran who had been diagnosed with PTSD be denied the Right to keep and bear Arms. You won't believe that either, but it's true. The point is, the liberals would use your mental health records to deny you the Right to keep and bear Arms.

You argued against ADD / ADHD, claiming you are afflicted with such, but then denying that you are not on the drugs for it. Well, I hate to be the bearer of bad news but, if you have a real condition, you either have it or you don't. If you're born with juvenile diabetes, you have it. You don't wake up one morning and say I feel fine so I must be cured.

You cannot understand that I'm sometimes on YOUR side for IF ADD / ADHD were real conditions and IF you were not on your meds, the liberals would most assuredly pass legislation to address people like you. IF you think a person's criminal record is something the public should know about, then ditto for their mental health records.

WHEN mental health records become fair game, then you can be denied the Right to keep and bear Arms as well as be turned down for a job because you have a "mental health record." Does it matter that you went to see the psychologist because you lost interest in sex or that you needed a referral from a psychologist to go out of network and be hypnotized so that you could quit smoking? HELL NO. It will be just like a "criminal record." Nobody is going to read the transcripts nor weigh the value of the treatment nor more than they read court transcripts to find out that you were threatened with pleading guilty or facing a maximum prison sentence when the facts clearly dictate you were innocent. I leave you with the wisdom of Thomas Paine:

"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."

Read more at: Thomas Paine Quotes

You're right about one thing, I have no idea where you're at half the time.

ADD is difficulty paying attention or your mind drifting off of a subject. It's something you can live with without taking medication. We were talking about criminal records, not mental records. You keep detouring the subject all the time.

What you don't understand is the Doctor/ patient relationship is sacred. Criminal records are not. Doctors take an oath to protect the confidence between themselves and their clients unless they believe a serious threat to the public is at large.

The government puts guardrails on our roads so you don't accidentally drive off a cliff or into a river. The government forces companies to put warnings on medications and various devices so you don't get hurt. The government forces companies to put something in front of dock doors so an employee doesn't fall out of it or a tow motor drive off of it. The government regulation is that we truck drivers chock our wheels (putting a rubber or metal wedge under the tire) even though tractor-trailers have two independent brake systems that make it virtually impossible for the system to fail.

In other words, government takes measures to insure our safety. So if government is aware of a potentially dangerous person; a person who may cause me serious grief; a person who may be a threat to my business or family, it's governments duty to warn me of this potential--not hide it from me so I have no idea.

You open your post with a straw man argument, add utter nonsense and then end it with the weakest argument you've ever had.

Mental health records are not sacred. There are legislators wanting them to be used right now to make sure you cannot exercise your Rights. WHEN it happens, get back to me.

Finally, building a guard-rail poses no threat to your constitutional Liberties.

And neither does criminal records being public.

The point is, Ray, you have admitted that ADD / ADHD are not real conditions - you know conditions where people need to be on drugs. You have admitted that, sir.

What you cannot see is that whether you do or do not, the public should NOT have access to your records because they cannot properly evaluate them.

In order to end this argument, I'll offer you an idea. If you want to hire someone, rent to them, etc. then since you trust the government so much why not submit the application along with the reason and let them just say they recommend that you hire them, rent to them, or you don't.

Because government doesn't make my decisions for me. I make my own decisions, and I make those decisions based on the information I have. One landlord might want to rent to an ex-con. I don't. I've had experience doing that and I base my future decisions on past experiences.

 

[Rocko]

None of the things you listed prohibits someone from walking into OUR NATION. You know what does? A WALL

No it doesn’t . Where You find a 10 foot wall, you’ll find a 12 foot ladder that beats it.

If we were talking 20 miles . Fine . We are talking 1,400 miles!!!

It's not a perfect solution but unarguably is would reduce crossings

-Geaux

But at what cost ?? You know the “wall” plan includes drones and all kinds of high tech sensors , roving border guards . It’s not just some one time cost and you are done .

How high is a preprogrammed drones salary? How many bathroom breaks does he need? How much gas for an 8 hour shift? Does he need a college educated driver who also requires an absurd salary?

DO YOU HAVE A BRAIN?

Clearly you do not. Drones don’t fly themselves….someone monitors what they see…for just one thing.

How much time do you spend thinking about illegal immigration in a day? Whatever it is…it’s too much.

The blob tells you your enemy is down there; you’re dumb enough to believe it. That is all.
That is the reason there is a supposed immigration crisis in the nation.

Essentially the same number people crossing today were crossing 10 years ago, 20 years ago, 30, years ago….50 years ago; Somehow we managed to build the greatest society on the planet. Ever. But now you’re told there is a problem with a group of people who, by and large, are just here to do menial labor for little money…and you guys believe it.

Damn
You
Are
Stupid.

In other words open boarders are fine with you!

 

[ph3iron]

A- Cost prohibitive
B- Won't work
C- It's racist
D- It would reduce those successfully crossing the border
E- None of the Above

The machine benefits by not having a wall. Business (Republicans) get their cheap labor and (Democrats) get the votes

You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours

There is no excuse for the Republicans not funding the wall.

-Geaux

I don't like to live in a country of cowards cowering behind a wall

 

[ph3iron]

No it doesn’t . Where You find a 10 foot wall, you’ll find a 12 foot ladder that beats it.

If we were talking 20 miles . Fine . We are talking 1,400 miles!!!

It's not a perfect solution but unarguably is would reduce crossings

-Geaux

But at what cost ?? You know the “wall” plan includes drones and all kinds of high tech sensors , roving border guards . It’s not just some one time cost and you are done .

