The 97% is homage to the climate change lie.. The actual number 89% of border agents want a wall. That's pretty overwhelming - and shows just how out-of-touch the Democrat leadership is in terms of enabling the border patrol to do their job. It's almost like they don't WANT a border patrol...
A wall actually REDUCES the amount of support needed. We could make a prison out of an empty field and 3-4 guards per prisoner, but it's easier to build walls and cells and have one guard per dozen inmates... Border patrol agents overwhelmingly support a wall because of this - it makes it easier for them to do their job. So why do you not want to enable border patrol agents to better do their job?
Funny, all the Border patrol agents say a wall would help. Politifact confirms that walls work, and they're hardly a pro-Trump site. Walls can work when combined with everything else; not using a wall with everything else makes it harder to control illegal immigration. The border patrol agents want it, Politifact confirms they can work - but some lawyers in DC want to play politics and claim they know better...
The CBP agents - the people charged with patrolling and securing the border - overwhelmingly WANT a wall as it assists their job. Why do people fight against giving the actual agents what they say they need to do a better job? If you want to cut down on illegal border crossings, why do a bunch of rich lawyers in DC believe their opinions are more important than the daily facts and desires of people ACTUALLY PATROLLING THE BORDER?
In the Senate you need at least tacit support for 60 senators, or you cannot pass a bill (filibuster). Unless you want to invoke the nuclear option for all votes, and make it majority only?
The border patrol agents overwhelmingly (like 97%) support a wall as aiding their efforts. it will NOT replace their efforts, but assist them in doing their job better. But I guess you know better than they do? If your mechanical says that air tools will help him do his job better, are you going to insist he only use manual tools?
So because a wall may help, but would not entirely solve the problem, we shouldn't do one at all? A locked door may help keep a burglar out of your home, but it won't entirely solve the problem so take your door off the hinges instead.
HINT: There isn't money to pay for 24% of what the Federal Government does. It brings in enough revenue to pay interest on the debt, pensions (Federal and SSI), healthcare, and welfare. No money for anything else - DOEs (both of them), EPA, FBI, OSHA, CBP, DOD, etc.
Yes, mistakes that are corrected in a way that is much less public than the mistake IS bias and "fake news". If I get the NYT to claim that dirk (87083) is a pedophile, and spread it across the front page, and it's not factual, then that's a mistake. If I then retract it in 6 point text at the bottom of a column about the future prediction of soybean prices, then yes - I have corrected my mistake - but I can guarantee that 99% of the people who heard the news NEVER saw the correction. They are still living with a fake news headline in their head.
Mistakes that are shouted from the rooftops should be corrected by shouting from the rooftops. Yes, it's embarrassing and painful, and breeds some distrust - but that's what drives you to not make mistakes in the first place. Otherwise you could proclaim ANYTHING as real and true, correct it in tiny/remote text a few days later, and think nothing the worse for it.
So if the issue is the politician banned someone, could the politician cut a deal with Facebook/Twitter to ban people of a certain demographic or political ideology? For example, I don't like blue-haired people communicating to me (as I opposed the blue-haired wing of politics). So I tell Facebook or Twitter I plan to leave their platform because I'm not happy with blue-haired people. So then Facebook or Twitter ban blue-haired people from my feeds - and so I stay on Facebook and Twitter.
I haven't banned the people - Facebook/Twitter has done so.
Yep - it is one part of a comprehensive border control system. In other words - you need it, it helps the rest. Get rid of it, and the rest is dramatically reduced in effectiveness.
Walls work. And the folks who are responsible for protecting the border say it will help. When I design a product, and the line workers during EVT builds say that a design is hard to build or needs to be rethought - I actually listen to the workers, see what can be changed to make it easier for them (the people actually doing the work) and follow through. Your attitude is Marie Antoinette - let them eat cake!
No, let's say I am a fundamentalist Muslim, and I support throwing homosexuals off of roofs. I post as much on my Facebook page. Facebook bans me because of hate speech. Now I can no longer interact and share support with re. Rashida Tlaib, because I don't have access to her Facebook page to post my words of encouragement. So Facebook is now violating my 1st Amendment rights to interact with an elected official.
So how do you stop illegal immigration and border violations without strengthening the border? In another post, you talked about "defense in strength", layers and layers. You want to ignore the first layer?
The fact is that walls work. And the very people charged with enforcing that "defense in strength" want a wall. But you don't. Get the cameras, get the motion sensors - but remove the doors from your house. Same thing you are advocating.
Here's the problem - once they are in the US, then they can process through the system, and a lot of those (thanks to our sanctuary State and cities) just disappear.
Here's the problem — the official process for applying for asylum in the United States requires you to be within the United States.
No, it does not. You are either ignorant or lying. Asylum can be requested at the border, provided it is at a legal port of entry. You do not need to be in the US to request asylum.
I can be 100% cordial to the politician; even a supporter of them! If FB/Twitter bans me for other actions, then they are explicitly stopping me from interacting with my politician. Now that there is a right to associate with a politician's official FB page, any action by FB that prevents me from doing so would be a 1st Amendment violation. So if FB finds my posts offensive and bans my account - then they are opening themselves up to a 1st Amendment lawsuit.
It's a good thing, then, that we have just a few of those mints and can harden the crap out of them against a hijacking. MUCH better than passing around tens of millions of printing presses and letting people get together to decide what they want to print in their garage...
Slashdot Mirror
Here you go, it's 89% - the 97% is a poke at the climate change lie. But 89% is plenty close to unanimous anyway... Your anecdote notwithstanding.
The 97% is homage to the climate change lie.. The actual number 89% of border agents want a wall. That's pretty overwhelming - and shows just how out-of-touch the Democrat leadership is in terms of enabling the border patrol to do their job. It's almost like they don't WANT a border patrol...
A wall actually REDUCES the amount of support needed. We could make a prison out of an empty field and 3-4 guards per prisoner, but it's easier to build walls and cells and have one guard per dozen inmates... Border patrol agents overwhelmingly support a wall because of this - it makes it easier for them to do their job. So why do you not want to enable border patrol agents to better do their job?
Funny, all the Border patrol agents say a wall would help. Politifact confirms that walls work, and they're hardly a pro-Trump site. Walls can work when combined with everything else; not using a wall with everything else makes it harder to control illegal immigration. The border patrol agents want it, Politifact confirms they can work - but some lawyers in DC want to play politics and claim they know better...
$18.5 billion in Medicaid for illegal immigrants. That's just healthcare - and it's nearly 4X this ask for the wall. ILLEGAL immigrants, not legal.
Well if you don't do it manually, and you don't keep yourself busy doing it, then how can you work up to GS-13?
The CBP agents - the people charged with patrolling and securing the border - overwhelmingly WANT a wall as it assists their job. Why do people fight against giving the actual agents what they say they need to do a better job? If you want to cut down on illegal border crossings, why do a bunch of rich lawyers in DC believe their opinions are more important than the daily facts and desires of people ACTUALLY PATROLLING THE BORDER?
In the Senate you need at least tacit support for 60 senators, or you cannot pass a bill (filibuster). Unless you want to invoke the nuclear option for all votes, and make it majority only?
The border patrol agents overwhelmingly (like 97%) support a wall as aiding their efforts. it will NOT replace their efforts, but assist them in doing their job better. But I guess you know better than they do? If your mechanical says that air tools will help him do his job better, are you going to insist he only use manual tools?
Palestinian = person who lives in the historical area called Palestine (Roman name). Israel is there. Israelis are Palestinians, too...
So because a wall may help, but would not entirely solve the problem, we shouldn't do one at all? A locked door may help keep a burglar out of your home, but it won't entirely solve the problem so take your door off the hinges instead.
