Text 26699, 160 rader
Skriven 2007-02-01 07:20:23 av John Hull (1:123/789.0)
  Kommentar till text 26673 av Ed Hulett (1:123/789.0)
Ärende: Presidential race
=========================
Ed Hulett -> John Hull wrote:
 EH> John Hull -> Ed Hulett wrote:
 JH>> Ed Hulett -> John Hull wrote:
 EH>>> John Hull -> Ed Hulett wrote:
 JH>>>> Ed Hulett -> John Hull wrote:
 EH>>>>> John Hull -> Ed Hulett wrote:
 JH>>>>>> Ed Hulett -> Bob Sakowski wrote:
 EH>>>>>>> Bob Sakowski -> Ed Hulett wrote:
 BS>>>>>>>> On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 18:19:14 -0500, Ed Hulett wrote:

 >>>>>>>>> John Hull -> Ed Hulett wrote:


 EH>>>>>>>>>>> Just how do we "shut down the border," John?

 JH>>>>>>>>>> It's very simple.  You put up a 14 ft razorwired fence,
 EH>>> augmented
 >>>>>>>>> with
 JH>>>>>>>>>> sensors.  You declare a one mile "no man's land" from the
 EH> fence
 >>>>>>>>> inland.
 JH>>>>>>>>>> You patrol the line with armed UAV's and Army or National
 JH>>>> Guard or
 JH>>>>>>>>>> Border Patrol ground units.  Anyone who breaches the fence
 EH> gets
 EH>>>>> one
 JH>>>>>>>>>> opportunity to surrender or they get shot.

 >>>>>>>>> Oh yeah, that's a realistic plan, John.


 BS>>>>>>>> Gosh Ed, you mean youdon't remember how well that strategy
 EH> worked
 EH>>>>> for
 BS>>>>>>>> the USSR in general  and East Germany in Berlin?

 EH>>>>>>> Especially the shooting part.

 EH>>>>>>> So far, John hasn't said anything about our northern border.


 JH>>>>>> So far, we don't have a problem with the northern border.

 EH>>>>> We don't? Do you think it'll stay that way if we block off the
 JH>>>> southern
 EH>>>>> border?

 JH>>>>>> But note that I said "the border" - not specifying either one in
 EH>>>>> particular.  And, as
 JH>>>>>> usual, Sakowski has his head buried up his nethers.  The USSR and
 JH>>>> East
 JH>>>>>> Germany maintained their borders to keep people from getting OUT.
 EH>>>>> They
 JH>>>>>> didn't have millions of people trying to get IN.

 EH>>>>> Keeping people in or keeping people out, what's the difference?

 JH>>>> That's about the dumbest thing I've ever heard you say.

 EH>>> Excellent reply. I guess calling my question dumb allows you to
 JH>> ignore it.

 EH>>>>> We're already going to have to carry passports if we want to visit
 EH>>>>> Canada or Mexico. Not to leave, but to get back in. Do you think
 EH>>> that's
 EH>>>>> a good thing?

 EH>>>>> How many of your libeties are you willing to give up in order to
 JH>> feel
 EH>>>>> secure?


 JH>>>> You have to have a passport to get into damn near every country on
 JH>> the
 JH>>>> planet.

 EH>>> You miss the point, John. We now have to have a passport to get back
 EH>>> *IN* the US.

 JH>>>> If it keeps terrorists out, it doesn't bother me.

 EH>>> And just how will limiting your liberties keep terrorists out?

 JH>>>> Anyway, fat lot of good your liberties will do you if you start
 EH>>> glowing
 JH>>>> in the dark from a terrorist nuke going off.

 EH>>> I see, so it's okay with you if you lose all your liberties just so
 EH>>> you're safe from being nuked by a terrorist?

 EH>>> You know what Ben Franklin said about your thinking.


 JH>> I didn't say anything about giving up any rights, you did.

 JH>>> If it keeps terrorists out, it doesn't bother me.

 JH>> Requiring you to identify yourself when coming into the country is
 EH> not abrogating
 JH>> any of your rights, any more than when a cop asks you for your
 EH> driver's
 JH>> licence when you get pulled over, or the bank asking you for an ID
 JH>> before cashing a check.

 EH> Whoa! Up until recently, you could travel to and from Canada and Mexico
 EH> without much more that a driver's license or simple ID. A passport is
 EH> much more than a simple ID -- to get one you must provide your birth
 EH> certificate and other proof of citizenship. It costs upwards of $100 to
 EH> get a passport.

 EH> Your comparisan is bogus.


No, it isn't.  I don't care how you get the ID, only that you have to use one
in those situations.

 JH>> I hear all you people screaming about losing rights, but I don't hear
 JH>> one of you coming up with any ideas on how to stop the illegal flow of
 JH>> people into this country.

 EH> I have said before and I will say it again, make it more difficult for
 EH> employers to hire illegals. I'm talking of the employers who pay
 EH> "coyotes" to bring illegals across so they can bypass minimum wage laws.


You really don't know how it works, do you?  The employers aren't paying the
coyotes, the people coming across are paying.  Either that, or they borrow the
money at horrendous rates from brokers and then have to work as what amounts to
bond servants to pay off that loan.


 EH> With the employers out of the way, there is less reason to cross the
 EH> border illegally.

 JH>>  Of course, we could go the way Denmark and
 JH>> Holland have and let so many come in that they are in danger of losing
 JH>> their national identities.

 EH> We could, but why should we?


Are you sarcasm impaired as well?

 JH>> A bunch of the European countries are
 JH>> telling all those non-citizens to get the hell out because they've
 EH> been
 JH>> virtually overrun.  They're a lot more restrictive right now than we
 JH>> are.  You want it to come to that here?  You don't like my
 EH> suggestions,
 JH>> come up with something yourself that works that doesn't involve
 EH> amnesty
 JH>> and I'll listen.  Otherwise, you got no room to criticize me.

 EH> Drop the righteous indignation act, John. I can criticize your
 EH> suggestion all I want.

Specifics, Ed, specifics.  Until then its just hot air on your part.

--- Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (Windows/20061207)
 * Origin:  (1:123/789.0)