Post by: ExSoldier on February 25, 2008, 05:51:35 AM
His pick for veep might lock him into or out of the Oval Office.
Obviously Huckabee is angling for that spot and at first I thought that was great but now feel that McCain won't stand for the oral violation (think monica) and will choose somebody else. But who?
Some have suggested folks like JC Watts, a former Republican representative, young, charismatic, solid conservative and of course....black. I'd vote that ticket in a heartbeat.
Condi is still making it clear she doesn't want the job and that's good. Her views on abortion and other issues would kill the ticket.
A lot of folks are painting a JFK/LBJ scenario whereby McCain chooses a veep from a state that can deliver major electoral votes. In the case of JFK that was Texas and LBJ, whom the Kennedy's never liked, but accepted as a political reality. That being the case here the logical choice is Florida's Charlie Crist. Living in Florida myself, I can tell you that Crist is cut from EXACTLY the same cloth as McCain. Not RINO something called contra-conservative, which is actually worse since it's more deceptive.
Right now there are about 63% of die hard conservative Republicans who will vote for McCain while holding their noses because they see the reality of the alternative. I swear, the Clintons almost destroyed the nation and Bush hasn't been much improvement, but another Clinton or worse an Obama regime and this country won't exist. It might not exist with McCain but the odds are at least even.
IF McCain picks the right veep and the talk shows turn in favor they can galvanize the base and win the day. BUT WHO TO PICK?
Thoughts?
BTW I'm not even speculating on the RAT veep selection. It will be a nightmare in ever sense of the word, that's a given.
Post by: Manedwolf on February 25, 2008, 05:57:14 AM
Her line about "We never could have anticipated 9/11" when in fact it was her job to do just that at the time, and such things had been part of scenarios and even fiction for a long time...that'd come back to haunt her.
Post by: Bogie on February 25, 2008, 06:06:06 AM
If he picks someone from politics, he's screwed.
If he picks someone from business, he's screwed.
Brad Pitt?
Post by: The Rabbi on February 25, 2008, 07:03:58 AM
Jeb Bush would be great, except, well you know already.
JC Watts cant win elections, otherwise he'd be an OK choice.
Since McCain is already, what, 72 the choice is going to be important.
Post by: Bogie on February 25, 2008, 07:35:32 AM
Post by: Sergeant Bob on February 25, 2008, 08:33:57 AM
Fistful?
He'd be a lot better than most of the choices we have now.
Post by: seeker_two on February 25, 2008, 08:49:31 AM
Fistful?
He'd be a lot better than most of the choices we have now.
....and we'd have someone to blame McCain's loss to Obama on......
Post by: Northwoods on February 25, 2008, 08:52:36 AM
A pick like Huck or Guillani or some other RINO/"contra-conservative" will cause us to either sit out the POTUS election or vote third party, or for some (not me though) decide to just vote to scuttle the ship and vote Dem.
Post by: Tecumseh on February 25, 2008, 08:55:09 AM
I also wonder who he would pick?
Post by: Northwoods on February 25, 2008, 09:04:39 AM
Quote
I wonder if Ron Paul is going to be considered as a pick for VP.
BWWWWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!Thanks for the laugh. Having a cold/flu has hurt my humor today, but you've restored at least part of it.
Seriously, that's about as likely as either Obama or Hillary picking Kuchinich as their running mate.
Post by: Manedwolf on February 25, 2008, 09:08:32 AM
Quote
I wonder if Ron Paul is going to be considered as a pick for VP.
BWWWWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!Thanks for the laugh. Having a cold/flu has hurt my humor today, but you've restored at least part of it.
Seriously, that's about as likely as either Obama or Hillary picking Kuchinich as their running mate.
I snorted coffee at that, myself.
Post by: charby on February 25, 2008, 09:15:15 AM
Fistful?
He'd be a lot better than most of the choices we have now.
I believe he would also and would keep the best interests of our freedoms to heart. (in a respecting way)
Post by: Jamisjockey on February 25, 2008, 09:24:06 AM
I wonder if Ron Paul is going to be considered as a pick for VP.
I also wonder who he would pick?
