We Are Going To Build A Wall!

[toomuchtime_]

Trump has offered a well thought out agenda for growing our economy, securing our borders and repairing the damage Obama has done to our foreign relations.

Well thought out is not an accurate adjectival phrase to use in relation to just about any public policy initiative Trump has mentioned! Read my post. Make sure to key on the quotation marks. You'll see in one case Trump says in response to a question about his libel law modifications, "I have to start thinking about that." That wasn't I saying that; that's what Trump said after he made the announcement. lol Just how much thought does it take to realize that spending to forcibly send people away, only to bring them back, is stupid? Both those pearls of what you apparently presume be prudent are discussed in my post.

Once again you show that Democrats have nothing to offer but anti Trump crap. Trump has laid out a three part program for keeping illegals out and getting rid of those who are already here. If you spent more time trying to understand the issues and Trump's proposals for dealing with them instead of just searching out anti Trump slanders, you might some day have something that was worth posting.

 

[toomuchtime_]

And you utterly dismiss the very real issues I raised on wages and crime.

This shows that YOUR position is the fantasy hiding from reality.

legal participation in our markets corrects for that.

That's fine for people who enter our country legally, but not for people who enter the US illegally.

a market friendly visa solves that problem.

And we have them, but those who enter the US without being vetted or fulfilling an acknowledged need for foreign workers pose a security risk and a drain on our economy.

a market friendly visa is supposed to make it more convenient to be legal, than to be illegal.

Market friendly visas are supposed to benefit our economy, not those who want to come here. If the government certifies that there is a need for foreign labor, those who come here under a work visa after being vetted are legal only so long as the need for their services exists and then they must leave or become illegal, so if they leave their job for any reason, they must leave. The vast majority of those illegals who are already here would not have qualified for a work visa.

 

[Correll]

Millions of people just waltzing across the border is a border security problem. Imagining a possible solution does not mean the problem is not real.


Current reality trumps future hopes.

guns are more of a security problem; our gun control laws prove it.

Changing the subject does not change the fact that you have no answer to my point on the border security problem.

we don't have a border security problem; we have a lack of regulation regarding migrant labor.

That you think you have the solution to the problem, does not mean the problem does not currently exist.


For you to pretend that it does is deeply dishonest and quite rude of you.


If you truly believe that your opinions are more important than facts, then your issue is more of a medical problem. NO offense meant.

all you have is, more socialism on a national basis.

We have a Commerce Clause.

Calling it socialism is not a challenge to my point, thus my point stands.


That you think you have the solution to the problem, does not mean the problem does not currently exist.


For you to pretend that it does is deeply dishonest and quite rude of you.

 

[Correll]

And you utterly dismiss the very real issues I raised on wages and crime.

This shows that YOUR position is the fantasy hiding from reality.

legal participation in our markets corrects for that.

NO, it doesn't.

The Law of Supply and Demand are not reversed by making illegals, legal, nor does legal citizenship make criminals more law abiding.

My points on wages and crime still stands.

yes, it does. legal participation cannot be bad under any form of capitalism.

I did not claim that "legal participation" is bad.

I pointed out that an oversupply of legal labor is just as much a factor in supply and demand as illegal labor.

And criminals, are going to be criminals regardless of legal status. In the vast majority of cases.

doesn't matter; unless you are for more Government and less free market; which is it. no flip-flopping on this one.

It matters very much to those who lose jobs, lose wages or whom are victimized by criminals that should not be in the country.


That is the crux of the matter which you not only have no answer to, but refuse to admit that you have no answer to.

 

[danielpalos]

legal participation in our markets corrects for that.

That's fine for people who enter our country legally, but not for people who enter the US illegally.

a market friendly visa solves that problem.

And we have them, but those who enter the US without being vetted or fulfilling an acknowledged need for foreign workers pose a security risk and a drain on our economy.

a market friendly visa is supposed to make it more convenient to be legal, than to be illegal.

Market friendly visas are supposed to benefit our economy, not those who want to come here. If the government certifies that there is a need for foreign labor, those who come here under a work visa after being vetted are legal only so long as the need for their services exists and then they must leave or become illegal, so if they leave their job for any reason, they must leave. The vast majority of those illegals who are already here would not have qualified for a work visa.

A market friendly visa program could generate revenue that benefits the People of our economy. Capitalism doesn't care about legal status; only lousy socialists whine about it.

 

[danielpalos]

guns are more of a security problem; our gun control laws prove it.

Changing the subject does not change the fact that you have no answer to my point on the border security problem.

we don't have a border security problem; we have a lack of regulation regarding migrant labor.

