• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

House Republicans again block passage of disaster aid bill

Sorry but I don't want to derail the thread by moving to all this that is all non sequitur to what I posted. Thanks for understanding.

Oh and here is President Obama advocating for the secure fence act:


Wow, how reasonable...

1) First, let's look at what the video states in writing..."Remember when Obama Supported a Border Wall?" Yet, Obama's speech in the video, in which you conveniently presented, spoke of fencing, not a wall. His words: "...much needed funding for better fences." So, despite the later added caption to define the speech, the speech speaks for itself. But, you knew this, didn't you? You chose to misrepresent because your ideology isn't strong enough to argue on its own. You need to misrepresent in order to legitimize your argument. What should this tell you about your argument?

2) Second, producing this video, in which the entire universe has known about since 2006, does nothing for the issue, nor does it change the facts. The Secure Fence Act of 2006 is a black & white document that everybody can read and is clearly about 700 miles of fencing, not a concrete wall spanning thousands. But you knew this too, didn't you? You chose to misrepresent the Act. But, as long as FOX News legitimizes the lies for you, you will continue to dismiss reason and misrepresent history because FOX News "tells the truth."


***

Well, j-mac, there's your answer. Here is exactly why I can safely declare what I did. Do you think AlbqOwl is simply unaware or is she simply using lies to try to legitimize an obtuse argument? And do you actually think she gets this hardened position from any news medium other than FOX News? Clearly, the need to cling to obvious lies and false narratives is far more satisfying than honestly looking at the situation with reason.
 
[h=1]House Republicans again block passage of disaster aid bill[/h]

House Republicans again block passage of disaster aid bill - CNNPolitics

Washington (CNN)For the second time in a week, House Republicans blocked the passage of a more than $19 billion disaster relief bill, further delaying the approval of funds that cleared the Senate last week with overwhelming bipartisan support.

House Democrats attempted to pass the bill via unanimous consent on Tuesday, but Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky objected. Republican Rep. Alex Mooney of West Virginia was on the House floor standing next to Massie for the objection. It only takes one person to object in order to block a bill from passing immediately through unanimous consent.

With Congress in recess, House Democrats will have another chance at a second pro forma this coming Thursday, and then again next week when the House returns on Monday.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer was also in the chamber Tuesday to call on Republicans not to object.
"I urge them to do so because millions of people ... are at risk," he said.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It only takes one Republican to block this disaster relief bill, this is the second time one has blocked it passing. Trump has already said he would sign the bill when it comes to his desk, even if it didn't contain the border funding. There's not $3 billion for his wall in the disaster bill, so the GOP refuses to pass it.

Nancy Pelosi was right when she said "the heartlessness of House Republicans knows no bounds". North Dakota Republican Sen. Kevin Cramer was quite succinct when he said ""A lot gets made of the fact that one person did this. The one person that did it obviously represents several others who would have done it if not for them,"


Really, the article could just as easily be titled:

"Democrats Play Ridiculous Political Games With The OTHER Criminal Party;
Country Continues To Crumble While They Drink Martinis At DC Cocktail Soirees"


But that's kind of a long title, I'll admit.
 
.....

Continued...

Oh, no need to continue. Are you kidding me with this? To be honest, I thought you were above trying to pull this nonsense. You did exactly what I expect from others:

Media Bias Fact Check hits on all the media, not just your FOX News. But because it places FOX News exactly where it belongs, you chose to fling the source as far away from your vision as possible in order to protect yourself. And to do so, you ironically had to use WND, which is widely described as "fringe...far right..." and "is known for promoting falsehoods and conspiracy theories." It actually sits right next to INFOWARS! In other words, to protect your delusions of what FOX News is you used a source that sits among the sources that uses conspiracy theories to create "truth." And the kicker is that you didn't even make your own argument. You merely copied and pasted WND's crap as proper representation of you. This is what you needed to do to dismiss Media Bias Fact Check? What should that tell a reasonable person about where they sit on the political spectrum and what they need to do to preserve that perspective?

Let's look at what your extreme Right-wing WND source has to offer reasonable readers:

- "What Tolerance of Sexual Deviance Has Reaped"
- "Tell President Trump Happy Birthday by signing an ecard"
- "The Good (Christian) News You Didn't Hear From India"
- "Planned Parent hood Spreads Biggest Lie Of All"
- "See For Yourself the Miracle of Israel!"