I also wonder who he would pick?
The Only reason I'd see him being asked would be to prevent RP running as a Lib or Indy. Doubt it'll happen, though.
Post by: Tecumseh on February 25, 2008, 09:37:57 AM
I wonder if Ron Paul is going to be considered as a pick for VP.
I also wonder who he would pick?
I also wonder who he would pick?
The Only reason I'd see him being asked would be to prevent RP running as a Lib or Indy. Doubt it'll happen, though.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on February 25, 2008, 02:23:39 PM
Fistful?
He'd be a lot better than most of the choices we have now.
I believe he would also and would keep the best interests of our freedoms to heart. (in a respecting way)
Better knock that off or fistful's avatar is going to end up covering the whole page!
Post by: Bogie on February 25, 2008, 02:39:55 PM
Huck/He Who Should Not Be Named could be a nasty spoiler - How pissed _is_ Huck at the rest of the Republican party?
Post by: French G. on February 25, 2008, 04:21:13 PM
Post by: Balog on February 25, 2008, 05:03:06 PM
Post by: grampster on February 25, 2008, 05:59:03 PM
Newt is an historian and actually has a vision for America that is not socialist.
He would be a great pick. Thompson is too old; 65.
Post by: Antibubba on February 26, 2008, 08:48:56 PM
Post by: Phyphor on February 26, 2008, 10:41:10 PM
Fistful?
He'd be a lot better than most of the choices we have now.
I believe he would also and would keep the best interests of our freedoms to heart. (in a respecting way)
Hell yea, any chance we can write in Fistful?
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 27, 2008, 02:02:10 AM
I want to see a Newt/Huckabee ticket, just for the funny names.
Post by: French G. on February 27, 2008, 06:53:46 AM
Post by: The Rabbi on February 27, 2008, 07:54:39 AM
Tom Tancredo? I'd go for it, kinda unknown. Jim Gilmore? Good conservative Chops. Newt?? Nah, unelectable due to personal baggage. I personally would love a Rice VP, if asked she has to do it for the good of the country to save us from the alternative. Kinda de-rail a lot of the race and gender pandering we're sure to see. Tancredo sure would blow up the "hispanic vote" for the Rs, but who cares, got to stand for something.
Tom Tancredo is totally washed up, his anti-illegal message completely discredited. And that's in the primaries. In the general it'll be a killer.Zell Miller would be an awesome choice.
Post by: ilbob on February 27, 2008, 08:02:18 AM
Tom Tancredo? I'd go for it, kinda unknown. Jim Gilmore? Good conservative Chops. Newt?? Nah, unelectable due to personal baggage. I personally would love a Rice VP, if asked she has to do it for the good of the country to save us from the alternative. Kinda de-rail a lot of the race and gender pandering we're sure to see. Tancredo sure would blow up the "hispanic vote" for the Rs, but who cares, got to stand for something.
Tom Tancredo is totally washed up, his anti-illegal message completely discredited. And that's in the primaries. In the general it'll be a killer.Zell Miller would be an awesome choice.
Tancredo is anything but washed up. It is very clear that there is an undercurrent of public support to secure the southern borders that can't be denied. Tancredo's problem is he was seen mostly a one issue candidate, plus his name recognition was close to nil.
Post by: Manedwolf on February 27, 2008, 08:14:49 AM
Tom Tancredo? I'd go for it, kinda unknown. Jim Gilmore? Good conservative Chops. Newt?? Nah, unelectable due to personal baggage. I personally would love a Rice VP, if asked she has to do it for the good of the country to save us from the alternative. Kinda de-rail a lot of the race and gender pandering we're sure to see. Tancredo sure would blow up the "hispanic vote" for the Rs, but who cares, got to stand for something.
Tom Tancredo is totally washed up, his anti-illegal message completely discredited. And that's in the primaries. In the general it'll be a killer.Zell Miller would be an awesome choice.
You wish that Tancredo was "washed up". You just know that he'd stand for rule of law and slap down every one of your amnesty-for-lawbreakers arguments with force.
And you're afraid of that.
