So if I use my account to interact with my politician, but also do things that causes FB or Twitter to close/suspend my account - then they are violating my ability to attend and participate in that town-hall meeting. It seems to me the best way to guarantee that FB/Twitter will not remove/ban/censor/suspend your account is to occasionally interact with an elected official.
No, but they do block and/or ban constituents from access to their politicians. Which seems, now, illegal. All anyone on Facebook or Twitter has to do to get an account re-instated is claim that FB/Twitter is hindering their ability to interact with their elected officials.
I have my own little group of trolls who love to lie about anything I write. Of course they are AC, as they are too cowardly to associate their real screen names with their statements. I think facts that run counter to their world-view make them cry inside... Milkweed availability is the big issue. It's not fires, it's not climate change - it's our eradication of the "noxious weed" milkweed, which is a food source for the larvae.
All the doomsayer estimates said we'd lose revenue - we actually gained revenue. Since the fundamental premise is proven wrong - the predicted conclusions are also most likely wrong.
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. Something like 91% are ordered deported, but only 2% actually do so. The challenge is to catch or prevent illegal entry in the first place. Use the ports of entry if you want to come in - don't just dash through the desert
Would you rather keep your doors and windows locked, or leave everything wide open and install a few cameras inside? The former will prevent most theft; the latter will document the theft. Which do YOU want?
If it did you would have a point, but immigrants contribute to the economy in average, so it doesn't, and you don't.
Illegal immigrants - what is under discussion with the wall - cost $54 billion to $115 billion per year. Legal immigrants are invited guests; illegal immigrants are unwanted squatters.
I don't ask the workers at McDonald's how to manage my health, and I don't ask border guards how to address immigration. That's above their pay grade.
Ahh - you DO know better than those who do their job - you are the pointy-haired boss! Do you expect the McDonald's workers to know how to take an order and wrap a cheeseburger better than you? Because that's what we're talking about. The people who are responsible for catching illegal immigrants say "I need this tool to do my job better". You're like the engineer who's never worked on a production line, coming and telling a production line worker they do not need a screwdriver to install those screws, they can just use their fingers or a wrench.
So why do you lock your doors? Why don't you let anyone into your house, whoever wants to come inside and just stay and let you pay for their needs?
Well, it depends. If having people come on to my land means I have to pay tens of thousands a year for them, and I cannot realistically get rid of them (because there are some sanctuary laws in place), then I put up the fence. Can I come into your house and just squat until I feel it's time that I should go - and until then, you have to provide food, shelter, and care?
As far as ineffective, I keep hearing that from politicians, but the border patrol agents - those who actually work there daily - overwhelmingly say that a wall would work and help. So we have politicians and talking heads saying one thing, and the actual agents saying another. Why do we listen to the pointy-haired boss over the on-the-line engineer?
Except it wouldn't. You need a minimum of 4 agents for every station (40 hour shifts, 168 hours a week). So that's around 4000 agents, if you have one per mile, 24/7. At $80,000 per year salary, you have about a $110,000 annual cost (SSI/FICA, vacation, sick leave, etc). That's about $450MM per year. So you'd have about 11 years of funding. And then it goes dry. And that's assuming that one agent per two miles is sufficient, with no backup. Make them pairs (which is what is typically done), and we're looking at 5.5 years of funding. Or a border wall.
Tax receipts are up - way up. Perhaps that prediction of a big loss (based on an assumption of continued sub-2% GDP growth) is wrong. Because the facts seem to point otherwise...
I'm curious. Do you know how many Senators there are? HINT: two per State, and President Obama was a little high on his estimate of the number of States when he talked about all 57 of them...
Actually, it was. The last budget passed was FY2012 - it's been continuing resolutions since then. And FY2012's budget had funding for "Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology". Pulling that spending out of the CR is actually not allowed - as it is a change to the budget. In this case, Pelosi and Schumer are trying to do an end-run around the laws relating to continuing resolutions.
Cool! Then let's enforce the same security restrictions on the border as we have at the airports - controlled access, gated/walled off entrances, proof of identification, etc.
Border patrol agents overwhelmingly support a wall. But you know better, it's a mind trick, ignore the facts and opinions of the folks whose JOB IT IS TO PROTECT THE BORDER. They don't know nearly as much as a lone poster on slashdot!
"remarkably choose to do nothing after elections" = Bullshit. Building a wall is going to do nothing to stop illegals, sorry morons! That's just a fact. They've never had a problem getting over under or through unguarded walls.
And therein is your fail. It you actually listen to what the border patrol says - walls make their job easier, they can concentrate on catching people as they go around or attempt to go under. Which is easier - stopping people at your front door, or trying to stop people at your front door, rear door, garage door, and multiple windows?
Slashdot Mirror
Tell me again why bitcoin is so much more secure than the traditional banking system.
Technically it's still secure due to the lack of popularity.
See, I KNEW my approach of "security by obscurity" was rock-solid!
So if I use my account to interact with my politician, but also do things that causes FB or Twitter to close/suspend my account - then they are violating my ability to attend and participate in that town-hall meeting. It seems to me the best way to guarantee that FB/Twitter will not remove/ban/censor/suspend your account is to occasionally interact with an elected official.
No, but they do block and/or ban constituents from access to their politicians. Which seems, now, illegal. All anyone on Facebook or Twitter has to do to get an account re-instated is claim that FB/Twitter is hindering their ability to interact with their elected officials.
