Things democrats have funded that cost more than the border wall

[Finch]

if barriers don't work i think that we should remove them from the united states capitol buildings and, let's see how long that last. It's pathetic that we are talking about immigration like it's our only hope to what?

Yes, lets take guarding a couple of hundred feet of fencing around government buildings and compare it to thousands of miles of unguarded walls along the border. That makes perfect sense.:roll:

 

[Finch]

Oh no. I'm nothing but honest. Of course if you would like to try to point to something I said that wasnt honest...fell free. Otherwise...

well...you know....

liars and hypocrites..........

Spoken like a true hypocrite....go figure.

 

[TheRepublican]

If barriers don't work. Then why does the united states capitol buildings and, surrounding areas that senators and representative offices have barriers or some type of a security standard. Let's find out how long that last if the president decides to fail along with Pelosi and Schumer and request that we should conduct a test and remove everything that has to manage with protection and barriers at the united states capitol Some people might ask are you mad? Yes, I am insane to make a political point, but I don’t mean like this in a bad thing. The united states capitol building should be always heavily secured, but imagine that the president got rid of all security in the united states capitol would our congressional leaders feel safe? Of course not and I’m just using what the democrats have been saying, which is that "barriers doesn't work. " Then we should remove them and if people who works in the united states capitol building asks why? We will say that you said that barriers doesn’t work on hot mics. It's pitiful that we are speaking about immigration like it's our sole hope for what? Better our society takes up their culture to ours, which is true, but, at the close of the day we just want a better system to invest then what we have been experiencing. I would like to encourage some people who are open minded to read a piece that Charles Krauthammer wrote for the Washington Post on April 7, 2007 which is featured in “Things that matter”. If some are interested and if some don’t care that is ok with me.

 

[VanceMack]

Spoken like a true hypocrite....go figure.

Again...all you have to do is point to the actual instance of hypocrisy to not look foolish.

Its not that complicated.

 

[ultmd]

Oh no. I'm nothing but honest.

Well, I'm sure you're about as honest as the people you worship. That's true. You and Trump are about equals, I'd say.

The fact that you think you're honest doesn't make it so. It just speaks to your state of mind. I think most people reading your remarks probably understand that. :lamo

Of course if you would like to try to point to something I said that wasnt honest...fell free.

Aren't you the rightie who stated that Cardinal "bows and swallows everything" that "liberals" say, and the defended that drivelling idiotic wingnut OPINION as a "fact"?

If so, please offer your apology right now. If you need more, just let me know.

Like most righties these days, you have difficulty separating your strongly held personal opinions....from actual FACTS.

Otherwise...

well...you know....

liars and hypocrites..........

Don't be upset. It's just what you do. Clearly, it's what you and other wingnuts like you do in order to survive in forums like this. Don't try to project that TRUTHFUL (if also hurtful) lable onto others, just becauase it stings a little. :roll:

 

[TheRepublican]

why do we even have a fence which is considered to be a "barrier" that was installed in 2006! what was the reason? Was Bush a racist was these voters which was Obama, Chuckles, Hillary, a racist?

 

[VanceMack]

Well, I'm sure you're about as honest as the people you worship. That's true. You and Trump are about equals, I'd say.

The fact that you think you're honest doesn't make it so. It just speaks to your state of mind. I think most people reading your remarks probably understand that. :lamo




Aren't you the rightie who stated that Cardinal "bows and swallows everything" that "liberals" say, and the defended that drivelling idiotic wingnut OPINION as a "fact"?

If so, please offer your apology right now. If you need more, just let me know.

Like most righties these days, you have difficulty separating your strongly held personal opinions....from actual FACTS.


Don't be upset. It's just what you do. Clearly, it's what you and other wingnuts like you do in order to survive in forums like this. Don't try to project that TRUTHFUL (if also hurtful) lable onto others, just becauase it stings a little. :roll:

Oh poor dood...thats like a MASSIVE swing and a miss. You will have to do a much better job of pointing out a 'lie' or 'hypocrisy'.

As for the other poster...come on, baby...thats fact and you know it. Hell HE knows it.

 

[VanceMack]

why do we even have a fence which is considered to be a "barrier" that was installed in 2006! what was the reason? Was Bush a racist was these voters which was Obama, Chuckles, Hillary, a racist?

Because leftists are liars and hypocrites. Evidence by their very words.

 

[bubbabgone]

I did answer the question before. I said that this wall is special because it means so much more than any other walls already built. No, there is no reason to tear those walls down because they do not mean what this wall means. It is symbolism, if you know what that is. It is like giving in to ransom. You do it one time, and it means you will do it again and again and again and the ransomers will try it again and again and again. If you don't give in to ransom, the ransomers will stop trying.