Post by: The Rabbi on February 27, 2008, 08:19:48 AM
Tom Tancredo? I'd go for it, kinda unknown. Jim Gilmore? Good conservative Chops. Newt?? Nah, unelectable due to personal baggage. I personally would love a Rice VP, if asked she has to do it for the good of the country to save us from the alternative. Kinda de-rail a lot of the race and gender pandering we're sure to see. Tancredo sure would blow up the "hispanic vote" for the Rs, but who cares, got to stand for something.
Tom Tancredo is totally washed up, his anti-illegal message completely discredited. And that's in the primaries. In the general it'll be a killer.Zell Miller would be an awesome choice.
You wish that Tancredo was "washed up". You just know that he'd stand for rule of law and slap down every one of your amnesty-for-lawbreakers arguments with force.
And you're afraid of that.
Tancredo goes back to his well-deserved obscurity. The anti-illegal push has spent itself as a political force, if it ever was, except on boards like this. No candidate running on a "deport 'em all and mine the border" ticket has fared well and the most "liberal" candidates in that regard polled the best.
Sorry, that's reality.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on February 27, 2008, 09:14:56 AM
Fistful?
He'd be a lot better than most of the choices we have now.
I believe he would also and would keep the best interests of our freedoms to heart. (in a respecting way)
Better knock that off or fistful's avatar is going to end up covering the whole page!
See! I told you! It's happening already!
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 27, 2008, 01:45:20 PM
Post by: seeker_two on February 27, 2008, 02:01:30 PM
Post by: MechAg94 on February 27, 2008, 05:13:54 PM
Post by: ExSoldier on February 27, 2008, 07:06:43 PM
Yes, terrified. I might be deported back to Guatemala.
Tancredo goes back to his well-deserved obscurity. The anti-illegal push has spent itself as a political force, if it ever was, except on boards like this. No candidate running on a "deport 'em all and mine the border" ticket has fared well and the most "liberal" candidates in that regard polled the best. Sorry, that's reality.
It might be YOUR reality but I don't think it's a reflection of the nation. I have friends who live along the borders with Mexico and their fear as well as rage is palpable. You could cut it with a knife it hangs so thickly in the air. These folks have seen the tremendous ecological destruction done by these illegal peasants who will contribute nothing to our economy and only drain our public services at a rate that can't be sustained. The crimes committed are particularly sickening. Every news story of a family wiped out by a DUI illegal or a young girl gang raped by a group of these animalistic criminals that rage grows and it knows no political ideology.
I know so many Democrats and latinos here lawfully that are enraged by the entire situation. I think there is a backlash coming that will make the anger over Pearl Harbor look like a small, cool, breeze. In fact I think it's already begun. Of course it's possible to send the current population of illegals back across the border on a voluntary basis. How? Crack down on their employers on this side of the border and remove the benefits that draw them here. It's working on a local basis across the country. As I said, that backlash is underway. Once the flow has slowed sufficiently, then build the fences.
That HOGWASH you hear about how a fence won't work is just that: HOGWASH. The (not-so) Reverend Jesse loves to harp about how a 50 foot wall will only lead to a 51 foot ladder is soooooo stupid only a liberal could expect to believe it. The fences should be sunk 20 feet into the ground as well to discourage tunnels.
Take the BERLIN WALL as an example. Once it was fully operational anytime even ONE person made it across, that was international news. We don't even need something as lethal as that. Build two fences each one say 20 feet tall and topped with razor wire. The barriers should be about 50 yards apart and utterly devoid of all vegetation. Have them monitored with sensors and infra red cameras and put the Border Patrol into heavily armed HUMVEES for constant patrols. Instruct them that armed incursions onto US soil by anyone are to be met with the proper levels of force. Back them up with the folks for which the US Constitution specifically designates a duty: THE MILITARY.
A lot of the illegals are being brought in by MS13 or even rogue elements of the Mexican army and all heavily armed. Every Presidential administration has enacted democrat ROE (Rules Of Engagement) that consist of RUN & HIDE. That has to stop. Tell the Mexicans to quit allowing this to happen on their side of the border. When they protest that it just AIN'T SO....drop a bullet riddled body on the front lawn of the Mexican President by way of proof. Armed incursions should be met with military force. Period.