That you think you have the solution to the problem, does not mean the problem does not currently exist.


For you to pretend that it does is deeply dishonest and quite rude of you.


If you truly believe that your opinions are more important than facts, then your issue is more of a medical problem. NO offense meant.

all you have is, more socialism on a national basis.

We have a Commerce Clause.

Calling it socialism is not a challenge to my point, thus my point stands.


That you think you have the solution to the problem, does not mean the problem does not currently exist.


For you to pretend that it does is deeply dishonest and quite rude of you.

Capitalism is the solution; the right wing prefers national socialism. coincidence or conspiracy?

 

[danielpalos]

legal participation in our markets corrects for that.

NO, it doesn't.

The Law of Supply and Demand are not reversed by making illegals, legal, nor does legal citizenship make criminals more law abiding.

My points on wages and crime still stands.

yes, it does. legal participation cannot be bad under any form of capitalism.

I did not claim that "legal participation" is bad.

I pointed out that an oversupply of legal labor is just as much a factor in supply and demand as illegal labor.

And criminals, are going to be criminals regardless of legal status. In the vast majority of cases.

doesn't matter; unless you are for more Government and less free market; which is it. no flip-flopping on this one.

It matters very much to those who lose jobs, lose wages or whom are victimized by criminals that should not be in the country.


That is the crux of the matter which you not only have no answer to, but refuse to admit that you have no answer to.

the answer, is a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and fourteen dollars an hour for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment States.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Trump has offered a well thought out agenda for growing our economy, securing our borders and repairing the damage Obama has done to our foreign relations.

Well thought out is not an accurate adjectival phrase to use in relation to just about any public policy initiative Trump has mentioned! Read my post. Make sure to key on the quotation marks. You'll see in one case Trump says in response to a question about his libel law modifications, "I have to start thinking about that." That wasn't I saying that; that's what Trump said after he made the announcement. lol Just how much thought does it take to realize that spending to forcibly send people away, only to bring them back, is stupid? Both those pearls of what you apparently presume be prudent are discussed in my post.

Once again you show that Democrats have nothing to offer but anti Trump crap.

the Democratic Party no longer has anything to offer Americans but anti Trump crap.

When you have some specific corroborating content to present that backs up your claims - you have yet to directly rebut or disprove the accuracy or soundness of the points I made here - I may respond to you with respect and substance. So far, however, you've offered nothing but banal rhetoric of philistines consigned to the maelstrom of ignominious oblivion.

 

[Correll]

Changing the subject does not change the fact that you have no answer to my point on the border security problem.

we don't have a border security problem; we have a lack of regulation regarding migrant labor.

That you think you have the solution to the problem, does not mean the problem does not currently exist.


For you to pretend that it does is deeply dishonest and quite rude of you.


If you truly believe that your opinions are more important than facts, then your issue is more of a medical problem. NO offense meant.

all you have is, more socialism on a national basis.

We have a Commerce Clause.

Calling it socialism is not a challenge to my point, thus my point stands.


That you think you have the solution to the problem, does not mean the problem does not currently exist.


For you to pretend that it does is deeply dishonest and quite rude of you.

Capitalism is the solution; the right wing prefers national socialism. coincidence or conspiracy?

That was a meaningless statement.


The fact remains. Millions of people walking across our border against our laws is a border security problem.


Calling it national socialism is not a challenge to the reality of the situation on the ground.

 

[Correll]

NO, it doesn't.

The Law of Supply and Demand are not reversed by making illegals, legal, nor does legal citizenship make criminals more law abiding.

My points on wages and crime still stands.

yes, it does. legal participation cannot be bad under any form of capitalism.

I did not claim that "legal participation" is bad.

I pointed out that an oversupply of legal labor is just as much a factor in supply and demand as illegal labor.

And criminals, are going to be criminals regardless of legal status. In the vast majority of cases.

doesn't matter; unless you are for more Government and less free market; which is it. no flip-flopping on this one.

It matters very much to those who lose jobs, lose wages or whom are victimized by criminals that should not be in the country.


That is the crux of the matter which you not only have no answer to, but refuse to admit that you have no answer to.

the answer, is a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and fourteen dollars an hour for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment States.

That is your proposal, which you believe would work.

Which you are incapable of presenting a valid case for, because you refuse to address the negatives of your proposed solution.

AND, which does NOT mean that the current situation does not exist.


You do not get to dismiss current suffering on the parts of workers and crime victims because you think you have a solution.

 

[danielpalos]

we don't have a border security problem; we have a lack of regulation regarding migrant labor.