I'm supposed to be able to have a reasonable discussion with people like you? No wonder you defended AlbqOwl's obvious misrepresentations and lies. This is not reason. This is denial.

I'm sure if I presented you the multiple studies, spanning years, about how uninformed and brainwashed FOX News viewers are, you would simply seek ways to dismiss those too. Lt. Colonel Peters turned into enemy #1 when he finally quit FOX and declared it for what it was, didn't he? You all even turned on General Mattis the moment he quit Trump. You people went from blasting Obama for "firing" Mattis, to supporting Trump for "firing" Mattis. Both of which were false, but all...just to protect an illusion of a fake ideology that has long been broken. What actually hurts me is that you are a Veteran doing this. You conservatives have a collective need to protect falsehood and there is no shock that something like WND, INFOWARS, and FOX News is your choice for world view. You can't have the discussions because you aren't even wiling to look at the issues.
 
Last edited:
[h=1]House Republicans again block passage of disaster aid bill[/h]

House Republicans again block passage of disaster aid bill - CNNPolitics

Washington (CNN)For the second time in a week, House Republicans blocked the passage of a more than $19 billion disaster relief bill, further delaying the approval of funds that cleared the Senate last week with overwhelming bipartisan support.

House Democrats attempted to pass the bill via unanimous consent on Tuesday, but Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky objected. Republican Rep. Alex Mooney of West Virginia was on the House floor standing next to Massie for the objection. It only takes one person to object in order to block a bill from passing immediately through unanimous consent.

With Congress in recess, House Democrats will have another chance at a second pro forma this coming Thursday, and then again next week when the House returns on Monday.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer was also in the chamber Tuesday to call on Republicans not to object.
"I urge them to do so because millions of people ... are at risk," he said.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It only takes one Republican to block this disaster relief bill, this is the second time one has blocked it passing. Trump has already said he would sign the bill when it comes to his desk, even if it didn't contain the border funding. There's not $3 billion for his wall in the disaster bill, so the GOP refuses to pass it.

Nancy Pelosi was right when she said "the heartlessness of House Republicans knows no bounds". North Dakota Republican Sen. Kevin Cramer was quite succinct when he said ""A lot gets made of the fact that one person did this. The one person that did it obviously represents several others who would have done it if not for them,"


Seems the dems should compromise if millions of people are at risk. I wonder why they don't care about the millions of people.
 
If we put the Secure Fence Act of 2006 on the floor today, and erased out 'of 2006' and inserted 'of 2019' with Trump's name on it, would it pass?

I should hope not. In 2006 we had over a million apprehensions versus 2018 (2019 data not available) where we had a little over 300,000. The trend is continually moving downward so why would people who use these kind of facts to make decisions on where to spend the money pass a bill that may have been needed in 2006 but not 2019?

3 Charts That Show What's Actually Happening Along The Southern Border : NPR

According to the Department of Homeland Security, there is a long-term trend of fewer people being arrested or apprehended for allegedly crossing the border illegally. Most apprehensions happen along the southern border. (Years shown are fiscal years.)

seamus-border-arrests-20180621_wide-b75cc174a220773f771fbf43108d1e9cd588deab.png
 
Oh, no need to continue. Are you kidding me with this? To be honest, I thought you were above trying to pull this nonsense. You did exactly what I expect from others:

Media Bias Fact Check hits on all the media, not just your FOX News. But because it places FOX News exactly where it belongs, you chose to fling the source as far away from your vision as possible in order to protect yourself. And to do so, you ironically had to use WND, which is widely described as "fringe...far right..." and "is known for promoting falsehoods and conspiracy theories." It actually sits right next to INFOWARS! In other words, to protect your delusions of what FOX News is you used a source that sits among the sources that uses conspiracy theories to create "truth." And the kicker is that you didn't even make your own argument. You merely copied and pasted WND's crap as proper representation of you. This is what you needed to do to dismiss Media Bias Fact Check? What should that tell a reasonable person about where they sit on the political spectrum and what they need to do to preserve that perspective?

Let's look at what your extreme Right-wing WND source has to offer reasonable readers:

- "What Tolerance of Sexual Deviance Has Reaped"
- "Tell President Trump Happy Birthday by signing an ecard"
- "The Good (Christian) News You Didn't Hear From India"
- "Planned Parent hood Spreads Biggest Lie Of All"
- "See For Yourself the Miracle of Israel!"

I'm supposed to be able to have a reasonable discussion with people like you? No wonder you defended AlbqOwl's obvious misrepresentations and lies. This is not reason. This is denial.

I'm sure if I presented you the multiple studies, spanning years, about how uninformed and brainwashed FOX News viewers are, you would simply seek ways to dismiss those too. Lt. Colonel Peters turned into enemy #1 when he finally quit FOX and declared it for what it was, didn't he? You all even turned on General Mattis the moment he quit Trump. You people went from blasting Obama for "firing" Mattis, to supporting Trump for "firing" Mattis. Both of which were false, but all...just to protect an illusion of a fake ideology that has long been broken. What actually hurts me is that you are a Veteran doing this. You conservatives have a collective need to protect falsehood and there is no shock that something like WND, INFOWARS, and FOX News is your choice for world view. You can't have the discussions because you aren't even wiling to look at the issues.

LOL....Look, I posted that to garner the exact response I knew you would give...You use liberal bias sources to make your points, then when you get back the exact methods you employ, you break into a tirade of ad hom attack that can only be characterized as rabid....Face it man, "reasonable discussion" is NOT in your bag of tools. You can't have a discussion with anyone in disagreement of your ideology without personally attacking them throughout every post. I suspect that in RL you hang out with only like minded people because given any opposition, you'd probably start screaming at them....Anyway, I have no respect for people like that...I can offer reasonable discussion, but the person I am having that discussion has to be reasonable as well....Good day.
 
I should hope not. In 2006 we had over a million apprehensions versus 2018 (2019 data not available) where we had a little over 300,000. The trend is continually moving downward so why would people who use these kind of facts to make decisions on where to spend the money pass a bill that may have been needed in 2006 but not 2019?

3 Charts That Show What's Actually Happening Along The Southern Border : NPR



seamus-border-arrests-20180621_wide-b75cc174a220773f771fbf43108d1e9cd588deab.png

Here's from a NYTimes article in March... Now admittedly, the article's writer gives these stats to attack the Trump administration, but none the less...The relevant parts to your post here:

"The number of migrant families crossing the southwest border has once again broken records, with unauthorized entries nearly double what they were a year ago....

snip

More than 76,000 migrants crossed the border without authorization in February...

snip

“The system is well beyond capacity, and remains at the breaking point,” Kevin K. McAleenan, commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, told reporters in announcing the new data on Tuesday.

The nation’s top border enforcement officer painted a picture of processing centers filled to capacity, border agents struggling to meet medical needs and thousands of exhausted members of migrant families crammed into a detention system that was not built to house them — all while newcomers continue to arrive, sometimes by the busload, at the rate of 2,200 a day."

Border at ‘Breaking Point’ as More Than 76,000 Unauthorized Migrants Cross in a Month - The New York Times

Now, if you take the rates of 2,200 per day that CBE head put out there, that equals some 803,000 per year. NOT the 310,000 you wanted to portray....But, in the end you answered my question...The Secure Fence act that Democrats passed overwhelmingly, today would fail due to arguments like yours insisting that there is no problem....So, I will ask a question that never gets answered....Maybe this time I can get an idea of an answer....So, how many per year is enough? 300K? 1M? 5M? And why should people that aren't citizens be allowed to just flow across the border with no repercussions? Why?
 
I should hope not. In 2006 we had over a million apprehensions versus 2018 (2019 data not available) where we had a little over 300,000. The trend is continually moving downward so why would people who use these kind of facts to make decisions on where to spend the money pass a bill that may have been needed in 2006 but not 2019?

3 Charts That Show What's Actually Happening Along The Southern Border : NPR



seamus-border-arrests-20180621_wide-b75cc174a220773f771fbf43108d1e9cd588deab.png

Want to know what happened between 2006 and 2011? DHS completed 649 miles of the fence authorized under the secure fence act of 2006. Ironically, this covers the California border, a state where you will find many stating the wall isn't needed.
 