Until these measures can be built or emplaced it is still possible to reduce the influx to a trickle. How? Station battalions of Helicopter gunships along the border in every state using the national guards for that state. Give every property owner on the border a US Military issue radio and teach them how to use it. Everytime they oberserve illegal alien activity they simply get on the radio and call it into the "office." In a matter of moments a QRF (Quick Reaction Force) is "wheels up" with a gunship AND a Blackhawk full of troops to secure the area. Ground forces can follow on later with the appropriate transport for any prisoners.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on February 27, 2008, 07:16:13 PM
Post by: The Rabbi on February 28, 2008, 12:23:01 AM
A better look is the border between China and N.Korea. the Chinese are having tremendous trouble keeping out the starving N.Koreans. And their border is a lot shorter, a lot closer to populated areas, and they are less hindered by the public eye.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on February 28, 2008, 01:50:18 AM
Post by: ExSoldier on February 28, 2008, 05:26:47 AM
It wouldn't require shoulder to shoulder staffing when the technology is as good as it is in todays recon operations. The requirement is for a set of BARRIERS and a "no man's zone" in between. Sensors and a QRF as I mentioned before are all that is needed. I do understand the logistical requirements for such a force. Logistics was my secondary specialty on active duty when I served as assistant Plans & Operations Officer in a Division level G4 shop. Until the barriers are built a viable standby plan is that which I suggested in giving landowners radio equipment to serve as remote eyes and ears for the military. That part is the easiest of all. Heck we moved half our army to Saudi in 1991 and kept them supplied for almost a year. Guarding our own borders should be a snap in comparison.
Post by: Manedwolf on February 28, 2008, 05:31:31 AM
Ironic, innit?
Post by: The Rabbi on February 28, 2008, 05:39:14 AM
Mexico seems to do a pretty good job of keeping South American refugees from crossing their southern border.
Ironic, innit?
Actually the majority of illegals are not Mexicans. Many of them come up from So.America through Mexico. So, no. You are incorrect.
Ironic, innit?
Post by: ExSoldier on February 28, 2008, 05:43:17 AM
The Berlin Wall. What a great model for America.
A better look is the border between China and N.Korea. the Chinese are having tremendous trouble keeping out the starving N.Koreans. And their border is a lot shorter, a lot closer to populated areas, and they are less hindered by the public eye.
A better look is the border between China and N.Korea. the Chinese are having tremendous trouble keeping out the starving N.Koreans. And their border is a lot shorter, a lot closer to populated areas, and they are less hindered by the public eye.
PUH-LEASE. This idea that we can't get our hands dirty reeks of liberal handwringing. You model your operation on what works and then tune it to suit your own needs. Being a lot closer to populated areas is the main issue hindering the Chinese in their border situation. Our terrain and climate work in our favor to deter folks who are pretty casual in making the trip. For those more serious then cracking down on employers on this side of the border provides a longer term solution; one that has been proven to work at the state level. Build the fence first. Then install the sensors and staff it with the various national guard units. Give the ranchers and landowners in the area a means to pitch in as well as protect themselves by making them a part of the overall team effort. I'll bet you can reduce the inflow by as much as 85% inside of a year once it's all up and running. The ongoing issues inside this country will solve themselves once we crack down on the employers and healthcare providers among other benefits sought by these parasites.
Post by: ExSoldier on February 28, 2008, 05:52:44 AM
Mexico seems to do a pretty good job of keeping South American refugees from crossing their southern border.
Ironic, innit?
Actually the majority of illegals are not Mexicans. Many of them come up from So.America through Mexico. So, no. You are incorrect.Ironic, innit?
