Complain when we keep them. Complain when we release them. Make up your mind.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(08-06-2014 10:14 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Complain when we keep them. Complain when we release them. Make up your mind.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

No, it's about securing the f'n border. Something no President has done in a long time. Bring home troops from unneeded bases and deploy them on our border.

Completely unnecessary and too expensive.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(08-07-2014 12:02 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Completely unnecessary and too expensive.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

It's cheaper than having them spread out all over the damn planet and it's making them more useful.

(08-06-2014 10:14 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Complain when we keep them. Complain when we release them. Make up your mind.

Only a fool thinks there is just two options. But thanks for being consistent.

(08-07-2014 12:02 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Completely unnecessary and too expensive.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

To be clear...I oppose using our military for this purpose. Border security is simply not the duty of the military..but..I challenge you to back that assertion up in regard to defense spending. No way in hell would it be more expensive than their current role as the worlds policeman.

(08-07-2014 08:14 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-07-2014 12:02 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Completely unnecessary and too expensive.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

To be clear...I oppose using our military for this purpose. Border security is simply not the duty of the military..but..I challenge you to back that assertion up in regard to defense spending. No way in hell would it be more expensive than their current role as the worlds policeman.

I would purpose a 2 mile militarized zone on the border. What is needed is a chilling effect so the journey is not worth the cost. Enforce the laws. It is a felony for a person caught twice in the country illegally, after we deport them once. 2 year mandatory prison for that felony. Enforce it and this goes away quickly.

(08-07-2014 09:15 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(08-07-2014 08:14 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-07-2014 12:02 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Completely unnecessary and too expensive.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

To be clear...I oppose using our military for this purpose. Border security is simply not the duty of the military..but..I challenge you to back that assertion up in regard to defense spending. No way in hell would it be more expensive than their current role as the worlds policeman.

I would purpose a 2 mile militarized zone on the border. What is needed is a chilling effect so the journey is not worth the cost. Enforce the laws. It is a felony for a person caught twice in the country illegally, after we deport them once. 2 year mandatory prison for that felony. Enforce it and this goes away quickly.

This is what was used very often in fortifications in past history....dead zones between the walls and invaders. Usually the distance arrows could be shot. It made the invaders stay out for fear of being killed.
Mines would be my choice now....Lots of them.

Excellent point our military being the world police is stupid. Which is why I will be voting for Run Paul the isolationist and Mexican phobia ist.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(08-07-2014 11:44 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Excellent point our military being the world police is stupid. Which is why I will be voting for Run Paul the isolationist and Mexican phobia ist.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

The word isolationist has been overused by both gangs for decades to instill fear in voters. With the exception of NK?...Isolationism exists almost no where.

For fairness...Lets examine Paul's positions in this regard. Is he for prudent defense cuts...yes. Is he for a secure border...yes. Is he for diplomacy and free trade?...yes. That is not isolationist by any stretch of the definition. To say otherwise is hyperbolic at best...an outright lie at the worst.

Can I still vote for him?

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(08-07-2014 12:02 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Can I still vote for him?

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Not meant to pick on you Fit. I just get annoyed with this issue. Both gangs used the "isolationist" tag against Ron also. It is time we at least be honest. If we are going to oppose someone? (and I have no problem with that) then do it straightforward on the issues. Not everyone is smart enough to understand the issues and these "bomb" words get thrown around by both sides. They use these words to appeal to the lower common denominators lack of education and sophistication. It works unfortunately.

For clarity...Im not particularly a fan of Rand Paul. He is not his father.

(08-07-2014 09:15 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(08-07-2014 08:14 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-07-2014 12:02 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Completely unnecessary and too expensive.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

To be clear...I oppose using our military for this purpose. Border security is simply not the duty of the military..but..I challenge you to back that assertion up in regard to defense spending. No way in hell would it be more expensive than their current role as the worlds policeman.

I would purpose a 2 mile militarized zone on the border. What is needed is a chilling effect so the journey is not worth the cost. Enforce the laws. It is a felony for a person caught twice in the country illegally, after we deport them once. 2 year mandatory prison for that felony. Enforce it and this goes away quickly.

I could swing with that. But the first people to ***** an moan about it would be the environmental nuts.

(08-07-2014 12:12 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-07-2014 12:02 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Can I still vote for him?

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Not meant to pick on you Fit. I just get annoyed with this issue. Both gangs used the "isolationist" tag against Ron also. It is time we at least be honest. If we are going to oppose someone? (and I have no problem with that) then do it straightforward on the issues. Not everyone is smart enough to understand the issues and these "bomb" words get thrown around by both sides. They use these words to appeal to the lower common denominators lack of education and sophistication. It works unfortunately.

For clarity...Im not particularly a fan of Rand Paul. He is not his father.

I get what you are saying. Let's face it, most people are one issue voters however. It's that one thing that a candidate stands for that is going to resonate with voters.

So even though Rand Paul may be more sophisticated in his foreign policy, I guarantee you that many will or will not vote for him because of his seemingly isolationist views.

Perception is reality.

Two observations.

First, this murder and the continuing crimes being committed by the invading illegal immigrants at the southern border is 100% on the Obama administration. They are deliberately exploiting a loophole in Bush's policy and we see the results - crimes committed, adult terrorists crossing the border, vast financial resources being used to feed, clothe, house, educate, and provide core medical attention to these illegal immigrants, anger and pushback being seen by US communities across America. There is absolutely no reason or justification to keep doing this. It is reaching a boiling point. But I think Obama WANTS a US citizen to strike back and injure or even kill an illegal immigrant. He would use it to further divide America.

Second, Fitbud is deliberately trying to aggravate the conservatives on these issues. Ignore that silly Jack@ss.

"Bush's policy" bingo.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App