Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
"Punching Up" in California and New Mexico
Comments
-
That isn't the argument I'm making.dflea said:
Fewer. Now do the cost/benefit analysis like anyone should do before taking action.Pitchfork51 said:ThomasFremont said:
Are we putting armed guards with shoot to kill orders everywhere? No. And people still got through.TurdBuffer said:
Berlin from 1962 to 1990 says "Hi."ThomasFremont said:
The wall eliminates nothing. You just have to go over or under it. It’s not a magical barrier. Yeah they won’t be able to just stroll across, but so what. They will climb over or tunnel under like they already do. What resource does the wall free up for patrolling those other ways? None. It drains resources. I hope this helps but I know it won’t.Pitchfork51 said:
Yes. They will change their approach because the ways are more limited.ThomasFremont said:
Your assumption that a wall makes their chances of success “much lower” is the root problem here. It won’t. It will change their approach. Nothing more. It’s an illusion and a waste of you think a wall solves anythingPitchfork51 said:
So if something is really difficult, and expensive, and they hear from credible sources that their chances of succeeding are much lower.....it won't deter anyone?ThomasFremont said:
No it won’t. And you’re dumb if you think it will.Pitchfork51 said:
not at all. dont give a fuck about the peopleThomasFremont said:
Now you care about the coyotes preying on the innocent?Pitchfork51 said:
Holy fuck.ThomasFremont said:
I’m glad we agree that the wall does nothing to address the underlying issues.Pitchfork51 said:ThomasFremont said:
No. It’s outdated and ineffective. You think some immigrant family is gonna risk everything, but then give up simply because there is a bigger wall?Pitchfork51 said:
okay so a bunch of poor miserable people traipsing through the desert carrying ladders and ropes and explosives.ThomasFremont said:
Tunnels, ladders, ropes, boats, airplanes, explosives...these are just a few easy ways to deal with a wall. Throwing a shit ton of money at the wall to have it maybe stop less than 40% (and that’s a very generous estimate) is FS. They will just come another way.Pitchfork51 said:
It makes it far far more difficult. Therefore allowing us to focus on the narrower scope of ways they can actually get in2001400ex said:
If you think building a wall will stop the other 40%, you are FS. You clearly have never been down by the border.Pitchfork51 said:"Most come in legally" might be the dumbest of all the lefts arguments.
Okay if 60 percent come in and overstay their visas, but we stop majority of the other 40 percent.....
Then that makes a huge fucking difference!!
"Most come in legally! What's the point of even trying to stop anyone at all!"
Honestly if this weren't a bizarre political thing no one would disagree with it.
It's fucking absurd the lengths the left are going to with this.
I can't believe I even have to explain it.
Do you not see that the degree of difficulty is about a million times more?
And if they start blowing shit up it wont be hard to find and stop them.
Many will not attempt it. The ones that do now only have limited routes which can be monitored much more easily.
You can't be this fucking dense.
Just come out and say it. It's mean and a symbol of racism and you'll lose points with your friends if you admit that it will do somehting.
No. I think they are going to not go in the first place or go through a much more difficult, expensive, and less likely to be successful route.
They sure as fuck aren't gonna climb over it or blow it up.
Many would not attempt at all because of the difficulty/cost and then many others would not make it because of the difficulty.
The whole point of a wall is you cant just stroll through it!
Not to mention all these poor miserable fuckers in South/Central America that only hear about stuff second hand and get duped by the coyotes would definitely hear about a big ass wall and the extra difficulty.
So not only is it effective in general, it is a major deterrent too.
Thanks for the laugh.
I'm saying that most of what they hear comes from shady people who are trying to get their money and probably tell them how easy it is and how great it'll be.
So when they hear from legit sources that the US said fuck you latin american cunts it'll be a deterrent.
You have to be kidding
You know whats easier to monitor? Fewer routes.
But hey, any time you can take a page out of the East German/USSR playbook, you gotta do it.
Do you think more people would have crossed if there was no wall, or the exact same amount?
Think hard. It's a really difficult question.
Doesn't have quite the same shine after that IMO.
Tommy is claiming that there is ZERO impact at all. None. 100 percent of people would bypass it.
Obviously how effective and is it worth the cost is the legit argument. Anyone with a brain realizes that.
