Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
timschochet

The Wall: Update: Federal Judge blocks emergency spending on the Wall

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, butcher boy said:

Are the Dems really going to blow the opportunity to get billions towards their pet projects just to hold up a piddling $5 billion for the wall simply because they want to deny Trump a victory on his agenda?  Trump has all the leverage here.

Even setting aside that troubling problem of Trump explicitly saying last week that he'd take the fall for a shutdown over border wall funding with lots of cameras on hand, there's still the problem of the Dems taking control of the House in two weeks. 

Let's say the first thing the House Dems do is pass a clean funding bill with everything except the wall appropriations. Then the Senate Dems hold press conferences every day asking McConnell to take up the House bill and not let an unpopular president's unpopular border wall demands stall government services, keep people out of work and harm the economy.

And then of course there's the simplest argument of all- "why do you need billions from the taxpayers? I thought Mexico was gonna pay for the wall."

Edited by TobiasFunke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:

The solution to what? 

I'm explaining why people are always gonna cross the border illegally. If you don't like people crossing the border illegally, there are three basic options: (1) spend an absurd amount of money to stop a lot more of them, diverting resources from other areas of need (a few extra billion and/or a wall isn't gonna do it); (2) improve the quality of life in prospective immigrants' home countries so fewer try to cross the border illegally; or (3) let a lot more people in legally.

Of these, only #3 is remotely practical IMO.  #3 also comes with the added bonuses of being the right thing to do, good for our overall economic health (especially as compared to the other two) and more pupusas for everyone.

 

Basically #3 is an open border. Are we no longer vetting immigrants? Does this apply to all borders and all those that want to come in through International flights?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, KCitons said:

Basically #3 is an open border. Are we no longer vetting immigrants? Does this apply to all borders and all those that want to come in through International flights?

Jesus.  You can't just take a statement like: "the sky is blue."  And then re-state it falsely into: "Tobias is saying that the sky is red."

That's not how it works.  That's not how any of this works. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, KCitons said:

Basically #3 is an open border. Are we no longer vetting immigrants? Does this apply to all borders and all those that want to come in through International flights?

Huh?

I said let more people in legally. That means do the same thing we're doing now, except with looser requirements for amnesty and larger caps overall. All you'd need to do is spend a relatively tiny amount of money on expanded Homeland/CBP resources. I didn't say anything about abandoning vetting procedures or open borders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sweet J said:

Jesus.  You can't just take a statement like: "the sky is blue."  And then re-state it falsely into: "Tobias is saying that the sky is red."

That's not how it works.  That's not how any of this works. 

Yeah. I'm seeing that now. It only works when it's applied to something that fits a certain agenda. Try to apply it to anything else, and you get told how ridiculous it is. 

I think the word that applies is hypocrisy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, KCitons said:

Basically #3 is an open border. Are we no longer vetting immigrants? Does this apply to all borders and all those that want to come in through International flights?

Supporters of true open borders laugh at labeling “let more people in legally” as being open borders. “More” <> “All”. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, KCitons said:

Yeah. I'm seeing that now. It only works when it's applied to something that fits a certain agenda. Try to apply it to anything else, and you get told how ridiculous it is. 

I think the word that applies is hypocrisy. 

1.  Try addressing what he actually said without exaggerating for effect. 

2.  Hope he does the same to you.

3.  Profit? 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TobiasFunke said:

Huh?

I said let more people in legally. That means do the same thing we're doing now, except with looser requirements for amnesty and larger caps overall. All you'd need to do is spend a relatively tiny amount of money on expanded Homeland/CBP resources. I didn't say anything about abandoning vetting procedures or open borders.

Because people coming in to the country illegally is just something that has started in the last 2 years??

People have been doing it for a long time. I compare it to the way we used to fly. I used to be able to waltz into an airport with my bottle of soda, smoking a cigarette and head to the gate. Rules, regulations and limits change. It doesn't mean we condone illegal activity.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris Hayes‏Verified account @chrislhayes 37m37 minutes ago

What are we gonna build?

AESTHETICALLY TASTEFUL STEEL SLATS !!!!!!

Who’s gonna pay for it?

THE NET GROWTH RESULTING FROM A MILDLY RENEGOTIATED TRADE DEAL!!!!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sweet J said:

1.  Try addressing what he actually said without exaggerating for effect. 

2.  Hope he does the same to you.

3.  Profit? 

Thanks for the help.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, KCitons said:

Because people coming in to the country illegally is just something that has started in the last 2 years??

People have been doing it for a long time. I compare it to the way we used to fly. I used to be able to waltz into an airport with my bottle of soda, smoking a cigarette and head to the gate. Rules, regulations and limits change. It doesn't mean we condone illegal activity.

Huh?  Nothing you say here has anything whatsoever to do with what I said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is with this steel slats thing? Where did he come up with this and why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:

Huh?  Nothing you say here has anything whatsoever to do with what I said.

That's because you haven't really stated a firm opinion on anything other than we should allow more people in. Do you care to put a number on how many that should be? If it's unlimited, do you have a method for safely vetting them? One day it may be 500, then next it may be 5000. If 10 of those 5000 don't want to wait a week to be properly vetted, what is keeping them from taking a boat across the river? If your number is 1 million, then what do you propose we do with the 1 person over 1 million?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, KCitons said:

That's because you haven't really stated a firm opinion on anything other than we should allow more people in. Do you care to put a number on how many that should be? If it's unlimited, do you have a method for safely vetting them? One day it may be 500, then next it may be 5000. If 10 of those 5000 don't want to wait a week to be properly vetted, what is keeping them from taking a boat across the river? If your number is 1 million, then what do you propose we do with the 1 person over 1 million?

See, now THIS is a response that someone can actually respond to, and have a dialogue about. Maybe clarify a position.  Or explain his reasoning.  Or give more specifics.

Seriously.  This works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, KCitons said:

That's because you haven't really stated a firm opinion on anything other than we should allow more people in. Do you care to put a number on how many that should be? If it's unlimited, do you have a method for safely vetting them? One day it may be 500, then next it may be 5000. If 10 of those 5000 don't want to wait a week to be properly vetted, what is keeping them from taking a boat across the river? If your number is 1 million, then what do you propose we do with the 1 person over 1 million?

I didn't realize I had the burden to provide detailed solutions. I'm not the one who thinks there's a huge problem that demands solving.

That said, I'd do a study that gives us up to date and usable info on how many people the nation's resources could reasonably accommodate and how various numbers would impact the economy, and I'd get my number from that. Then I would expand funding to Homeland/CBP (some of which could come from resources currently allocated to enforcement, which we could obviously reduce) to ensure that those people undergo a vetting process the same as or similar to what we currently use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Sweet J said:

See, now THIS is a response that someone can actually respond to, and have a dialogue about. Maybe clarify a position.  Or explain his reasoning.  Or give more specifics.

Seriously.  This works.

before this i was worried he was having a stroke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, KCitons said:

That's because you haven't really stated a firm opinion on anything other than we should allow more people in. Do you care to put a number on how many that should be? If it's unlimited, do you have a method for safely vetting them? One day it may be 500, then next it may be 5000. If 10 of those 5000 don't want to wait a week to be properly vetted, what is keeping them from taking a boat across the river? If your number is 1 million, then what do you propose we do with the 1 person over 1 million?

Your questions are unanswerable, because the situation is permanently fluid. 

But more important, your questions are unnecessary, and here’s why: 

Undocumented immigration is not, and has never been, a pressing issue for the United States. It is not something you have to worry about. It is not something you have EVER had to worry about. The odds of it affecting your life, or the life of anyone you know, in any kind of negative manner is so minuscule as to be irrelevant. It is much more likely that undocumented immigration affects your life in a positive manner, but even that is a pretty small percentage. The likeliest outcome, by far, is that it affects your life not at all beyond the time that you waste thinking about it. 

So the answer to all of the questions you raise is: who cares? Let the experts in that field come up with solutions. Let’s make sure they’re humane solutions in keeping with the principles that have guided this nation from the beginning, as a sanctuary from the rest of the world’s economic and political woes.

Beyond that, stop worrying about it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Sweet J said:

See, now THIS is a response that someone can actually respond to, and have a dialogue about. Maybe clarify a position.  Or explain his reasoning.  Or give more specifics.

Seriously.  This works.

No it doesn't see below. I expect you'll take the same tone with Tobias and Tim.

3 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:

I didn't realize I had the burden to provide detailed solutions. I'm not the one who thinks there's a huge problem that demands solving.

That said, I'd do a study that gives us up to date and usable info on how many people the nation's resources could reasonably accommodate and how various numbers would impact the economy, and I'd get my number from that. Then I would expand funding to Homeland/CBP (some of which could come from resources currently allocated to enforcement, which we could obviously reduce) to ensure that those people undergo a vetting process the same as or similar to what we currently use.

Then you have no grounds with to dispute my opinion. 

3 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Your questions are unanswerable, because the situation is permanently fluid. 

