Perry to the Rescue

[woodchip]

Gov Perry has announced he will use 1000 national guard to protect Tx borders. It's about time someone does something. Sadly we will now see Obama and Holder proceed to counteract Perry's edict. And of course we will see their allies in the press try to do their typical 5th column act by ridiculing this action and eviscerating Perry personally. Can't stop the flow of future of Democratic voters now can we.

[Will Robinson]

a battle of posturing pols..pass the popcorn please..

Perry has nothing to lose in this one I think so it should be interesting to see how Obama reacts

[CUDA]

it "MIGHT" hurt Perry in a Presidential run, but it will solidify him in the sate elections

[Tunnelcat]

I'd like to know what those troops are supposed to do to stop those people? Shoot them or just tell them to go away? Telling them to go away will only make them go to another border area or state to try and cross. Shooting children will definitely screw his chances for a presidential run.

[CUDA]

then as Governor he's doing his job protecting his state then isn't he. and how long before Jan Brewer does the same things

[callmeslick]

then as Governor he's doing his job protecting his state then isn't he. and how long before Jan Brewer does the same things

I'm sure with two or three guys per mile added to the cluster-feck down there, Texans sleep safer already. I'd like to know exactly what authority the Guard really has past basic policing? I mean, they cannot process immigration/refugee requests, they cannot cross the border even(which, I think the Border Patrol has the authority to do under agreement with Mexico). Like Will noted, political theater, which won't help Perry a bit after the primaries are over, and will get really ugly if(as noted) some little kid gets shot.

[Tunnelcat]

then as Governor he's doing his job protecting his state then isn't he. and how long before Jan Brewer does the same things

No, he's doing the job of covering his ass, because a few National Guard troops aren't going to stop the problem. He's grandstanding.

[CUDA]

BULL ★■◆●. it's costing HIS STATE Millions each day in the fight against illegal immigration. money that the Federal Gov. will not reimburse. he is protecting the tax payers of his state, as he was elected to do

[woodchip]

I'm sure with two or three guys per mile added to the cluster-feck down there, Texans sleep safer already. I'd like to know exactly what authority the Guard really has past basic policing? I mean, they cannot process immigration/refugee requests, they cannot cross the border even(which, I think the Border Patrol has the authority to do under agreement with Mexico). Like Will noted, political theater, which won't help Perry a bit after the primaries are over, and will get really ugly if(as noted) some little kid gets shot.

You might be surprised at what military troops might have on people trying to enter illegally. Catch them, round them up and point them back to Mexico. You might be surprised how good a incentive a fixed bayonet prodding your backside is to get you moving. Instead of holding them just force them back from whence they came. Be a lot cheaper and would discourage others from coming across.

[callmeslick]

BULL ****. it's costing HIS STATE Millions each day in the fight against illegal immigration. money that the Federal Gov. will not reimburse. he is protecting the tax payers of his state, as he was elected to do

how so, with this move? What is he 'protecting' them from, in any effective manner? I'm serious, I don't see it. Now, if he put the entire state National Guard on the border, with half of the highway patrol, maybe that would be a deterrent, but 1000 guys for, what, about 400 miles of border lands?

[callmeslick]

I'm sure with two or three guys per mile added to the cluster-feck down there, Texans sleep safer already. I'd like to know exactly what authority the Guard really has past basic policing? I mean, they cannot process immigration/refugee requests, they cannot cross the border even(which, I think the Border Patrol has the authority to do under agreement with Mexico). Like Will noted, political theater, which won't help Perry a bit after the primaries are over, and will get really ugly if(as noted) some little kid gets shot.

You might be surprised at what military troops might have on people trying to enter illegally. Catch them, round them up and point them back to Mexico. You might be surprised how good a incentive a fixed bayonet prodding your backside is to get you moving. Instead of holding them just force them back from whence they came. Be a lot cheaper and would discourage others from coming across.

So, if one comes in close enough to that man per every 750 yards of border(assuming all 1000 are deployed round the clock, every day, which we know isn't true), one may be deterred. Otherwise, in real world terms, they will be FAR too small a force to do much other than get in the way of the folks that have been down there for the long haul(Feds).

[CUDA]

So doing nothing is a better solution?

[Krom]

Doing nothing is probably a better non-solution than pissing away taxpayer dollars on completely useless political gestures.

[Spidey]

Personally I don’t see how this is going to do any good, considering the current flood of people are turning themselves in.

As far as how to deploy them, if I gave someone the job to deploy 1000 troops along a border and the best they could come up with is…stand them in a line like fence posts. I would have to fire that person for lack of imagination.

When you have an idea that may or may not be a good idea, and someone deliberately distorts that idea into something really stupid or silly, just so they can ridicule that idea…isn’t that the classic definition of strawman.