But he and his ilk have gone full on "LOL UR DUMB IT WONT STOP A SINGLE PERSON" -
Exactly where I've been at from the beginning. Anyone pretending the wall wouldn't have an impact on illegal immigration is lying to themselves. Just like anyone who thinks the impact would justify the expense.dflea said:
Fewer. Now do the cost/benefit analysis like anyone should do before taking action.Pitchfork51 said:ThomasFremont said:
Are we putting armed guards with shoot to kill orders everywhere? No. And people still got through.TurdBuffer said:
Berlin from 1962 to 1990 says "Hi."ThomasFremont said:
The wall eliminates nothing. You just have to go over or under it. It’s not a magical barrier. Yeah they won’t be able to just stroll across, but so what. They will climb over or tunnel under like they already do. What resource does the wall free up for patrolling those other ways? None. It drains resources. I hope this helps but I know it won’t.Pitchfork51 said:
Yes. They will change their approach because the ways are more limited.ThomasFremont said:
Your assumption that a wall makes their chances of success “much lower” is the root problem here. It won’t. It will change their approach. Nothing more. It’s an illusion and a waste of you think a wall solves anythingPitchfork51 said:
So if something is really difficult, and expensive, and they hear from credible sources that their chances of succeeding are much lower.....it won't deter anyone?ThomasFremont said:
No it won’t. And you’re dumb if you think it will.Pitchfork51 said:
not at all. dont give a fuck about the peopleThomasFremont said:
Now you care about the coyotes preying on the innocent?Pitchfork51 said:
Holy fuck.ThomasFremont said:
I’m glad we agree that the wall does nothing to address the underlying issues.Pitchfork51 said:ThomasFremont said:
No. It’s outdated and ineffective. You think some immigrant family is gonna risk everything, but then give up simply because there is a bigger wall?Pitchfork51 said:
okay so a bunch of poor miserable people traipsing through the desert carrying ladders and ropes and explosives.ThomasFremont said:
Tunnels, ladders, ropes, boats, airplanes, explosives...these are just a few easy ways to deal with a wall. Throwing a shit ton of money at the wall to have it maybe stop less than 40% (and that’s a very generous estimate) is FS. They will just come another way.Pitchfork51 said:
It makes it far far more difficult. Therefore allowing us to focus on the narrower scope of ways they can actually get in2001400ex said:
If you think building a wall will stop the other 40%, you are FS. You clearly have never been down by the border.Pitchfork51 said:"Most come in legally" might be the dumbest of all the lefts arguments.
Okay if 60 percent come in and overstay their visas, but we stop majority of the other 40 percent.....
Then that makes a huge fucking difference!!
"Most come in legally! What's the point of even trying to stop anyone at all!"
Honestly if this weren't a bizarre political thing no one would disagree with it.
It's fucking absurd the lengths the left are going to with this.
I can't believe I even have to explain it.
Do you not see that the degree of difficulty is about a million times more?
And if they start blowing shit up it wont be hard to find and stop them.
Many will not attempt it. The ones that do now only have limited routes which can be monitored much more easily.
You can't be this fucking dense.
Just come out and say it. It's mean and a symbol of racism and you'll lose points with your friends if you admit that it will do somehting.
No. I think they are going to not go in the first place or go through a much more difficult, expensive, and less likely to be successful route.
They sure as fuck aren't gonna climb over it or blow it up.
Many would not attempt at all because of the difficulty/cost and then many others would not make it because of the difficulty.
The whole point of a wall is you cant just stroll through it!
Not to mention all these poor miserable fuckers in South/Central America that only hear about stuff second hand and get duped by the coyotes would definitely hear about a big ass wall and the extra difficulty.
So not only is it effective in general, it is a major deterrent too.
Thanks for the laugh.
I'm saying that most of what they hear comes from shady people who are trying to get their money and probably tell them how easy it is and how great it'll be.
So when they hear from legit sources that the US said fuck you latin american cunts it'll be a deterrent.
You have to be kidding
You know whats easier to monitor? Fewer routes.
But hey, any time you can take a page out of the East German/USSR playbook, you gotta do it.
Do you think more people would have crossed if there was no wall, or the exact same amount?
Think hard. It's a really difficult question.
Doesn't have quite the same shine after that IMO. -
We're talking about government spending. 25 billion is couch change
I just roll my eyes at the extent people go to claim walls don't work. Not a good look
An honest accounting of the cost of illegals is illuminating -
The Wall is stupid. Put that money towards:
The detainment, round up and transport back to the country an illegal came from.
Or use it to set up a vetting process to make those that have been here and are otherwise productive citizens to make them US Citizens and then enforce our border to the letter of the law with more border patrol.
