TakeYouToTasker Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 2 minutes ago, billsfan89 said: As many have stated a walls effectiveness is only as good as the maintenance and manpower behind it. So why put up a 20 billion dollar structure whose impact is limited to how well you patrol it? So this idea that you put the wall up and that solves the issue for all time is just not true. If your manpower behind the wall and the funding to maintain the wall gets lower than it becomes very ineffective and just stands as more of a symbol and a minor inconvenience over come by ropes, carpets, and ladders. Not to mention the other secondary costs of a wall such as having to take land from citizens of the US, the logistical and legal implications of such a large use of imminent domain, the environmental costs, and the loss of access to the Rio Grande river. You could literally take the 20 billion in funding a full scale border wall would create and pay for 10 years worth of 10,000 additional border patrol agents, new technology, and even limited fencing. But instead you want a wall that will still require all those things and come at a much steeper cost? No, you literally could not, because in a 10 year cycle there will be multiple new Congresses, at least one new President, and a likely downturn. Today's government cannot make decisions about what future government will do, and insisting that it can is asinine. And again, the wall is a permanent structure, and thus would make at least part of the solution permanent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Dude Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 5 minutes ago, billsfan89 said: As many have stated a walls effectiveness is only as good as the maintenance and manpower behind it. So why put up a 20 billion dollar structure whose impact is limited to how well you patrol it? So this idea that you put the wall up and that solves the issue for all time is just not true. If your manpower behind the wall and the funding to maintain the wall gets lower than it becomes very ineffective and just stands as more of a symbol and a minor inconvenience over come by ropes, carpets, and ladders. Not to mention the other secondary costs of a wall such as having to take land from citizens of the US, the logistical and legal implications of such a large use of imminent domain, the environmental costs, and the loss of access to the Rio Grande river. You could literally take the 20 billion in funding a full scale border wall would create and pay for 10 years worth of 10,000 additional border patrol agents, new technology, and even limited fencing. But instead you want a wall that will still require all those things and come at a much steeper cost? ....my boy, Hadrian, would really disagree with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 21 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: Man power and funding can change on a whim with a downturn, new Congress, or new President. A wall is a permanent structure which will address the problem regardless of the politics of the day. Bingo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 YOU’RE GROUNDED!!! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 the internet IS fast 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan89 Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 2 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: No, you literally could not, because in a 10 year cycle there will be multiple new Congresses, at least one new President, and a likely downturn. Today's government cannot make decisions about what future government will do, and insisting that it can is asinine. And again, the wall is a permanent structure, and thus would make at least part of the solution permanent. My argument is that the wall is massively expensive (and comes with other costs) and its not effective without the manpower behind it. The manpower's funding can change thus the wall's permanence is fairly meaningless if it offers little more than a minor inconvenience for those looking to cross the border. Its nothing more than an expensive symbol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 Just now, billsfan89 said: My argument is that the wall is massively expensive (and comes with other costs) and its not effective without the manpower behind it. The manpower's funding can change thus the wall's permanence is fairly meaningless if it offers little more than a minor inconvenience for those looking to cross the border. Its nothing more than an expensive symbol. yet, those with much more life experience (CBP) say that it an effective tool. pay no attention though, just continue to profess that you know more than the boots on the ground. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 5 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 1 minute ago, billsfan89 said: My argument is that the wall is massively expensive (and comes with other costs) and its not effective without the manpower behind it. The manpower's funding can change thus the wall's permanence is fairly meaningless if it offers little more than a minor inconvenience for those looking to cross the border. Its nothing more than an expensive symbol. No, it's a permanent bulwark designed to reroute modern day slave ships, and as such is worth the cost associated with it, unless you're going to argue that their is a level of slavery and child molestation in America that you find acceptable. The other costs (the seizure of private land) is accounted for in the Constitution in the 4th Amendment. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 Out. Of. Touch. It "punishes" the troops when Pelosi isn't allowed to visit them. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 Trump's next move should be to kick Pence to the curb so Nancy has the opportunity then to report to the Donald. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan89 Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 16 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: No, it's a permanent bulwark designed to reroute modern day slave ships, and as such is worth the cost associated with it, unless you're going to argue that their is a level of slavery and child molestation in America that you find acceptable. The other costs (the seizure of private land) is accounted for in the Constitution in the 4th Amendment. This is the most hilarious straw man arguments I have ever heard. I claim that there is a better more cost effective way to handle securing the border and you basically equate that to supporting slavery and child molestation because I state that your solution is expensive, ineffective, and is still reliant on other forms of manpower that is subject to change. That's some Stephen Colbert level hilarity. Dam I knew this place was a Trump echo chamber but this one really made me laugh. "Hey I agree there is a problem at the border but I don't think a wall solves it and its not cost effective for the level of security it provides." "So you support sex trafficking?" The other costs such as imminent domain are things the government can do but do we really want to exercise federal powers to take people's land for a border security measure that is massively expensive and isn't going to be effective enough without manpower behind it? Not to mention the other costs that would come with such a large construction project. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 28 minutes ago, The_Dude said: ....my boy, Hadrian, would really disagree with you. Hadrian's Wall was garrisoned by two legions and a cavalry regiment, plus local auxiliaries. "Your boy" Hadrian disagrees with you, you idiot. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 (edited) 4 minutes ago, billsfan89 said: This is the most hilarious straw man arguments I have ever heard. I claim that there is a better more cost effective way to handle securing the border and you basically equate that to supporting slavery and child molestation because I state that your solution is expensive, ineffective, and is still reliant on other forms of manpower that is subject to change. That's some Stephen Colbert level hilarity. Dam I knew this place was a Trump echo chamber but this one really made me laugh. "Hey I agree there is a problem at the border but I don't think a wall solves it and its not cost effective for the level of security it provides." "So you support sex trafficking?" The other costs such as imminent domain are things the government can do but do we really want to exercise federal powers to take people's land for a border security measure that is massively expensive and isn't going to be effective enough without manpower behind it? Not to mention the other costs that would come with such a large construction project. No, it's the argument you're making, as the experts who spend their days trying to upend human slavery and child sex trafficking have stated that we need a wall in order for them to best accomplish this task. That they believe this to be the case, and for you to then say that the expense is too high, means that they will not be able to effectively curb the slave trade and child sex trafficking to the maximum about they are able, which means that you believe that there is an acceptable level of such activity in the United States. Edited January 17, 2019 by TakeYouToTasker 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Dude Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 (edited) 13 minutes ago, DC Tom said: Hadrian's Wall was garrisoned by two legions and a cavalry regiment, plus local auxiliaries. "Your boy" Hadrian disagrees with you, you idiot. I’m like 100% sure I know way more about it than you. What you probably don’t know was Hadrians obsession with efficiency on the frontiers and manning only points that could easily be defended hence his abandoning Tajans gains. If youre countering to his point about upkeep, well yeah. My point was about their effectiveness. But you just assumed. Typical, Tammy. Edited January 17, 2019 by The_Dude Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 28 minutes ago, billsfan89 said: This is the most hilarious straw man arguments I have ever heard. I claim that there is a better more cost effective way to handle securing the border and you basically equate that to supporting slavery and child molestation because I state that your solution is expensive, ineffective, and is still reliant on other forms of manpower that is subject to change. That's some Stephen Colbert level hilarity. Dam I knew this place was a Trump echo chamber but this one really made me laugh. "Hey I agree there is a problem at the border but I don't think a wall solves it and its not cost effective for the level of security it provides." "So you support sex trafficking?" The other costs such as imminent domain are things the government can do but do we really want to exercise federal powers to take people's land for a border security measure that is massively expensive and isn't going to be effective enough without manpower behind it? Not to mention the other costs that would come with such a large construction project. You need to hear more strawman arguments, then. His argument is accurate. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts