The Trump Wall has been built!

vision · Post by **vision** » Sat Jul 30, 2016 11:55 am

woodchip wrote:My gaffe? You feeling butt hurt over this vision?

How could I possibly? You're the one who thinks Mexicans are herds of migrating animals. Such impeccable character you have! hahahah.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sat Jul 30, 2016 12:06 pm

Sadly vision, both you and slick evidently don't have a clue to the definition of animal.

vision · Post by **vision** » Sat Jul 30, 2016 2:02 pm

woodchip wrote:Sadly vision, both you and slick evidently don't have a clue to the definition of animal.

I think you just implied that Mexicans were animals. Did you just imply that Mexicans were animals?

It's weird how you missed your calling in life. With your extensive zoology and climate experience you could be one of those famous scientist on the Nature Channel and on news casts. What a shame.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sat Jul 30, 2016 4:18 pm

I suggest you look up definition of animal. Since you are too lazy to do so here you go:

.

a living organism that feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli.

It is too bad you find scientific nomenclature to be repulsive. Stop trying to look like you know what you are doing as you are embarrassing yourself. I'm a animal, a eagle is a animal and so are soft cuddly bunnies. You'd be better off admitting you're wrong (as I have in the past) instead of looking like someone with a low IQ.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat Jul 30, 2016 4:33 pm

I, also,have biology degrees, and while I get the GIST that humans are members of the animal kingdom, Woody used the term 'wild life' which denotes less than fellow-human status.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sat Jul 30, 2016 4:43 pm

Show me where the term wild life denotes less than human other than in your pc world.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat Jul 30, 2016 5:18 pm

most Americans, and all that I know, reserve the word wildlife to describe non-human fellow travellers. You've found the right candidate for anyone willing to think of their fellow human beings as wildlife. Makes it easier to hate.

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Sat Jul 30, 2016 5:24 pm

woodchip wrote:Show me where the term wild life denotes less than human other than in your pc world.

Dictionary.com

noun
1.
undomesticated animals living in the wild, including those hunted for food, sport, or profit.

vision · Post by **vision** » Sat Jul 30, 2016 8:26 pm

LOL holy crap this is too good...

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sun Jul 31, 2016 5:05 am

Vander wrote:
woodchip wrote:Show me where the term wild life denotes less than human other than in your pc world.
Dictionary.com

noun
1.
undomesticated animals living in the wild, including those hunted for food, sport, or profit.

Well the way the illegals are used, I'd say Vander, your definition is applicable.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sun Jul 31, 2016 6:32 am

and there you have it, folks.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sun Jul 31, 2016 7:43 am

Glad to see that I gave cause for deflection from the migration issue. Guess no one can argue intelligently against what I posted.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sun Jul 31, 2016 8:51 am

No actually I decided to pull out when you made it a semantic argument, at that point I knew it was hopeless.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sun Jul 31, 2016 9:45 am

woodchip wrote:Glad to see that I gave cause for deflection from the migration issue. Guess no one can argue intelligently against what I posted.

I don't think the question here is about intelligence, but rather it's about worth. And seeing as it would be directed to someone who not only implied mexicans are animals once; but twice, there is little worth in even asking.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sun Jul 31, 2016 10:21 am

Spidey, all I did was point out the incorrect use of terms used to define wildlife movement. The others tried to turn it into a semantic game to bolster their misconceptions.

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Sun Jul 31, 2016 1:51 pm

Here's how I view this. Building a wall and escalating enforcement are akin to the tougher sentences and prison expansion we enacted. It attempts to address problems from the effect end of the spectrum instead of the cause. I think this illuminates where the ideological divide resides. Conservatives tend to think mucking around at the cause end of the spectrum isn't the place for a limited government. Liberals tend to think otherwise. It's punishment vs rehabilitation. I think this comes from a disparity in empathy between the ideologies. (which woodchip goes a long way to prove) I don't want to make this sound like one side is completely wrong and one side is completely right. We do need a border, and we need enforcement, if only for most basic record keeping reasons. Like everything, the correct answer lies somewhere between extremes.

If there was no reason, would you want to build and live in a fortress? I wouldn't.

So if migration is a problem, what is the cause? They come here for a better life, for better opportunity, for greater security, for all kinds of reasons I can only guess at. To approach this from the cause side, we would need to help guide their home countries to provide for a better life, better opportunity, etc. What we should do is obviously subjective, but at the heart, I think we need to change our foreign policy to a more altruistic model. To minimize the emphasis on our own political or corporate economic interests, and toward a model that encourages a version of self determination more in line with local culture. Basically, our goals should be to ease disparity and corruption, whether or not the disparity and corruption favors us. This seems like such a no-brainer, but it is not how we have used our great power in the past.