But more important, your questions are unnecessary, and here’s why: 

Undocumented immigration is not, and has never been, a pressing issue for the United States. It is not something you have to worry about. It is not something you have EVER had to worry about. The odds of it affecting your life, or the life of anyone you know, in any kind of negative manner is so minuscule as to be irrelevant. It is much more likely that undocumented immigration affects your life in a positive manner, but even that is a pretty small percentage. The likeliest outcome, by far, is that it affects your life not at all beyond the time that you waste thinking about it. 

So the answer to all of the questions you raise is: who cares? Let the experts in that field come up with solutions. Let’s make sure they’re humane solutions in keeping with the principles that have guided this nation from the beginning, as a sanctuary from the rest of the world’s economic and political woes.

Beyond that, stop worrying about it. 

The experts (or more importantly, the elected officials) are coming up with solutions. You just don't agree with their solution. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, KCitons said:

No it doesn't see below. I expect you'll take the same tone with Tobias and Tim.

Then you have no grounds with to dispute my opinion. 

The experts (or more importantly, the elected officials) are coming up with solutions. You just don't agree with their solution. 

The current elected official in charge of this country is not an expert on this issue and in fact ignores the advice of experts on this issue. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, KCitons said:
Quote

  24 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:

I didn't realize I had the burden to provide detailed solutions.

Then you have no grounds with to dispute my opinion. 

 

I don't even know what opinion you're talking about. You engaged me with questions. I was just making jokes about boats and ladders and then transitioned to discussing prohibition laws more broadly.  All I've done since then is try to answer your questions.

I like you, GB, but has anyone told you that you jump around a lot and don't really present things clearly and logically?

  • Like 3
  • Thinking 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They should pass a spending resolution giving him 6B payable in 500M increments monthly but payable only if he goes in front of Congress to give a Wall building status report of 20 min or more each month - and he must only be dressed in a baby diaper and pacifier. He neglects to do it and the Wall gets cancelled.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jonathan Allen‏Verified account @jonallendc

FollowFollow @jonallendc

More

Irony: Shutting down the Homeland Security Department to protect the border.

10:40 AM - 20 Dec 2018

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, dgreen said:

There's talk about solutions, but I'm not clear on what the problem is. What are we trying to solve?

The millions of hispanics coming here to pick our crops for $80 a day. Most of them don't speak English or even follow the NFL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/19/2018 at 9:48 AM, butcher boy said:

Add to the military budget.  Have the Army Corps of Engineers build it.

They don't need to add to the military budget, it's plenty large enough to take 5B in the name of national security.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Sounds like Trump is torpedoing the deal. Shutdown here we come. 

The important thing is that all those government employees can finally say Merry Christmas again while shuffling their families through food banks for the holidays.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, butcher boy said:

FTFY.

Exactly.  I liked some of his ideas in the 80s/90s, but F Trump's Fascist Years, am I right?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JohnnyU said:

They don't need to add to the military budget, it's plenty large enough to take 5B in the name of national security.

Then we just need to allow the military to appropriate private and public property at will without a mandate from Congress, and I can't imagine how that precedent could be a problem.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, @JohnnyU, the next Democrat in office would like to make the block where your house is a wildlife refuge built by the Army Corp of Engineers.  Hope that's not a problem for you.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, roadkill1292 said:

The millions of hispanics coming here to pick our crops for $80 a day. Most of them don't speak English or even follow the NFL.

That's where the right is so shortsighted - our next soccer superstar could be coming across that border and help us to a World Cup final they just don't understand the implications.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ffldrew said:

That's where the right is so shortsighted - our next soccer superstar could be coming across that border and help us to a World Cup final they just don't understand the implications.

It's worse than that. The Mexicans are outscouting us and outrecruiting us on the talented dual-citizenship guys now. We can't afford that right now.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, JohnnyU said:

Buckle up folks, the wall is coming to an southern town near you.

Staten Island is going to be pissed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, JohnnyU said:

Buckle up folks, the wall is coming to an southern town near you.

Miami?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

To be honest if they put one up by Kenner I'd be ok with that.

But then how would I get to the airport?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frank Thorp V‏Verified account @frankthorp

FollowFollow @frankthorp

More

CORKER: “Mitch is on the phone with Paul now, so....” *corker starts laughing*

Q: Why are you laughing?

Corker: “Well, why not?” ///

Corker: “Ya’ll have fun! I may not see ya’ll again for a while...”

Q: You’re not going to come back from TN for votes?

Corker: “I doubt it.”

10:50 AM - 20 Dec 2018

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.