This wall is immoral because it does not just separate one or a few areas where illegal immigration is high, it separates the entire United States from Mexico. Do you understand that?

No, a sea-to-sea wall is not being considered.

I see your point. Those older walls were meant for national security, they're moral, and they worked so they're okay.
But additional segments of wall wouldn't work, they're immoral, and they're superfluous and it doesn't matter who says different.
How do you know this? You can't explain how ... you just do.

If I showed you a picture of segments of border wall, could you tell by looking at it if they were meant for security, immoral, or would work?

 

[Moderate71]

Nope.

In the case of foreign aid it is an analysis of how much power and influence and safety we get in return for that money. In some cases, propping up a government of a country so that they can prevent disasters from forming on the ground saves us money and allows for more diplomacy and trade etc. If you think that foreign aid is just flat out stupid then you honestly haven't thought about it or heard an intelligent person who knows the matter talk about it. You might fairly decide it's not worth it, but it's not a flat out stupid thing.

Bull, we've given massive aid to countries like Ethiopia and gotten nothing in return. We've bailed people out of their own floods, diseases, famines etc.

 

[Lursa]

So the BP is lying ... but you did say "their needs" so which is it?
With your excuse not to appropriate money for what the Border Patrol says they need do you realize you also provided an excuse to turn down asylum requests at the Southern Border?

Your answer is that the BP is lying?

Odd, The Donald seems to take what they say seriously...sometimes. When it fits his agenda. Then he ignores what he wants to also.

And all agencies claim they 'need' $$, that's how bureaucracies work.

 

[Captain America]

How can one expect to be taken seriously when one posts this as the thread title...

Things democrats have funded that cost more than the border wall​

....and then posts this as the OP....
[

QUOTE=bubbabgone;1069524357]

"After President Trump requested $5.7 billion to fund the border wall he campaigned on in 2016, Democrats have dug in, refusing to appropriate the funds that the administration says are needed to better manage the flow of immigration across the southern border.

Democrats are not traditionally known for their fiscal rectitude but are particularly parsimonious over what ultimately amounts to a very small percentage of the federal budget. (In 2018, the feds spent $4.173 trillion overall, meaning the border wall would amount to just 1/10th of 1 percent of current annual federal spending.)

Indeed, these lawmakers have happily funded various projects over the years that cost far more than the border wall — and many of which had very questionable value. Below are some examples of wasteful federal spending projects that individually cost more than the proposed border wall (data courtesy of Citizens Against Government Waste)​

https://news.grabien.com/story-things-democrats-have-funded-cost-more-border-wall


I guess the money ain't the reason then?


$8.2B, $6B, $15B, ... pretty soon you're talking free healthcare for a couple of weeks.​

​

Xelor, whereas I do totally get where you are coming from, I feel obligated to point out that it is considered proper, when presenting a link in an OP, to title the thread the same as the link headline. And, if my memory serves me correctly, when posting in the breaking news forum, it is a rule here at Debate Politics. (Unless, I am mistaken.)

Although this is not the breaking news thread, I do believe that Bubbagone is actually correct in presenting this thread/OP/Link thread-title in it's current form. Can't shoot arrows at him for doing what he was supposed to do.

Have a nice Sunday evening.

 

[bubbabgone]

Your answer is that the BP is lying?

Odd, The Donald seems to take what they say seriously...sometimes. When it fits his agenda. Then he ignores what he wants to also.

And all agencies claim they 'need' $$, that's how bureaucracies work.

I say the BP is NOT lying. They have repeatedly said they need the Wall/barrier. Their needs.

 

[Lursa]

I say the BP is NOT lying. They have repeatedly said they need the Wall/barrier. Their needs.

I asked you to address ONLY what I wrote.

And I was specific about what the BP said about drugs/people being smuggled in. At the regular checkpoints and thus the wall was not going to noticeable affect that.

Do not attribute to me things I did not write.

 

[bubbabgone]

[/INDENT]



Xelor, whereas I do totally get where you are coming from, I feel obligated to point out that it is considered proper, when presenting a link in an OP, to title the thread the same as the link headline. And, if my memory serves me correctly, when posting in the breaking news forum, it is a rule here at Debate Politics. (Unless, I am mistaken.)

Although this is not the breaking news thread, I do believe that Bubbagone is actually correct in presenting this thread/OP/Link thread-title in it's current form. Can't shoot arrows at him for doing what he was supposed to do.

Have a nice Sunday evening.

Since he never responded when I replied essentially the same way as you, he might have felt a bit chastened.
I think maybe, or hoped maybe, he was just confused if he thought that most of the entire post was a commentary by me when it wasn't.
Sometimes I use indent rather than a quote box because the indent lives on in replies while the quote box doesn't.
He screwed up the quote function himself but that's no biggie ... do that a bunch myself.
I'm just happy he didn't post a word-limited response complete with bullets and indents and colors and references to philosophers on the nuances of the written word.