With Sanctuary Cities and states being what they are, the 1st option would be the most effective as you can’t have amnesty when there are Sanctuary cities. -
The awesomeness and the whining would justify double the expense.dnc said:
Exactly where I've been at from the beginning. Anyone pretending the wall wouldn't have an impact on illegal immigration is lying to themselves. Just like anyone who thinks the impact would justify the expense.dflea said:
Fewer. Now do the cost/benefit analysis like anyone should do before taking action.Pitchfork51 said:ThomasFremont said:
Are we putting armed guards with shoot to kill orders everywhere? No. And people still got through.TurdBuffer said:
Berlin from 1962 to 1990 says "Hi."ThomasFremont said:
The wall eliminates nothing. You just have to go over or under it. It’s not a magical barrier. Yeah they won’t be able to just stroll across, but so what. They will climb over or tunnel under like they already do. What resource does the wall free up for patrolling those other ways? None. It drains resources. I hope this helps but I know it won’t.Pitchfork51 said:
Yes. They will change their approach because the ways are more limited.ThomasFremont said:
Your assumption that a wall makes their chances of success “much lower” is the root problem here. It won’t. It will change their approach. Nothing more. It’s an illusion and a waste of you think a wall solves anythingPitchfork51 said:
So if something is really difficult, and expensive, and they hear from credible sources that their chances of succeeding are much lower.....it won't deter anyone?ThomasFremont said:
No it won’t. And you’re dumb if you think it will.Pitchfork51 said:
not at all. dont give a fuck about the peopleThomasFremont said:
Now you care about the coyotes preying on the innocent?Pitchfork51 said:
Holy fuck.ThomasFremont said:
I’m glad we agree that the wall does nothing to address the underlying issues.Pitchfork51 said:ThomasFremont said:
No. It’s outdated and ineffective. You think some immigrant family is gonna risk everything, but then give up simply because there is a bigger wall?Pitchfork51 said:
okay so a bunch of poor miserable people traipsing through the desert carrying ladders and ropes and explosives.ThomasFremont said:
Tunnels, ladders, ropes, boats, airplanes, explosives...these are just a few easy ways to deal with a wall. Throwing a shit ton of money at the wall to have it maybe stop less than 40% (and that’s a very generous estimate) is FS. They will just come another way.Pitchfork51 said:
It makes it far far more difficult. Therefore allowing us to focus on the narrower scope of ways they can actually get in2001400ex said:
If you think building a wall will stop the other 40%, you are FS. You clearly have never been down by the border.Pitchfork51 said:"Most come in legally" might be the dumbest of all the lefts arguments.
Okay if 60 percent come in and overstay their visas, but we stop majority of the other 40 percent.....
Then that makes a huge fucking difference!!
"Most come in legally! What's the point of even trying to stop anyone at all!"
Honestly if this weren't a bizarre political thing no one would disagree with it.
It's fucking absurd the lengths the left are going to with this.
I can't believe I even have to explain it.
Do you not see that the degree of difficulty is about a million times more?
And if they start blowing shit up it wont be hard to find and stop them.
Many will not attempt it. The ones that do now only have limited routes which can be monitored much more easily.
You can't be this fucking dense.
Just come out and say it. It's mean and a symbol of racism and you'll lose points with your friends if you admit that it will do somehting.
No. I think they are going to not go in the first place or go through a much more difficult, expensive, and less likely to be successful route.
They sure as fuck aren't gonna climb over it or blow it up.
Many would not attempt at all because of the difficulty/cost and then many others would not make it because of the difficulty.
The whole point of a wall is you cant just stroll through it!
Not to mention all these poor miserable fuckers in South/Central America that only hear about stuff second hand and get duped by the coyotes would definitely hear about a big ass wall and the extra difficulty.
So not only is it effective in general, it is a major deterrent too.
Thanks for the laugh.
I'm saying that most of what they hear comes from shady people who are trying to get their money and probably tell them how easy it is and how great it'll be.
So when they hear from legit sources that the US said fuck you latin american cunts it'll be a deterrent.
You have to be kidding
You know whats easier to monitor? Fewer routes.
But hey, any time you can take a page out of the East German/USSR playbook, you gotta do it.
Do you think more people would have crossed if there was no wall, or the exact same amount?
Think hard. It's a really difficult question.
Doesn't have quite the same shine after that IMO. -
Better plansalemcoog said:The Wall is stupid. Put that money towards:
The detainment, round up and transport back to the country an illegal came from.
Or use it to set up a vetting process to make those that have been here and are otherwise productive citizens to make them US Citizens and then enforce our border to the letter of the law with more border patrol.
With Sanctuary Cities and states being what they are, the 1st option would be the most effective as you can’t have amnesty when there are Sanctuary cities.
Spend the $25 billion to bomb sanctuary cities.
Everybody wins. -
co signdnc said:
Better plansalemcoog said:The Wall is stupid. Put that money towards:
The detainment, round up and transport back to the country an illegal came from.
Or use it to set up a vetting process to make those that have been here and are otherwise productive citizens to make them US Citizens and then enforce our border to the letter of the law with more border patrol.
With Sanctuary Cities and states being what they are, the 1st option would be the most effective as you can’t have amnesty when there are Sanctuary cities.
Spend the $25 billion to bomb sanctuary cities.
Everybody wins. -
dnc - finder of solutions.dnc said:
Better plansalemcoog said:The Wall is stupid. Put that money towards:
The detainment, round up and transport back to the country an illegal came from.
Or use it to set up a vetting process to make those that have been here and are otherwise productive citizens to make them US Citizens and then enforce our border to the letter of the law with more border patrol.
With Sanctuary Cities and states being what they are, the 1st option would be the most effective as you can’t have amnesty when there are Sanctuary cities.
Spend the $25 billion to bomb sanctuary cities.
Everybody wins. -
Mods? Rule 1?
-
Lol between dnc and obks "final solution" were getting pretty close to the edge here