And when you do it once and get called on it, but shamelessly go ahead and do it again…what the hell is “that” called.

Yea, I can see it now, the guard deploys their troops…”Ok you stand here…and uh…duh…you go 750 yards that a way and uhhh stand there, then you ahhhh go another 750 yards and um duhhh stand there…

Don’t you think they would deploy in small patrol groups, giving assistance to the patrols that are there already…I’m pretty sure professional people like the guard can figure out how to be useful.

But with all that being said…yea it’s just a political show like Krom said, but not the total cluster ★■◆●, like some would imply.

[woodchip]

I'm sure with two or three guys per mile added to the cluster-feck down there, Texans sleep safer already. I'd like to know exactly what authority the Guard really has past basic policing? I mean, they cannot process immigration/refugee requests, they cannot cross the border even(which, I think the Border Patrol has the authority to do under agreement with Mexico). Like Will noted, political theater, which won't help Perry a bit after the primaries are over, and will get really ugly if(as noted) some little kid gets shot.

You might be surprised at what military troops might have on people trying to enter illegally. Catch them, round them up and point them back to Mexico. You might be surprised how good a incentive a fixed bayonet prodding your backside is to get you moving. Instead of holding them just force them back from whence they came. Be a lot cheaper and would discourage others from coming across.

So, if one comes in close enough to that man per every 750 yards of border(assuming all 1000 are deployed round the clock, every day, which we know isn't true), one may be deterred. Otherwise, in real world terms, they will be FAR too small a force to do much other than get in the way of the folks that have been down there for the long haul(Feds).

Your lack of understanding what the word patrol means is glaringly apparent.

[callmeslick]

your grasp on political theater versus real solutions makes any shortcomings of my grasp of 'patrol' pale in comparison.

[woodchip]

Obama has indoctrinated me endlessly as to how political theater works.

[callmeslick]

funny pic floating all over Facebook this AM.......Perry in military garb in an attack helicopter. The caption:









Full Metal Jackass

[woodchip]

Funny pic floating on DBB...my avatar

[callmeslick]

no, your pic is a disgusting lie, wrapped up in disrespect for an elected head of state. That isn't funny, it's just the badge of an ★■◆●.

[Spidey]

Perry is not an elected head of state?

[CUDA]

Perry is not an elected head of state?

OH SNAP!!!!!!!

[callmeslick]

and, do I post pics of him? Or make up stuff like 'socialist' or 'communist'? The answer is no. I may feel he's a stone-cold moron, but if I was a Texan, I'd show him full respect of the office.

[Top Gun]

As has been repeatedly established, woody wouldn't know the definition of "socialism" if someone carved it into a brick and chucked it at his head.

[callmeslick]

As has been repeatedly established, woody wouldn't know the definition of "socialism" if someone carved it into a brick and chucked it at his head.

seems to be a really common shortcoming. As in 'we're not going to let America become a socialist nation' when we already have been since 1922.

[woodchip]

Certainly with Obamacare we are that much closer to the socialist grave.

[Will Robinson]

As has been repeatedly established, woody wouldn't know the definition of "socialism" if someone carved it into a brick and chucked it at his head.

seems to be a really common shortcoming. As in 'we're not going to let America become a socialist nation' when we already have been since 1922.

You should open a fairytale writers workshop cause you are constantly making stuff up.

The government does not own the means of production in the US. We are not a socialist nation.

And maybe the reason people feel Obama is trying to take us there is because he openly makes comments that show he thinks we are.

Example: When he mimicked the sentiment that a private business owner doesn't own his own business and attributed the group ownership to the fact that the street that runs in front of his shop was built with taxpayer funds etc.

A ridiculous proposition because the shop owner is a taxpayer too but unlike all the other taxpayers he joined to help chip in for the roads etc. he, exclusively, is the one who paid to build that business that only a pro-socialist agitator would claim belongs to everyone.

So maybe if he didn't act like a leader of a socialist country people wouldn't say he is one.

[Top Gun]

Certainly with Obamacare we are that much closer to the socialist grave.

Yes, the half-assed, insurance-company-kowtowing is totally a valid step towards it. And do you mean the "grave" that works far better for every other first-world nation on the planet? That grave?

[Spidey]

After reading many of the comments by people on this board and elsewhere, I get the distinct impression very few people understand what socialism is.

[callmeslick]

The government does not own the means of production in the US. We are not a socialist nation.

we have a graduated income tax, and use the funds across society. THAT is a socialist governmental idea. Why? Because it is a state control upon capital, with redistribution of capital in the society.
Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance, public housing, on and on, all are SOCIALIST ideas. Owning the means of production is
collectivism, which is a core ideal of Marxist thinking. However, there are a host of variants and types of Socialism(Marxism viewed Socialism as a transitional stage before full collectivist Communism). We have what most Political Scientists would describe as Social Democracy, as does every major western nation. The point is that Obama is no more or less 'Socialist' that the general run of politicians that we've had for 80 years or more. As noted above, the whole ACA is a compromise to avoid a completely social democratic scheme of Universal Healthcare....and, as also noted, that 'scheme' works very well for most of the civilized world. Far better than what we traditionally have had, and better than the ACA can ever aspire to.

[woodchip]

Certainly with Obamacare we are that much closer to the socialist grave.

Yes, the half-assed, insurance-company-kowtowing is totally a valid step towards it. And do you mean the "grave" that works far better for every other first-world nation on the planet? That grave?

No this grave:

"The CNN poll Wednesday found that 18 percent of respondents said they or their family had benefited from the health care law, while an additional 35 percent said while they may not be better off, the lives of others have improved. Forty-four percent say no one has benefited from Obamacare."

Sounds like a program where only 18% see a improvement is one heading to the grave.

[Spidey]

Yup…I was right…

Socialism is where the people control the distribution of goods and services based on fairness and equality, rather than market forces. (does not require state ownership)

If you notice the definition says nothing about distribution based on “need”.

The government does some things that sound like socialism, but in reality are not.

Insurance programs by default are not socialism.
Helping the needy by default is also not socialism.

The thing that people are missing is the government has a job to do, and it collects taxes to do those jobs, but we still have a market system in this country that controls the production and distribution of goods and services. (of course money is being redistributed…duh, every economy and government does that)

So…do we have a socialist country…NO…do we have a socialist government…NO…do we have “some” socialism in this country…YES.

Until the “people” control the distribution of goods and services…we won’t be a socialist country.

[Top Gun]

No this grave:

"The CNN poll Wednesday found that 18 percent of respondents said they or their family had benefited from the health care law, while an additional 35 percent said while they may not be better off, the lives of others have improved. Forty-four percent say no one has benefited from Obamacare."

Sounds like a program where only 18% see a improvement is one heading to the grave.

...you're seriously citing a poorly-worded opinion poll to prove your point? I mean, what sort of ridiculous assertion is "No one has benefited," which is factually false? Try again, bucko.

[Will Robinson]

..
Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance, public housing, on and on, all are SOCIALIST ideas. Owning the means of production is
collectivism, which is a core ideal of Marxist thinking. However, there are a host of variants and types of Socialism(Marxism viewed Socialism as a transitional stage before full collectivist Communism). We have what most Political Scientists would describe as Social Democracy, as does every major western nation.

I don't think those 'experts' would agree with your assertion that social democracy=socialism. There are social programs but they are subsidies and controls etc. not a different economic paradigm that replaced capitalism with socialism.

..The point is that Obama is no more or less 'Socialist' that the general run of politicians that we've had for 80 years or more. ..

You are wrong, the example I gave shows he has a different perspective of who owns what in america than any previous President has operated from.
He is 'inclined toward' socialism more than any President in the history of the nation. He bases his ideas of how the private sector should operate on his arbitrary concept 'fairness' that implies community ownership of privately held materials and finances...he talks about it all the time.

It is absolutely silly to say he isn't more socialist than other presidents.

[woodchip]

No this grave:

"The CNN poll Wednesday found that 18 percent of respondents said they or their family had benefited from the health care law, while an additional 35 percent said while they may not be better off, the lives of others have improved. Forty-four percent say no one has benefited from Obamacare."

Sounds like a program where only 18% see a improvement is one heading to the grave.

...you're seriously citing a poorly-worded opinion poll to prove your point? I mean, what sort of ridiculous assertion is "No one has benefited," which is factually false? Try again, bucko.

Funny how when a poll is positive to the dems in general and Obama in particular, the poll is above question. In this case you will note this was not a Fox News poll. Stop fishing in the gold fish bowl

[callmeslick]

Certainly with Obamacare we are that much closer to the socialist grave.

Yes, the half-assed, insurance-company-kowtowing is totally a valid step towards it. And do you mean the "grave" that works far better for every other first-world nation on the planet? That grave?

No this grave:

"The CNN poll Wednesday found that 18 percent of respondents said they or their family had benefited from the health care law, while an additional 35 percent said while they may not be better off, the lives of others have improved. Forty-four percent say no one has benefited from Obamacare."

Sounds like a program where only 18% see a improvement is one heading to the grave.

um, you ignore that 53 percent are of the opinion that it has been beneficial to the nation as a whole. Hardly a grave, in fact, up 10% in 6 months and heading toward long-term approval status. A comparison with the approval trajectory of Medicare shows the ACA to be gaining support even faster at the outset.