Here's from a NYTimes article in March... Now admittedly, the article's writer gives these stats to attack the Trump administration, but none the less...The relevant parts to your post here:

"The number of migrant families crossing the southwest border has once again broken records, with unauthorized entries nearly double what they were a year ago....

snip

More than 76,000 migrants crossed the border without authorization in February...

snip

“The system is well beyond capacity, and remains at the breaking point,” Kevin K. McAleenan, commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, told reporters in announcing the new data on Tuesday.

The nation’s top border enforcement officer painted a picture of processing centers filled to capacity, border agents struggling to meet medical needs and thousands of exhausted members of migrant families crammed into a detention system that was not built to house them — all while newcomers continue to arrive, sometimes by the busload, at the rate of 2,200 a day."

Border at ‘Breaking Point’ as More Than 76,000 Unauthorized Migrants Cross in a Month - The New York Times

Now, if you take the rates of 2,200 per day that CBE head put out there, that equals some 803,000 per year. NOT the 310,000 you wanted to portray....But, in the end you answered my question...The Secure Fence act that Democrats passed overwhelmingly, today would fail due to arguments like yours insisting that there is no problem....So, I will ask a question that never gets answered....Maybe this time I can get an idea of an answer....So, how many per year is enough? 300K? 1M? 5M? And why should people that aren't citizens be allowed to just flow across the border with no repercussions? Why?

They shouldn't be but they are because there are jobs waiting for them. Due to the measures illegal immigration through our border has been decreasing but as long as we provide them jobs and a sense of security they do not have, they will come. Over, under, or around they will still find a way. Barriers in strategic places and good security to monitor the border and legal ports of entry are good but can only do so much if we keep on giving and giving. Our better focus would be to focus on the root of the problem and fix that.

From your own article:

More than 76,000 migrants crossed the border without authorization in February, an 11-year high and a strong sign that stepped-up prosecutions, new controls on asylum and harsher detention policies have not reversed what remains a powerful lure for thousands of families fleeing violence and poverty.

If we have been trending downward for the past decade and it's starting to creep up again at levels not seen in over a decade, maybe it's the current poor leadership that is pretending to care but not really cracking down and letting things get out of hand so the followers can support them.
 
Want to know what happened between 2006 and 2011? DHS completed 649 miles of the fence authorized under the secure fence act of 2006. Ironically, this covers the California border, a state where you will find many stating the wall isn't needed.

So then why is it creeping back up again, are those fences not really working? According to j-mac's article we are seeing level again that we haven't seen in 11 years.
 
So then why is it creeping back up again, are those fences not really working? According to j-mac's article we are seeing level again that we haven't seen in 11 years.

There's a number of factors, but key to this discussion, people are going where there are no fences.
 
So how many times do Democrats refuse to vote for an otherwise good bill because it doesn't include a provision they want? I can assure you it is every bit as often if not more often than happens on the Republican side.

So who is more heartless? Democrats who refuse to allow President one thin dime for a wall THEY all wanted before President Trump was elected and would hold a disaster relief bill hostage because of it? Or Republicans who are committed to national security as much as they are committed to providing disaster relief?

So the bill goes for a vote and all have to go on the record instead of passing it on a voice vote. (Voice votes that involved anything that affects the people in any way, i.e. imposes a law, mandate, regulation, or costs money, should be outlawed anyway.)

Rejection of money for the self-aggrandizing wall was bi-partisan. Plus, the moron rejected a bill that offered him more money than the one he signed.
 
They shouldn't be but they are because there are jobs waiting for them. Due to the measures illegal immigration through our border has been decreasing but as long as we provide them jobs and a sense of security they do not have, they will come. Over, under, or around they will still find a way. Barriers in strategic places and good security to monitor the border and legal ports of entry are good but can only do so much if we keep on giving and giving. Our better focus would be to focus on the root of the problem and fix that.

From your own article:



If we have been trending downward for the past decade and it's starting to creep up again at levels not seen in over a decade, maybe it's the current poor leadership that is pretending to care but not really cracking down and letting things get out of hand so the followers can support them.

Most people who are here without paperwork did not cross the border illegally, they overstayed visas.

One reason we have trended down for many years because the economy tanked in 2008.

It is creeping up because people want asylum, and they are not sneaking in.
 
Want to know what happened between 2006 and 2011? DHS completed 649 miles of the fence authorized under the secure fence act of 2006. Ironically, this covers the California border, a state where you will find many stating the wall isn't needed.