That you think you have the solution to the problem, does not mean the problem does not currently exist.


For you to pretend that it does is deeply dishonest and quite rude of you.


If you truly believe that your opinions are more important than facts, then your issue is more of a medical problem. NO offense meant.

all you have is, more socialism on a national basis.

We have a Commerce Clause.

Calling it socialism is not a challenge to my point, thus my point stands.


That you think you have the solution to the problem, does not mean the problem does not currently exist.


For you to pretend that it does is deeply dishonest and quite rude of you.

Capitalism is the solution; the right wing prefers national socialism. coincidence or conspiracy?

That was a meaningless statement.


The fact remains. Millions of people walking across our border against our laws is a border security problem.


Calling it national socialism is not a challenge to the reality of the situation on the ground.

then stop whining about social spending.

 

[danielpalos]

yes, it does. legal participation cannot be bad under any form of capitalism.

I did not claim that "legal participation" is bad.

I pointed out that an oversupply of legal labor is just as much a factor in supply and demand as illegal labor.

And criminals, are going to be criminals regardless of legal status. In the vast majority of cases.

doesn't matter; unless you are for more Government and less free market; which is it. no flip-flopping on this one.

It matters very much to those who lose jobs, lose wages or whom are victimized by criminals that should not be in the country.


That is the crux of the matter which you not only have no answer to, but refuse to admit that you have no answer to.

the answer, is a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and fourteen dollars an hour for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment States.

That is your proposal, which you believe would work.

Which you are incapable of presenting a valid case for, because you refuse to address the negatives of your proposed solution.

AND, which does NOT mean that the current situation does not exist.


You do not get to dismiss current suffering on the parts of workers and crime victims because you think you have a solution.

capitalism works. why do you believe it won't work?

 

[Correll]

That you think you have the solution to the problem, does not mean the problem does not currently exist.


For you to pretend that it does is deeply dishonest and quite rude of you.


If you truly believe that your opinions are more important than facts, then your issue is more of a medical problem. NO offense meant.

all you have is, more socialism on a national basis.

We have a Commerce Clause.

Calling it socialism is not a challenge to my point, thus my point stands.


That you think you have the solution to the problem, does not mean the problem does not currently exist.


For you to pretend that it does is deeply dishonest and quite rude of you.

Capitalism is the solution; the right wing prefers national socialism. coincidence or conspiracy?

That was a meaningless statement.


The fact remains. Millions of people walking across our border against our laws is a border security problem.


Calling it national socialism is not a challenge to the reality of the situation on the ground.

then stop whining about social spending.

Stop trying to derail the thread to distract from your inability to make the case for your position on it's merits vs it's costs.

 

[Correll]

I did not claim that "legal participation" is bad.

I pointed out that an oversupply of legal labor is just as much a factor in supply and demand as illegal labor.

And criminals, are going to be criminals regardless of legal status. In the vast majority of cases.

doesn't matter; unless you are for more Government and less free market; which is it. no flip-flopping on this one.

It matters very much to those who lose jobs, lose wages or whom are victimized by criminals that should not be in the country.


That is the crux of the matter which you not only have no answer to, but refuse to admit that you have no answer to.

the answer, is a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and fourteen dollars an hour for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment States.

That is your proposal, which you believe would work.

Which you are incapable of presenting a valid case for, because you refuse to address the negatives of your proposed solution.

AND, which does NOT mean that the current situation does not exist.


You do not get to dismiss current suffering on the parts of workers and crime victims because you think you have a solution.

capitalism works. why do you believe it won't work?

I will not bother to identify which logical fallacy that it.

SUffice it to point out that nothing in your post addresses, let alone challenges my previous post, so all my points stand.

ie


That is your proposal, which you believe would work.

Which you are incapable of presenting a valid case for, because you refuse to address the negatives of your proposed solution.

AND, which does NOT mean that the current situation does not exist.


You do not get to dismiss current suffering on the parts of workers and crime victims because you think you have a solution.

 

[toomuchtime_]

That's fine for people who enter our country legally, but not for people who enter the US illegally.

a market friendly visa solves that problem.

And we have them, but those who enter the US without being vetted or fulfilling an acknowledged need for foreign workers pose a security risk and a drain on our economy.

a market friendly visa is supposed to make it more convenient to be legal, than to be illegal.

Market friendly visas are supposed to benefit our economy, not those who want to come here. If the government certifies that there is a need for foreign labor, those who come here under a work visa after being vetted are legal only so long as the need for their services exists and then they must leave or become illegal, so if they leave their job for any reason, they must leave. The vast majority of those illegals who are already here would not have qualified for a work visa.