It's hard, it's messy, and it's not something that will happen overnight. But I think it's better than discussing whether or not we should expand our beautiful wall with it's beautiful door from 30 feet high to 60 feet high in the 2050 Presidential campaign.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sun Jul 31, 2016 2:45 pm

Well said Vander. I think a lot of people will see the wall as being cheaper than altruism. Isn't NAFTA supposed to have done what you are saying?

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Sun Jul 31, 2016 7:59 pm

woodchip wrote:Isn't NAFTA supposed to have done what you are saying?

I don't know if I'd call a trade agreement the altruism I was talking about, as its not quite minimizing corporate economic interests. They made out wonderfully by moving factories. I'm talking about polices that don't seek to exploit cheap labor or resources and that foster the corruption that enables them.

This is all part of the same system that drives disparity here, and we can't even fix it here, so I guess build the ★■◆●ing wall.

Nightshade · Post by **Nightshade** » Sun Jul 31, 2016 11:20 pm

Vander wrote:Here's how I view this. Building a wall and escalating enforcement are akin to the tougher sentences and prison expansion we enacted. It attempts to address problems from the effect end of the spectrum instead of the cause. I think this illuminates where the ideological divide resides. Conservatives tend to think mucking around at the cause end of the spectrum isn't the place for a limited government. Liberals tend to think otherwise. It's punishment vs rehabilitation. I think this comes from a disparity in empathy between the ideologies. (which woodchip goes a long way to prove) I don't want to make this sound like one side is completely wrong and one side is completely right. We do need a border, and we need enforcement, if only for most basic record keeping reasons. Like everything, the correct answer lies somewhere between extremes.

We're still talking about rule of law and SOVEREIGNTY....NOT "empathy" or "altruism." If one illegally crosses into Mexico and decides to settle there...guess what? They'll deport you.

If you want to be altruistic, go and help the people or create employment IN THEIR COUNTRY(IES).

This has nothing to do with being "nice people." This has to do with RULE OF LAW and SOVEREIGNTY of a nation.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Mon Aug 01, 2016 7:35 am

Gee, I don’t get it…isn’t Vander’s side (liberals) always talking about NOT meddling?

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Mon Aug 01, 2016 7:42 am

Where is the altruism on the part of the illegals? I mean they come here and drive down wages (just look at the const. industry) by working for cheap, get paid in cash and pay pay no social services tax. So how do they help us by coming here illegally. I'm all for helping someone poor but I'm not for helping someone who pisses on our laws. If they want to come here and get in line, fine. I see no reason why they should have special privileges just because they are Latino.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Mon Aug 01, 2016 7:51 am

from what I've seen in VA, they come here and pay all taxes, but avoid ANY collection of benefits to keep under the radar.
I always find it humorous to hear from the same folks that have set about destroying trade unions for decades whine about illegals driving wages and benefits down. He talks about cash payments, which do fly under the radar. Gee, wouldn't it have been nice to have strong carpenters, plumbers,masonry and other building trade unions when that was starting to happen, huh? Give me a break, you're a flat-out xenophobe or you are suckered in by an easily dispelled set of skewed information.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Mon Aug 01, 2016 8:02 am

you know, after writing the above, and getting a second cup of coffee, I got to thinking....and we all know how dangerous THAT can be.

Those of you old enough can remember the times I recall, when trade unions were robust. No one would pull that lowball under the table stuff on any scale because they'd be blacklisted by the Electricians Union, the Pipefitters, whatever. They simply would never be able to get jobs done. This will lead some here no doubt to protest: but costs go up, and YOU can afford it, Slick, but how about the rest of us? Fair enough, but it gets to the heart of what our nation needs to come to grips with. Do you want a rising, thriving middle class, or do you want cheap stuff? Sure, it's nice to grab that 52 inch curved panel TV on the cheap at WalMart, but know that it was a bargain purchased from the blood of people working for pennies per hour. And so on....the nation has become addicted to consumption beyond our normal means, fueled by a race to the bottom of labor costs. You can pick one: fair wages for workers or goods available at a 25% discount. You cannot have both.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Mon Aug 01, 2016 8:24 am

callmeslick wrote:from what I've seen in VA, they come here and pay all taxes, but avoid ANY collection of benefits to keep under the radar.
I always find it humorous to hear from the same folks that have set about destroying trade unions for decades whine about illegals driving wages and benefits down. He talks about cash payments, which do fly under the radar. Gee, wouldn't it have been nice to have strong carpenters, plumbers,masonry and other building trade unions when that was starting to happen, huh? Give me a break, you're a flat-out xenophobe or you are suckered in by an easily dispelled set of skewed information.