The economy tanked during that time period.
 
They shouldn't be but they are because there are jobs waiting for them. Due to the measures illegal immigration through our border has been decreasing but as long as we provide them jobs and a sense of security they do not have, they will come. Over, under, or around they will still find a way. Barriers in strategic places and good security to monitor the border and legal ports of entry are good but can only do so much if we keep on giving and giving. Our better focus would be to focus on the root of the problem and fix that.

I'm an all of the above kind of person. But, if there is no willingness to even agree on the starting point, then I have to question whether opposition to this even want to address the problem.

If we have been trending downward for the past decade and it's starting to creep up again at levels not seen in over a decade, maybe it's the current poor leadership that is pretending to care but not really cracking down and letting things get out of hand so the followers can support them.

Then, I'm back to my question...How many before you and others would agree that enough is enough?
 
Wow, how reasonable...

1) First, let's look at what the video states in writing..."Remember when Obama Supported a Border Wall?" Yet, Obama's speech in the video, in which you conveniently presented, spoke of fencing, not a wall. His words: "...much needed funding for better fences." So, despite the later added caption to define the speech, the speech speaks for itself. But, you knew this, didn't you? You chose to misrepresent because your ideology isn't strong enough to argue on its own. You need to misrepresent in order to legitimize your argument. What should this tell you about your argument?

2) Second, producing this video, in which the entire universe has known about since 2006, does nothing for the issue, nor does it change the facts. The Secure Fence Act of 2006 is a black & white document that everybody can read and is clearly about 700 miles of fencing, not a concrete wall spanning thousands. But you knew this too, didn't you? You chose to misrepresent the Act. But, as long as FOX News legitimizes the lies for you, you will continue to dismiss reason and misrepresent history because FOX News "tells the truth."


***

Well, j-mac, there's your answer. Here is exactly why I can safely declare what I did. Do you think AlbqOwl is simply unaware or is she simply using lies to try to legitimize an obtuse argument? And do you actually think she gets this hardened position from any news medium other than FOX News? Clearly, the need to cling to obvious lies and false narratives is far more satisfying than honestly looking at the situation with reason.

Have you noticed that President Trump has been promoting and building fencing instead of a wall? The wall is a figure of speech at this time. But by all means let's make the biggest possible deal out of what word is used and ignore the fact that the Democrats all voted for secure fencing to help control illegal immigration before they started saying that it was unimportant and useless and a waste of money and cruel.

(Neither Bush nor Obama bothered to actually build the fence authorized under the 2006 bill by the way rather installing mostly a few vehicle barriers leaving most of that 700 miles easily accessible to foot traffic even though Obama's Border Patrol Chief has long said and continues to say that a physical barrier is essential to help the Border Patrol control the problem.)

The point is that the Democrats refusing to fund the wall saves $5 billion now but illegal immigration is costing the tax payer more than $100 billion annually not to mention the headaches, crime issues, and other grief to Americans.
 
LOL....Look, I posted that to garner the exact response I knew you would give...You use liberal bias sources to make your points...

So transparent. You posted that reply because you are so far off into the alt-right wing that whatever is left on the spectrum is simply "liberal bias." You actually think your alt-right nonsense passes muster for legitimate argument against facts. And after I easily pointed out that nonsense, you backtracked here into some fantasy that you did it on purpose? Um...how about actually having the discussion that you just declared you could have?! But you couldn't could you? Not without needing to deny the facts first and insisting that I to pretend that facts don't exist. This is exactly why you defaulted to the right-wing ammo to help you deny.

then when you get back the exact methods you employ...

Let's at least try to have some integrity here: I gave you factual information and an argument based on those facts...you gave back alt-right denial and a cut/paste job that held no actual argument. It was a simple FOX News method of attacking the source for the well-understood fact in order to deny a discussion of it. How in your sad world is that an exact method?

...you break into a tirade of ad hom attack that can only be characterized as rabid....Face it man, "reasonable discussion" is NOT in your bag of tools. You can't have a discussion with anyone in disagreement of your ideology without personally attacking them throughout every post. I suspect that in RL you hang out with only like minded people because given any opposition, you'd probably start screaming at them....Anyway, I have no respect for people like that...I can offer reasonable discussion, but the person I am having that discussion has to be reasonable as well....Good day.