[callmeslick]

..
Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance, public housing, on and on, all are SOCIALIST ideas. Owning the means of production is
collectivism, which is a core ideal of Marxist thinking. However, there are a host of variants and types of Socialism(Marxism viewed Socialism as a transitional stage before full collectivist Communism). We have what most Political Scientists would describe as Social Democracy, as does every major western nation.

I don't think those 'experts' would agree with your assertion that social democracy=socialism. There are social programs but they are subsidies and controls etc. not a different economic paradigm that replaced capitalism with socialism.

no western nation has ABSOLUTE pure Socialist or Capitalist systems in place.

..The point is that Obama is no more or less 'Socialist' that the general run of politicians that we've had for 80 years or more. ..

You are wrong, the example I gave shows he has a different perspective of who owns what in america than any previous President has operated from.
He is 'inclined toward' socialism more than any President in the history of the nation. He bases his ideas of how the private sector should operate on his arbitrary concept 'fairness' that implies community ownership of privately held materials and finances...he talks about it all the time.

It is absolutely silly to say he isn't more socialist than other presidents.

having spoken with all of these folks, I'd guarantee you that he is LESS socialist than either Bill or Hillary Clinton, and roughly equivalent to Biden, overall. Sure, he might be more inclined to socialist solutions than either Bush or Reagan. Carter, or Nixon even? Hard to say, as too much has happened since they were in office. Compared to, say Bernie Sanders, Barbara Boxer or the like, he is positively right-wing, but none of that crowd is likely to win the Presidency.

[Tunnelcat]

Yup…I was right…

Socialism is where the people control the distribution of goods and services based on fairness and equality, rather than market forces. (does not require state ownership)

If you notice the definition says nothing about distribution based on “need”.

The government does some things that sound like socialism, but in reality are not.

Insurance programs by default are not socialism.
Helping the needy by default is also not socialism.

The thing that people are missing is the government has a job to do, and it collects taxes to do those jobs, but we still have a market system in this country that controls the production and distribution of goods and services. (of course money is being redistributed…duh, every economy and government does that)

So…do we have a socialist country…NO…do we have a socialist government…NO…do we have “some” socialism in this country…YES.

Until the “people” control the distribution of goods and services…we won’t be a socialist country.

What do you think of this observation, Spidey and slick. Janet Yellen made a statement during her last hearing that I think is a more accurate statement than the Dems present wealth redistribution mantra they've been pushing lately. I think she said it a lot more pithy and accurately, that the money circulating in our system is currently being moved from labor to capital. So what happens to the system when too much money is put into capital, which is under the control of the few wealthy, while far less is in labor's hands for them to spend on goods and services? Doesn't that make it top heavy and unsustainable?

[Top Gun]

No this grave:

"The CNN poll Wednesday found that 18 percent of respondents said they or their family had benefited from the health care law, while an additional 35 percent said while they may not be better off, the lives of others have improved. Forty-four percent say no one has benefited from Obamacare."

Sounds like a program where only 18% see a improvement is one heading to the grave.

...you're seriously citing a poorly-worded opinion poll to prove your point? I mean, what sort of ridiculous assertion is "No one has benefited," which is factually false? Try again, bucko.

Funny how when a poll is positive to the dems in general and Obama in particular, the poll is above question. In this case you will note this was not a Fox News poll. Stop fishing in the gold fish bowl

Now what are you talking about? I don't care where the poll is from; it's a patently-stupid option. You can't make a categorical statement like "no one benefits from this" unless you're in some sort of omniscient position; it also blatantly ignores the numerous testimonials that have directly stated, "Obamacare has benefited me." It's just awful phrasing. Now if the negative statement was phrased something like, "I do not think Obamacare benefits the nation as a whole," it would actually mean something.

[callmeslick]

What do you think of this observation, Spidey and slick. Janet Yellen made a statement during her last hearing that I think is a more accurate statement than the Dems present wealth redistribution mantra they've been pushing lately. I think she said it a lot more pithy and accurately, that the money circulating in our system is currently being moved from labor to capital. So what happens to the system when too much money is put into capital, which is under the control of the few wealthy, while far less is in labor's hands for them to spend on goods and services? Doesn't that make it top heavy and unsustainable?

that is precisely what I've been saying(hell, screaming from the rooftops) for years. Put another way, in the current US, more wealth is transferred via inheritence than by wages. Yellen couches it in moving money from labor to capital(I would suggest that money IS capital), what is being seen is a move from labor to investment income. Is it unsustainable? No, not really. It worked for over 400 years, commonly referred to as the Dark Ages. So long as you don't run out of peasants, slaves and serfs, you're good to go if you have the cash/capital. My fear is that, with the genie of modern enlightenment out of the bottle, if enough folks are reduced to serfdom, violence will result, likely resulting eventually to the serfs becoming out and out slaves, but darned unpleasant for ALL sides.