How high is a preprogrammed drones salary? How many bathroom breaks does he need? How much gas for an 8 hour shift? Does he need a college educated driver who also requires an absurd salary?

DO YOU HAVE A BRAIN?

Clearly you do not. Drones don’t fly themselves….someone monitors what they see…for just one thing.

How much time do you spend thinking about illegal immigration in a day? Whatever it is…it’s too much.

The blob tells you your enemy is down there; you’re dumb enough to believe it. That is all.
That is the reason there is a supposed immigration crisis in the nation.

Essentially the same number people crossing today were crossing 10 years ago, 20 years ago, 30, years ago….50 years ago; Somehow we managed to build the greatest society on the planet. Ever. But now you’re told there is a problem with a group of people who, by and large, are just here to do menial labor for little money…and you guys believe it.

Damn
You
Are
Stupid.

In other words open boarders are fine with you!

Like our con 5 deferment Pres You can't spell borders either or are you joking?
Do you know anyone who supports open borders?
I don't
Is that what knees news spews out?

 

[Rocko]

It's not a perfect solution but unarguably is would reduce crossings

-Geaux

But at what cost ?? You know the “wall” plan includes drones and all kinds of high tech sensors , roving border guards . It’s not just some one time cost and you are done .

How high is a preprogrammed drones salary? How many bathroom breaks does he need? How much gas for an 8 hour shift? Does he need a college educated driver who also requires an absurd salary?

DO YOU HAVE A BRAIN?

Clearly you do not. Drones don’t fly themselves….someone monitors what they see…for just one thing.

How much time do you spend thinking about illegal immigration in a day? Whatever it is…it’s too much.

The blob tells you your enemy is down there; you’re dumb enough to believe it. That is all.
That is the reason there is a supposed immigration crisis in the nation.

Essentially the same number people crossing today were crossing 10 years ago, 20 years ago, 30, years ago….50 years ago; Somehow we managed to build the greatest society on the planet. Ever. But now you’re told there is a problem with a group of people who, by and large, are just here to do menial labor for little money…and you guys believe it.

Damn
You
Are
Stupid.

In other words open boarders are fine with you!

Like our con 5 deferment Pres You can't spell borders either or are you joking?
Do you know anyone who supports open borders?
I don't
Is that what knees news spews out?

You don’t capitalize the p in president. A lot of liberals if not the majority of them are for open borders.

 

[Dragonlady]

Because front doors and gated communities are likewise immoral. Anyone who has a front door hates everyone outside their house, especially if they ever lock it. If they were truly humane, they would have an "open door" policy. People in gated communities are even more immoral, obviously.

Israel's West Bank border wall has worked remarkably well. That's the problem. Liberals know the wall would drastically curtail the flow of illegal immigrants.

Because building walls is the province of private property owners, not government.

That is a point well taken. If the wall must be built on private property, it then calls into question how far we will go in allowing the government to abuse eminent domain abuse. BTW, BEFORE 9 / 11 the same people worrying about a wall were worried about government over-reach with eminent domain abuse. Times change.

It has nothing to do with "how far we will go" it has to do with legality. The Supreme court ruled (a few years back) that eminent domain even applies to private companies wishing to make improvements to an area. In other words, being able to buy structures and evicting people out of them to tear those homes down and build new ones.

That's what you get when you have a "conservative" (corporatist) SCOTUS

We didn't have a conservative corporatist court at the time. We don't even have one now. That's why the Supreme Court just ruled that Trump can't deny asylum to people caught sneaking into the country.

Building a wall is applying a solution that the Chinese used in the 4th Century AD, and it didn't work then. The Great Wall proved no deterrent at all to attacking armies, despite 15 centuries of construction, fortification and expansion and was abandoned altogether by the last army which overall it.

The Eminent Domain cases from the last attempt to fence the entire southern border have still not cleared the dockets in Texas, and local residents are gearing up for another fight.

Cartels are now using drones to smuggle drugs across the border, so a wall is absolutely not deterrent to drugs.

And last but not least, Trump promised Mexico would pay for it, and now he's giving us some bullshit line that the new NAFTA 2.0 is paying for it. The American people will be paying for it. That's on top of the $4000 raises he promised everyone from the corporate tax cut that never materialized.

 

[danielpalos]

what happened to free trade and less regulation, right wingers? just talk.

 

[Lesh]

Because front doors and gated communities are likewise immoral. Anyone who has a front door hates everyone outside their house, especially if they ever lock it. If they were truly humane, they would have an "open door" policy. People in gated communities are even more immoral, obviously.

Israel's West Bank border wall has worked remarkably well. That's the problem. Liberals know the wall would drastically curtail the flow of illegal immigrants.

Because building walls is the province of private property owners, not government.

That is a point well taken. If the wall must be built on private property, it then calls into question how far we will go in allowing the government to abuse eminent domain abuse. BTW, BEFORE 9 / 11 the same people worrying about a wall were worried about government over-reach with eminent domain abuse. Times change.

It has nothing to do with "how far we will go" it has to do with legality. The Supreme court ruled (a few years back) that eminent domain even applies to private companies wishing to make improvements to an area. In other words, being able to buy structures and evicting people out of them to tear those homes down and build new ones.

That's what you get when you have a "conservative" (corporatist) SCOTUS

We didn't have a conservative corporatist court at the time. We don't even have one now. That's why the Supreme Court just ruled that Trump can't deny asylum to people caught sneaking into the country.

Asylum is non corporatist?

You mean corporations don't want that cheap labor?

Of course they do