I hope you weren't directing any of this at me (as it sounds you are).

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Mon Aug 01, 2016 8:30 am

callmeslick wrote:you know, after writing the above, and getting a second cup of coffee, I got to thinking....and we all know how dangerous THAT can be.
Those of you old enough can remember the times I recall, when trade unions were robust. No one would pull that lowball under the table stuff on any scale because they'd be blacklisted by the Electricians Union, the Pipefitters, whatever. They simply would never be able to get jobs done. This will lead some here no doubt to protest: but costs go up, and YOU can afford it, Slick, but how about the rest of us? Fair enough, but it gets to the heart of what our nation needs to come to grips with. Do you want a rising, thriving middle class, or do you want cheap stuff? Sure, it's nice to grab that 52 inch curved panel TV on the cheap at WalMart, but know that it was a bargain purchased from the blood of people working for pennies per hour. And so on....the nation has become addicted to consumption beyond our normal means, fueled by a race to the bottom of labor costs. You can pick one: fair wages for workers or goods available at a 25% discount. You cannot have both.

Before you rant much more on this the fed. govt has a bit of the blame here. I trust you have heard of prevailing wages and what it means. For those that don't PW means you don't have to be union to work on a job but agree to pay a certain wage scale. Here's the problem with that...no one keeps track of who you use on the job nor how much you pay them. So guess what happens. Used to be you had to be a union contractor to work on any commercial job. Thanks to the govt, this is no longer true on most jobs.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Mon Aug 01, 2016 8:38 am

geez, Woody, government at both Fed and State levels are what destroyed the unions. You cite a valid example, there are more, and even more proposed by one party.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Mon Aug 01, 2016 9:07 am

Right to work laws are another area that has diminished the unions. Just for the record slick, I used to be a union carpenter contractor. Walked on my share of picket lines and knew the local BA pretty well. Got out of that when I concentrated solely on millwork, when my carpenter bids were being beat by non-union contractors.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Mon Aug 01, 2016 9:36 am

I sympathize with your journey, although I'm sure you do just fine as a professional in millwork. You cite exactly the trajectory I cite. We allowed government to diminish the very thing which was a firewall for labor/management disparity. Why, I don't know. I know, as a citizen, I wasn't paying enough attention in the 80s and 90s, as I wasn't a union employee once I left academic research. I have been, as have many other affluent friends, keenly aware that 'middle class' people were out amassing luxury items most wealthy folks don't even obsess over, all on credit borrowed against inflated home prices towards the crash. A good part of the downfall of the middle class, ironically, falls upon a middle class that lost focus on what got them comfortable in the first place. Is that a common Democratic narrative? Nope, but it isn't the GOP narrative either. It's the sort of plain old truth that illustrates why I never run for office......

vision · Post by **vision** » Mon Aug 01, 2016 11:22 am

callmeslick wrote:...but it isn't the GOP narrative either.

I disagree. Goldwater's "free market" propaganda didn't leave room for unions. Those unions not only protected workers, but also kept up quality. My buddy started as a union carpenter right out of trade school at 18. Today he runs a business in Texas, a right to work state. He has to bid jobs so low that he's forced to pay some employees less than what he was making 30+ years ago. Needless to say, he has a hard time finding young people who will do that kind of work since they can get a job at Starbucks and, after benefits, make about the same money. He doesn't hire undocumented workers, so what he's left with are people with substance abuse problems that steal his tools and do sloppy work, if they show up for work at all.

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Mon Aug 01, 2016 11:38 am

Nightshade wrote:This has nothing to do with being "nice people." This has to do with RULE OF LAW and SOVEREIGNTY of a nation.

Don't be silly. We have a limited ability to enforce the laws from a pure resource standpoint. If you want to put the resources in to round up and deport illegal immigrants, are you also in favor of putting in the resources to strictly enforce current gun laws? Or expand the SEC and EPA to police Wall Street and polluters? A traffic cop for every speeder and red light runner? If you're going to get all RULE OF LAW on us, at least take into consideration that perhaps not everyone shares your priorities.

These peoples crime is wanting to be American. If they're already here and doing a good job at being American, I don't particularly care to allocate the resources to upend their lives.

Spidey wrote:Gee, I don’t get it…isn’t Vander’s side (liberals) always talking about NOT meddling?

I think, like everyone, we like to meddle when it supports our means or goals, and don't when it doesn't. In general I believe our system of government isn't particularly well suited for grand foreign policy machinations. That's not to say it isn't possible, but it's hard to play the long game when we have fairly constant ideological turnover. Wealth has longevity, though, which is why much of our domestic and foreign policy is in service to it.