It might be helpful for you to take a time-out and actually figure out what ideology means. Ideology is a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy. Therefore, as a trained historian after a twenty year Marine career, my ideology on any given subject would be very much based on the idea that facts actually exist. My ideology would not send me to the left or right most corner of the spectrum to help me deny truth. That would obviously be you, in which you just proved. This makes my "ideology" stronger than one who needs conspiracy, exaggeration, and plain lies to protect their busted ideology. Because you have no sense of factual base for your ideologies, whatever your ideology is from day to day (I'm sure you haven't bothered to actually define that for yourself), you assume others are also blowing in the wind and calling it an ideology.

And no, you absolutely can not offer reasonable discussion, as proven in your response here. You immediately defaulted to simply denying facts and using pathetic alt-right crap to try to do it. You literally refused to have the discussion. This is exactly why you find such comfort with only FOX News and media sources that are actually even further off into the Right. It is you people who need the like-minded of the conservative tribe (but not those RINOs huh?) to feel validated in your denials of the world you live in.
 
So transparent. You posted that reply because you are so far off into the alt-right wing that whatever is left on the spectrum is simply "liberal bias." You actually think your alt-right nonsense passes muster for legitimate argument against facts. And after I easily pointed out that nonsense, you backtracked here into some fantasy that you did it on purpose? Um...how about actually having the discussion that you just declared you could have?! But you couldn't could you? Not without needing to deny the facts first and insisting that I to pretend that facts don't exist. This is exactly why you defaulted to the right-wing ammo to help you deny.



Let's at least try to have some integrity here: I gave you factual information and an argument based on those facts...you gave back alt-right denial and a cut/paste job that held no actual argument. It was a simple FOX News method of attacking the source for the well-understood fact in order to deny a discussion of it. How in your sad world is that an exact method?



It might be helpful for you to take a time-out and actually figure out what ideology means. Ideology is a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy. Therefore, as a trained historian after a twenty year Marine career, my ideology on any given subject would be very much based on the idea that facts actually exist. My ideology would not send me to the left or right most corner of the spectrum to help me deny truth. That would obviously be you, in which you just proved. This makes my "ideology" stronger than one who needs conspiracy, exaggeration, and plain lies to protect their busted ideology. Because you have no sense of factual base for your ideologies, whatever your ideology is from day to day (I'm sure you haven't bothered to actually define that for yourself), you assume others are also blowing in the wind and calling it an ideology.

And no, you absolutely can not offer reasonable discussion, as proven in your response here. You immediately defaulted to simply denying facts and using pathetic alt-right crap to try to do it. You literally refused to have the discussion. This is exactly why you find such comfort with only FOX News and media sources that are actually even further off into the Right. It is you people who need the like-minded of the conservative tribe (but not those RINOs huh?) to feel validated in your denials of the world you live in.

You wouldn't know 'reasonable' if it bit you in the ass pal....All you do is attack people in here regularly....Buzz off.
 
Most people who are here without paperwork did not cross the border illegally, they overstayed visas.

One reason we have trended down for many years because the economy tanked in 2008.

It is creeping up because people want asylum, and they are not sneaking in.

No doubt, visa's need to be addressed too. Thank you for pointing out again the effectiveness of the existing barriers. But as far as the previous graph that discussed illegal border crossing apprehensions... they likely all involved people crossing the border illegally. :)

Yes, the sluggish economy was a contributing factor. (Yeah Obama!). However, fencing is also a factor.

And finally, yes, these are people crossing illegally (aka 'sneaking in'). People applying for asylum through the normal process (at the border, or an embassy) would not be crossing the border illegally.
 
Have you noticed that President Trump has been promoting and building fencing instead of a wall? The wall is a figure of speech at this time. But by all means let's make the biggest possible deal out of what word is used and ignore the fact that the Democrats all voted for secure fencing to help control illegal immigration before they started saying that it was unimportant and useless and a waste of money and cruel.

Ok. Two things:

1) Armed with this knowledge, (and I will trust what you say is true enough because that is all he can really do right now), why would you post and continue to insist that Obama and other Democrats were all about a wall in 2006? This is clearly not the case, and I am sure now that you knew this. So, why choose to misrepresent it?