Do you KNOW how many stoned butterflies would cover my windscreen?
I have my own little group of trolls who love to lie about anything I write. Of course they are AC, as they are too cowardly to associate their real screen names with their statements. I think facts that run counter to their world-view make them cry inside... Milkweed availability is the big issue. It's not fires, it's not climate change - it's our eradication of the "noxious weed" milkweed, which is a food source for the larvae.
He didn't say 50. Do try to keep up...
All the doomsayer estimates said we'd lose revenue - we actually gained revenue. Since the fundamental premise is proven wrong - the predicted conclusions are also most likely wrong.
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. Something like 91% are ordered deported, but only 2% actually do so. The challenge is to catch or prevent illegal entry in the first place. Use the ports of entry if you want to come in - don't just dash through the desert
Would you rather keep your doors and windows locked, or leave everything wide open and install a few cameras inside? The former will prevent most theft; the latter will document the theft. Which do YOU want?
GP said $80K. Do try to keep up...
If it did you would have a point, but immigrants contribute to the economy in average, so it doesn't, and you don't.
Illegal immigrants - what is under discussion with the wall - cost $54 billion to $115 billion per year. Legal immigrants are invited guests; illegal immigrants are unwanted squatters.
I don't ask the workers at McDonald's how to manage my health, and I don't ask border guards how to address immigration. That's above their pay grade.
Ahh - you DO know better than those who do their job - you are the pointy-haired boss! Do you expect the McDonald's workers to know how to take an order and wrap a cheeseburger better than you? Because that's what we're talking about. The people who are responsible for catching illegal immigrants say "I need this tool to do my job better". You're like the engineer who's never worked on a production line, coming and telling a production line worker they do not need a screwdriver to install those screws, they can just use their fingers or a wrench.
So why do you lock your doors? Why don't you let anyone into your house, whoever wants to come inside and just stay and let you pay for their needs?
Well, it depends. If having people come on to my land means I have to pay tens of thousands a year for them, and I cannot realistically get rid of them (because there are some sanctuary laws in place), then I put up the fence. Can I come into your house and just squat until I feel it's time that I should go - and until then, you have to provide food, shelter, and care?
As far as ineffective, I keep hearing that from politicians, but the border patrol agents - those who actually work there daily - overwhelmingly say that a wall would work and help. So we have politicians and talking heads saying one thing, and the actual agents saying another. Why do we listen to the pointy-haired boss over the on-the-line engineer?
They are cyclical and are related to milkweed availability. But given that milkweed is considered a noxious weed and often targeted for eradication, it damages the Monarch food cycle. Too bad that milkweed is on the weed management area list.
They may not qualify, but they still get the benefits.
So we agree you were wrong - the last budget actually did have border wall funding. Thanks!
ACs, so stupid... ACA was Federal, "Romneycare" was MA only. And ACA wasn't passed by the Republicans. But you can troll all you want!
Except it wouldn't. You need a minimum of 4 agents for every station (40 hour shifts, 168 hours a week). So that's around 4000 agents, if you have one per mile, 24/7. At $80,000 per year salary, you have about a $110,000 annual cost (SSI/FICA, vacation, sick leave, etc). That's about $450MM per year. So you'd have about 11 years of funding. And then it goes dry. And that's assuming that one agent per two miles is sufficient, with no backup. Make them pairs (which is what is typically done), and we're looking at 5.5 years of funding. Or a border wall.
At the request of President elect Obama. Somehow you neglected to say that...
Tax receipts are up - way up. Perhaps that prediction of a big loss (based on an assumption of continued sub-2% GDP growth) is wrong. Because the facts seem to point otherwise...
I'm curious. Do you know how many Senators there are? HINT: two per State, and President Obama was a little high on his estimate of the number of States when he talked about all 57 of them...
Not a single Republican voted for Obamacare. It was rammed through with a Democrat supermajority in the Senate, and Democrat control of the House.
Actually, it was. The last budget passed was FY2012 - it's been continuing resolutions since then. And FY2012's budget had funding for "Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology". Pulling that spending out of the CR is actually not allowed - as it is a change to the budget. In this case, Pelosi and Schumer are trying to do an end-run around the laws relating to continuing resolutions.
Cool! Then let's enforce the same security restrictions on the border as we have at the airports - controlled access, gated/walled off entrances, proof of identification, etc.
About 24,000 criminals caught entering the US. That's quite a few - and about a 10% recidivism rate a well... Most are those are outside the official ports of entry - about 500,000 arrests in FY2018 outside the ports of entry. And at least 15 terrorists have crossed the SW border.
But let me ask you - do you lock your doors and windows when you leave? If not - do you advertise that you leave your doors and windows unlocked?
Border patrol agents overwhelmingly support a wall. But you know better, it's a mind trick, ignore the facts and opinions of the folks whose JOB IT IS TO PROTECT THE BORDER. They don't know nearly as much as a lone poster on slashdot!
"remarkably choose to do nothing after elections" = Bullshit. Building a wall is going to do nothing to stop illegals, sorry morons! That's just a fact. They've never had a problem getting over under or through unguarded walls.
And therein is your fail. It you actually listen to what the border patrol says - walls make their job easier, they can concentrate on catching people as they go around or attempt to go under. Which is easier - stopping people at your front door, or trying to stop people at your front door, rear door, garage door, and multiple windows?