I think what I mean by altruism is being more benign when it would otherwise be in our economic or geopolitical interest. Instead of working for the benefit of a paid up corporation or trying to enforce ideological similarity between nations, work for the benefit of the people in the country in question. Not necessarily all carrot and no stick, but using our power for the positive reinforcement of values we claim to hold dear.

And this only touches on our formal government policies. The other altruistic endeavor necessary is the relinquishing of gains by the wealthy. The continuing growth of disparity simply cannot endure. The pendulum will swing back, and the amount of damage wrought to what is in all seriousness a pretty decent system with some shortcomings, is entirely in the control of the wealthy and their ability to willfully do what's right.

People come to America because we sit closest to the table where the wealthy cut their bread, so there are more crumbs around. With crumbs in more and more limited supply, of course we will have people complaining that the "others" are taking our crumbs.

Anyways, I don't have some great vision that can be directly put to paper as policy. Just musings of how I see things and the direction we should go.

Nightshade · Post by **Nightshade** » Mon Aug 01, 2016 1:29 pm

Vander wrote: These peoples crime is wanting to be American. If they're already here and doing a good job at being American, I don't particularly care to allocate the resources to upend their lives.

Typical liberal garbage.

NO. These illegal immigrants' crime is crossing a sovereign nation's border ILLEGALLY.

Murder is still a crime...so is shoplifting. Without rule of law, we cease to be a nation.

vision · Post by **vision** » Mon Aug 01, 2016 2:25 pm

Nightshade wrote:Murder is still a crime...so is shoplifting. Without rule of law, we cease to be a nation.

Correct, and Vander's point is that we allocate resources differently to different crimes. Should shoplifters be in prison with the same sentence as a murderer? If someone you knew was murdered, how would it feel if law enforcement couldn't arrest and prosecute the killer because they were tied up jailing teenage girls who steal bras and eyeliner? We don't have infinite resources and it seems downright silly at times to deport people who fill an economic demand.

Also, your age is showing again. Hopefully when you get older you will realize this whole "rule of law" business is more theory than practice, and for good reason. Sensible application of justice prevents us from becoming totalitarian (which is why the war on drugs is so ridiculous).

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Mon Aug 01, 2016 3:06 pm

Plus chest-thumping nationalism is soooo 20th century. We're all children of Mother Earth, maaaaannnn!

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Mon Aug 01, 2016 3:44 pm

freaking hippie!

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Mon Aug 01, 2016 4:29 pm

Nightshade wrote:Typical liberal garbage.

Nightshade 3 days ago wrote:What I see from "you guys" (TG, Ferno, Slick, Vander) is intolerance for other points of view. They're dismissed out of hand without consideration.

Nightshade · Post by **Nightshade** » Tue Aug 02, 2016 2:50 am

Vander wrote:
Nightshade wrote:Typical liberal garbage.

Nightshade 3 days ago wrote:What I see from "you guys" (TG, Ferno, Slick, Vander) is intolerance for other points of view. They're dismissed out of hand without consideration.

Deciding not to enforce the law is exactly that. Garbage.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Tue Aug 02, 2016 5:46 am

as others have noted, law enforcement is NOT absolute, and is severely restrained from being absolute by the budget provided. There is NOWHERE near the budget to deport 1/4 of the illegal immigrants, so the decision has been made to not waste resources on those doing ZERO criminal harm to society(Woody's bs about hurting workers being dismissed as pure bs).

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Tue Aug 02, 2016 8:55 am

vision wrote:
Nightshade wrote:Murder is still a crime...so is shoplifting. Without rule of law, we cease to be a nation.
Correct, and Vander's point is that we allocate resources differently to different crimes. Should shoplifters be in prison with the same sentence as a murderer? If someone you knew was murdered, how would it feel if law enforcement couldn't arrest and prosecute the killer because they were tied up jailing teenage girls who steal bras and eyeliner? We don't have infinite resources and it seems downright silly at times to deport people who fill an economic demand.

Also, your age is showing again. Hopefully when you get older you will realize this whole "rule of law" business is more theory than practice, and for good reason. Sensible application of justice prevents us from becoming totalitarian (which is why the war on drugs is so ridiculous).

Not to mention that society as a whole has deemed murder to be a much more serious crime than shoplifting, and society would determine that applying the same punishment for shopliting as applied to murder would be just as egregious

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:03 am

Nightshade wrote:Deciding not to enforce the law is exactly that. Garbage.

Where has anyone here said we shouldn't enforce the law.

vision · Post by **vision** » Tue Aug 02, 2016 12:57 pm

Vander wrote:
Nightshade wrote:Deciding not to enforce the law is exactly that. Garbage.
Where has anyone here said we shouldn't enforce the law.

INB4 Executive Order...