2) The "wall" has been a matter of bold statement since Trump discovered that such extremist talk gave him mindless support on the campaign trail. Before 2016, even the GOP understood that the idea of a "wall" was metaphorical and represented the need for immigration reform. But after the election, the GOP jumped on the band wagon and stopped working the problem as Trump went on to arbitrarily drop "build the wall" into distracting Tweets for two years. Yet, the rest of the American citizenry is supposed to pretend with Conservatives that, now, it is all just a figure of speech that meant and means something else? No, if Trump and his fans wanted fencing repairs and new fencing, he would have run with fencing, not promises for a Mexican paid 2,000 mile concrete wall. Had he run with the fence idea, then you would have an argument about the 2006 Act and Democrats if they refused to do what they did before. But even that would have also just avoided the problem.

(Neither Bush nor Obama bothered to actually build the fence authorized under the 2006 bill by the way rather installing mostly a few vehicle barriers leaving most of that 700 miles easily accessible to foot traffic even though Obama's Border Patrol Chief has long said and continues to say that a physical barrier is essential to help the Border Patrol control the problem.)

The point is that the Democrats refusing to fund the wall saves $5 billion now but illegal immigration is costing the tax payer more than $100 billion annually not to mention the headaches, crime issues, and other grief to Americans.

You are right. Neither Bush, nor Obama, really addressed our Southern Border issue. Where did that money for the fencing go? Do you know what the funny thing here is? Trump actually already did do something about the problem, and nobody seems to even know about it. NAFTA, which had everything to do with exacerbating illegal immigration as far back as the late 1990s, needed reform. But because "the wall" and other extremist talk has been today's focus for conservatives, they couldn't even give Trump the credit he deserved on that one. To my knowledge, he didn't even bother to argue it because he knows simple slogans like "build that wall" gets him the only applause he wants.

But after fencing (or a wall) goes up, we will continue to spend on illegal immigration because Washington has failed to address the actual problem. NAFTA was one. The other is our antiquated immigration laws that need great reform.

- Did you know that most illegal immigration comes from expired VISAs, not the border hoppers that FOX News only focuses on?

- Did you now that it is the VISA holders that "rob" Americans of their jobs, not the border hoppers who pick the crops and mows your lawn?

- And whatever off-and-on criminal case that FOX News focuses on as a reason to "build that wall," none of it has anything on good-ole red-blooded Americans shooting up schools, synagogues, churches, theaters, and music concerts.

But because "the wall" has been the extremist all-or-nothing focus from the average Conservative to Donald Trump, nobody in Washington has done a thing to actually address the problem. Hell, they won't even admit that those Central American countries where people are fleeing are a direct result of our CIA's making.
 
Last edited:
You wouldn't know 'reasonable' if it bit you in the ass pal....All you do is attack people in here regularly....Buzz off.

Say's the guy who thinks a counterargument to simple facts is an alt-right fringe source, that deals in conspiracy theories, so that he can disregard the facts and feel legitimate in his denial. And the fact that you feel insulted because I call you out and challenge you on your obviously chosen falsehoods, kind of say's it all. Fox News propaganda gives you far too much comfort if realities truths are too much to bear.

There is no reason there.
 
Last edited:
Say's the guy who thinks a counterargument to simple facts is an alt-right fringe source, that deals in conspiracy theories, so that he can disregard the facts and feel legitimate in his denial. And the fact that you feel insulted because I call you out and challenge you on your obviously chosen falsehoods, kind of say's it all. Fox News propaganda gives you far too much comfort if realities truths are too much to bear.

There is no reason there.

So, you believe insults, and denigrating people is "calling them out"? Sad....Look, I've already said I have nothing to discuss with you, and the fact that you can't let it go shows that I hit the nail on the head...So, move on and troll someone else, I am done with you.
 