HINT: There isn't money to pay for 24% of what the Federal Government does. It brings in enough revenue to pay interest on the debt, pensions (Federal and SSI), healthcare, and welfare. No money for anything else - DOEs (both of them), EPA, FBI, OSHA, CBP, DOD, etc.
Let's pass a law that posting on Slashdot will incur a fine because we think it's better for people to do something else.
I am cool with that, as long as the law applies to ACs only...
Those old people just aren't woke. That's the problem! /s
Yes, mistakes that are corrected in a way that is much less public than the mistake IS bias and "fake news". If I get the NYT to claim that dirk (87083) is a pedophile, and spread it across the front page, and it's not factual, then that's a mistake. If I then retract it in 6 point text at the bottom of a column about the future prediction of soybean prices, then yes - I have corrected my mistake - but I can guarantee that 99% of the people who heard the news NEVER saw the correction. They are still living with a fake news headline in their head.
Mistakes that are shouted from the rooftops should be corrected by shouting from the rooftops. Yes, it's embarrassing and painful, and breeds some distrust - but that's what drives you to not make mistakes in the first place. Otherwise you could proclaim ANYTHING as real and true, correct it in tiny/remote text a few days later, and think nothing the worse for it.
So if the issue is the politician banned someone, could the politician cut a deal with Facebook/Twitter to ban people of a certain demographic or political ideology? For example, I don't like blue-haired people communicating to me (as I opposed the blue-haired wing of politics). So I tell Facebook or Twitter I plan to leave their platform because I'm not happy with blue-haired people. So then Facebook or Twitter ban blue-haired people from my feeds - and so I stay on Facebook and Twitter.
I haven't banned the people - Facebook/Twitter has done so.
Yep - it is one part of a comprehensive border control system. In other words - you need it, it helps the rest. Get rid of it, and the rest is dramatically reduced in effectiveness.
Law requiring noxious weed control. Milkweed is a noxious weed. In this case, the Government requires elimination or at least strict control of milkweed, then decries the loss of Monarchs due to the control.
Have the Courts ruled that I have a right to use your cellphone to contact Rep Tlaib? If they have - then yes, you have to give it to me.
Walls work. And the folks who are responsible for protecting the border say it will help. When I design a product, and the line workers during EVT builds say that a design is hard to build or needs to be rethought - I actually listen to the workers, see what can be changed to make it easier for them (the people actually doing the work) and follow through. Your attitude is Marie Antoinette - let them eat cake!
No, let's say I am a fundamentalist Muslim, and I support throwing homosexuals off of roofs. I post as much on my Facebook page. Facebook bans me because of hate speech. Now I can no longer interact and share support with re. Rashida Tlaib, because I don't have access to her Facebook page to post my words of encouragement. So Facebook is now violating my 1st Amendment rights to interact with an elected official.
So how do you stop illegal immigration and border violations without strengthening the border? In another post, you talked about "defense in strength", layers and layers. You want to ignore the first layer?
The fact is that walls work. And the very people charged with enforcing that "defense in strength" want a wall. But you don't. Get the cameras, get the motion sensors - but remove the doors from your house. Same thing you are advocating.
Here's the problem - once they are in the US, then they can process through the system, and a lot of those (thanks to our sanctuary State and cities) just disappear.
Here's the problem — the official process for applying for asylum in the United States requires you to be within the United States.
No, it does not. You are either ignorant or lying. Asylum can be requested at the border, provided it is at a legal port of entry. You do not need to be in the US to request asylum.
I can be 100% cordial to the politician; even a supporter of them! If FB/Twitter bans me for other actions, then they are explicitly stopping me from interacting with my politician. Now that there is a right to associate with a politician's official FB page, any action by FB that prevents me from doing so would be a 1st Amendment violation. So if FB finds my posts offensive and bans my account - then they are opening themselves up to a 1st Amendment lawsuit.
It's a good thing, then, that we have just a few of those mints and can harden the crap out of them against a hijacking. MUCH better than passing around tens of millions of printing presses and letting people get together to decide what they want to print in their garage...