 

[bubbabgone]

I asked you to address ONLY what I wrote.

And I was specific about what the BP said about drugs/people being smuggled in. At the regular checkpoints and thus the wall was not going to noticeable affect that.

Do not attribute to me things I did not write.

Oh. I misunderstood then.
No one is arguing that drug seizures don't happen mostly at points of entry ... that's because they're hidden in vehicles.
Putting up walls/barriers forces the cartels to bypass the walled areas.
They then have to use the ports of entry or create tunnels.
That's a reason to have walls ... not to NOT have walls.
And then there are the tunnels.
That requires a different approach.
Again, having additional walls/barriers is huge part of a solution and the BP says they need them ... they're not the only solution.
It's not a binary thing.

 

[Manc Skipper]

If Republicans wanted a wall so badly, why didn't they take the $25Bn the Democrats offered them last year?

 

[ttwtt78640]

If Republicans wanted a wall so badly, why didn't they take the $25Bn the Democrats offered them last year?

What demorat bill was that in?

 

[Lursa]

Oh. I misunderstood then.
No one is arguing that drug seizures don't happen mostly at points of entry ... that's because they're hidden in vehicles.
Putting up walls/barriers forces the cartels to bypass the walled areas.
They then have to use the ports of entry or create tunnels.
That's a reason to have walls ... not to NOT have walls.
And then there are the tunnels.
That requires a different approach.
Again, having additional walls/barriers is huge part of a solution and the BP says they need them ... they're not the only solution.
It's not a binary thing.

No...it's logistics.

Individuals cant carry enough product. There are no roads out in those areas where they want the wall. Individuals wont be mules out there.

The great majority is brought in thru the normal portals, or boats (normal portal or otherwise). The wall wont have a measurable affect on drug or human trafficking.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Yup

Two years no plan, no comprehensive study on the value for money. Fiscally Conservative my ass.

The ONLY reason we're "enjoying" (NOT) a shutdown is because Trump decided to have a dick measuring contest with the Democratic House majority and he took a hostage.
That being the case, I no longer care WHAT the money was for anymore.
He took a hostage right from Day One and that's his opening act.
And the Democratic response is,

"Shove your hostage taking up your ass, jerk."

And if we respond in any other way that rewards him, we can expect newer and bigger hostages every week till the end of time.

Nope, hostage taking is going to hurt the hostage takers this time.
You're going to learn a very hard lesson, every last one of you, and so is your hero, Donald Trump.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

If Republicans wanted a wall so badly, why didn't they take the $25Bn the Democrats offered them last year?

Because it wasn't an emergency until the Democrats took the House.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

The problem isn't the high cost of a border wall, you are correct. The problem is that Donald Trump (not 'republicans,' by the way) is lying about the purpose and efficacy of the wall. He says the wall is needed to secure the border, when in fact it is not and even if it were constructed with a budget of $60 billion dollars would do no such thing.

TBH: If Donald Trump told the truth and said, "I need a decorative monument to be constructed in my honor for my legacy as president of the United States because I got nothing else," I might be (marginally) more sympathetic. I still wouldn't want to waste taxpayer money on it, but at least he'd be telling the truth for once. And I might be slightly more open to negotiating some small stipend in exchange for something that really helps the American people. When he lies and uses fear tactics to stir up the emotions of the naive, I lean toward wanting democrats to totally deny him even the smallest of concessions. I'm with Nancy Pelosi in giving him exactly $1.00 of tax payer money towards his wall.

At this point, I've decided that his "wall" should resemble the miniature Stonehenge that "was in danger of being crushed by a dwarf" in Spinal Tap.

 

[Cardinal]

What demorat bill was that in?

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump rejected bipartisan efforts to address immigration Wednesday, compounding efforts by the Senate to reach agreement in a week set aside to solve the crisis facing so-called Dreamers.

In a new bipartisan deal taking shape, some Democrats appeared ready to give the president the $25 billion he wants for a border wall in exchange for restoring protections for young undocumented immigrants set to expire with the Trump-ordered end to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.

https://www.expressnews.com/news/lo...p-rejects-bipartisan-immigration-12614686.php

 

[ttwtt78640]

https://www.expressnews.com/news/lo...p-rejects-bipartisan-immigration-12614686.php

That is simply talk about a proposed "bipartisan deal taking shape" which is not legislation that can be voted on by either the House or the Senate.

 

[Cardinal]

That is simply talk about a proposed "bipartisan deal taking shape" which is not legislation that can be voted on by either the House or the Senate.

That was the deal Democrats offered and trump rejected it. You’re making a fool out of yourself.