A market friendly visa program could generate revenue that benefits the People of our economy. Capitalism doesn't care about legal status; only lousy socialists whine about it.

We already have a market friendly visa program, so what are you whining about?

 

[toomuchtime_]

Trump has offered a well thought out agenda for growing our economy, securing our borders and repairing the damage Obama has done to our foreign relations.

Well thought out is not an accurate adjectival phrase to use in relation to just about any public policy initiative Trump has mentioned! Read my post. Make sure to key on the quotation marks. You'll see in one case Trump says in response to a question about his libel law modifications, "I have to start thinking about that." That wasn't I saying that; that's what Trump said after he made the announcement. lol Just how much thought does it take to realize that spending to forcibly send people away, only to bring them back, is stupid? Both those pearls of what you apparently presume be prudent are discussed in my post.

Once again you show that Democrats have nothing to offer but anti Trump crap.

the Democratic Party no longer has anything to offer Americans but anti Trump crap.

When you have some specific corroborating content to present that backs up your claims - you have yet to directly rebut or disprove the accuracy or soundness of the points I made here - I may respond to you with respect and substance. So far, however, you've offered nothing but banal rhetoric of philistines consigned to the maelstrom of ignominious oblivion.

Lol I accurately described your posts which contain nothing but anti Trump crap.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Trump has offered a well thought out agenda for growing our economy, securing our borders and repairing the damage Obama has done to our foreign relations.

Well thought out is not an accurate adjectival phrase to use in relation to just about any public policy initiative Trump has mentioned! Read my post. Make sure to key on the quotation marks. You'll see in one case Trump says in response to a question about his libel law modifications, "I have to start thinking about that." That wasn't I saying that; that's what Trump said after he made the announcement. lol Just how much thought does it take to realize that spending to forcibly send people away, only to bring them back, is stupid? Both those pearls of what you apparently presume be prudent are discussed in my post.

Once again you show that Democrats have nothing to offer but anti Trump crap.

the Democratic Party no longer has anything to offer Americans but anti Trump crap.

When you have some specific corroborating content to present that backs up your claims - you have yet to directly rebut or disprove the accuracy or soundness of the points I made here - I may respond to you with respect and substance. So far, however, you've offered nothing but banal rhetoric of philistines consigned to the maelstrom of ignominious oblivion.

Lol I accurately described your posts which contain nothing but anti Trump crap.

You just got more time on your hands. Bye.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Trump has offered a well thought out agenda for growing our economy, securing our borders and repairing the damage Obama has done to our foreign relations.

Well thought out is not an accurate adjectival phrase to use in relation to just about any public policy initiative Trump has mentioned! Read my post. Make sure to key on the quotation marks. You'll see in one case Trump says in response to a question about his libel law modifications, "I have to start thinking about that." That wasn't I saying that; that's what Trump said after he made the announcement. lol Just how much thought does it take to realize that spending to forcibly send people away, only to bring them back, is stupid? Both those pearls of what you apparently presume be prudent are discussed in my post.

Once again you show that Democrats have nothing to offer but anti Trump crap.

the Democratic Party no longer has anything to offer Americans but anti Trump crap.

When you have some specific corroborating content to present that backs up your claims - you have yet to directly rebut or disprove the accuracy or soundness of the points I made here - I may respond to you with respect and substance. So far, however, you've offered nothing but banal rhetoric of philistines consigned to the maelstrom of ignominious oblivion.

Lol I accurately described your posts which contain nothing but anti Trump crap.

You just got more time on your hands. Bye.

And you've got nothing but anti Trump crap to post. See ya.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Disingenuous claptrap.

Requiring government to fulfill one of its limited roles is not an agenda for larger government.

implementation is every thing. in this, it is. and, it is not, limited government; but right wing fantasy on a national and social basis.

Border security is a, if not THE, role of government.

Calling it a right wing fantasy does not make it so.

You have done nothing to support you odd opinion on the subject.

we don't have a border security problem. we are at peace with our neighbors.

Yes, we do have a border security problem.

No, we don't. We have a (lack of) Commerce problem at our borders.

Whats your solution?

 

[Correll]

implementation is every thing. in this, it is. and, it is not, limited government; but right wing fantasy on a national and social basis.

Border security is a, if not THE, role of government.

Calling it a right wing fantasy does not make it so.

You have done nothing to support you odd opinion on the subject.

we don't have a border security problem. we are at peace with our neighbors.

Yes, we do have a border security problem.

No, we don't. We have a (lack of) Commerce problem at our borders.

Whats your solution?

Open borders.