Ok. Two things:

1) Armed with this knowledge, (and I will trust what you say is true enough because that is all he can really do right now), why would you post and continue to insist that Obama and other Democrats were all about a wall in 2006? This is clearly not the case, and I am sure now that you knew this. So, why choose to misrepresent it?
2) The "wall" has been a matter of bold statement since Trump discovered that such extremist talk gave him mindless support on the campaign trail. Before 2016, even the GOP understood that the idea of a "wall" was metaphorical and represented the need for immigration reform. But after the election, the GOP jumped on the band wagon and stopped working the problem as Trump went on to arbitrarily drop "build the wall" into distracting Tweets for two years. Yet, the rest of the American citizenry is supposed to pretend with Conservatives that, now, it is all just a figure of speech that meant and means something else? No, if Trump and his fans wanted fencing repairs and new fencing, he would have run with fencing, not promises for a Mexican paid 2,000 mile concrete wall. Had he run with the fence idea, then you would have an argument about the 2006 Act and Democrats if they refused to do what they did before. But even that would have also just avoided the problem.



You are right. Neither Bush, nor Obama, really addressed our Southern Border issue. Where did that money for the fencing go? Do you know what the funny thing here is? Trump actually already did do something about the problem, and nobody seems to even know about it. NAFTA, which had everything to do with exacerbating illegal immigration as far back as the late 1990s, needed reform. But because "the wall" and other extremist talk has been today's focus for conservatives, they couldn't even give Trump the credit he deserved on that one. To my knowledge, he didn't even bother to argue it because he knows simple slogans like "build that wall" gets him the only applause he wants.

But after fencing (or a wall) goes up, we will continue to spend on illegal immigration because Washington has failed to address the actual problem. NAFTA was one. The other is our antiquated immigration laws that need great reform.

- Did you know that most illegal immigration comes from expired VISAs, not the border hoppers that FOX News only focuses on?

- Did you now that it is the VISA holders that "rob" Americans of their jobs, not the border hoppers who pick the crops and mows your lawn?

- And whatever off-and-on criminal case that FOX News focuses on as a reason to "build that wall," none of it has anything on good-ole red-blooded Americans shooting up schools, synagogues, churches, theaters, and music concerts.

But because "the wall" has been the extremist all-or-nothing focus from the average Conservative to Donald Trump, nobody in Washington has done a thing to actually address the problem. Hell, they won't even admit that those Central American countries where people are fleeing are a direct result of our CIA's making.

Baloney. The entire Border Patrol, to a man, including Obama's border chief, are on the record that they need a strong physical barrier that will help them main control of the border. Not one of them thinks the wall/fence/barrier will solve the problem, but it is an integral part of it.

If you want hundreds, thousands, millions of illegals in your town, living in your house, ask for them. I'm sure President Trump would be more than happy to direct that you get a whole big bunch.

But until you are willing to support legislation that helps our own American veterans that need help, that deal with the American homeless, that improves opportunities for Americans--all have suffered due to illegal immigration-- don't give me any bleeding heart lectures that the vast majority of those hundreds, thousands, millions of illegals are here for any reason other than to access our generosity and resources. And trying to divert the discussion to other issues that merit attention is not the best way to impress me with your debating skills.
 
So, you believe insults, and denigrating people is "calling them out"?

Oh, you were insulted? You were denigrated? I'm not the one clinging to extremist websites to maintain an ideology and expecting others to abandon reason so that you can feel good about it. You insult yourself by denying simple truths. I merely don't play your game. One doesn't get to expressly choose to lie about subjects and then feel insulted when called out for the lies. In this case:

- Notice how AlbqOwl went from knowingly misrepresenting the 2006 Act as a "wall"...to properly holding the discussion after I called the lie out. I shouldn't have to do that to get a decent conversation out of you people. Had I not called it out, her entire discussion would be about how Democrats would be fine with a "wall" were they not hateful to Trump, which is exactly the question you asked me. Its's a false conversation based on falsehood just to protect a false ideology. There is no reason if one digs in and refuses to budge out of the BS. Start with facts and acknowledge the facts.

Sad....Look, I've already said I have nothing to discuss with you, and the fact that you can't let it go shows that I hit the nail on the head...So, move on and troll someone else, I am done with you.

- Yet...it was you who initiated the discussion with me for calling out AlbqOwl's lie.

- It was you who asked me to back up my declartin about FOX News.

- It was you who chose to reply by using an alt-Right fringe website in order to counter-argue against facts.

You didn't even try to hit a nail in your alt-right cut/paste job. Funny how you people are all about "the left," yet fail to recognize where you sit on the spectrum now. Virtually the entire spectrum is "the left" to you people. And you are not being trolled. This is that reasonable discussion you have declared to be able to hold.
 
Back
Top Bottom