Actually Rabbi, you are the one incorrect on the numbers and nationalities. Indeed most of the illegals ARE from Mexico with a smattering of other countries. A full 10% come from middle eastern countries and almost all of those can be considered threat nations. Figure this: According to the US Border Patrols own stats, over the last ten years the percentages of border crossers actually captured have 10% represented by terrorist or terrorist connected nations. Not all those folks are coming here to work in a QUIKIE MART! In fact, the potential based on the numbers breakdown to an estimated 70,000 TERRORISTS currently residing on our soil, waiting for the "GO CODE" to strike. Yet every President since before Kennedy has allowed and even somewhat encouraged the process rather than sealing the borders. That was a much easier proposition back in the 1960s than it is today, although still perfectly doable.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on February 28, 2008, 06:13:39 AM
I didn't say we had to build and staff a WALL... I said a pair of fences. Kind of like the Koprean DMZ and although many have tried to penetrate that zone all the way into southern territory very few have succeeded. Of course at night the Korean DMZ is a "FREE FIRE ZONE" and anything moving can and will be fired upon. I'm not quite suggesting that kind of response to civilian incursions. But force must be employed nonetheless. When the intruder is part of an armed covering force with Mexican military assets or global gang activity, then DEADLY force must be used.
It wouldn't require shoulder to shoulder staffing when the technology is as good as it is in todays recon operations. The requirement is for a set of BARRIERS and a "no man's zone" in between. Sensors and a QRF as I mentioned before are all that is needed. I do understand the logistical requirements for such a force. Logistics was my secondary specialty on active duty when I served as assistant Plans & Operations Officer in a Division level G4 shop. Until the barriers are built a viable standby plan is that which I suggested in giving landowners radio equipment to serve as remote eyes and ears for the military. That part is the easiest of all. Heck we moved half our army to Saudi in 1991 and kept them supplied for almost a year. Guarding our own borders should be a snap in comparison.
It wouldn't require shoulder to shoulder staffing when the technology is as good as it is in todays recon operations. The requirement is for a set of BARRIERS and a "no man's zone" in between. Sensors and a QRF as I mentioned before are all that is needed. I do understand the logistical requirements for such a force. Logistics was my secondary specialty on active duty when I served as assistant Plans & Operations Officer in a Division level G4 shop. Until the barriers are built a viable standby plan is that which I suggested in giving landowners radio equipment to serve as remote eyes and ears for the military. That part is the easiest of all. Heck we moved half our army to Saudi in 1991 and kept them supplied for almost a year. Guarding our own borders should be a snap in comparison.
how long is the korean border? and how long is ours? and again you deal with a country that severely restricts acess to anywhere near the border. as well as minefields and the free fire zone. yourplan has some big holes and i'm still waiting for your assesment of staffing for your plan
Post by: The Rabbi on February 28, 2008, 07:24:43 AM
The Berlin Wall. What a great model for America.
A better look is the border between China and N.Korea. the Chinese are having tremendous trouble keeping out the starving N.Koreans. And their border is a lot shorter, a lot closer to populated areas, and they are less hindered by the public eye.
A better look is the border between China and N.Korea. the Chinese are having tremendous trouble keeping out the starving N.Koreans. And their border is a lot shorter, a lot closer to populated areas, and they are less hindered by the public eye.
PUH-LEASE. This idea that we can't get our hands dirty reeks of liberal handwringing. You model your operation on what works and then tune it to suit your own needs. Being a lot closer to populated areas is the main issue hindering the Chinese in their border situation. Our terrain and climate work in our favor to deter folks who are pretty casual in making the trip. For those more serious then cracking down on employers on this side of the border provides a longer term solution; one that has been proven to work at the state level. Build the fence first. Then install the sensors and staff it with the various national guard units. Give the ranchers and landowners in the area a means to pitch in as well as protect themselves by making them a part of the overall team effort. I'll bet you can reduce the inflow by as much as 85% inside of a year once it's all up and running. The ongoing issues inside this country will solve themselves once we crack down on the employers and healthcare providers among other benefits sought by these parasites.
I doubt anyone would be very happy with that. Even rock-ribbed alleged conservatives like yourself, to say nothing of those liberal handwringers.
Crack down on employers? Who is going to do that work? If you have to increase pay scales to attract American workers then you will price the item out of the marketplace. Production will move offshore so you will lose more jobs.
Yes, plunging the country into a prolonged recession will solve the immigration problem. No jobs, no reason to come here anymore.
Post by: ExSoldier on February 28, 2008, 07:47:58 AM
Quote
How long is the korean border? and how long is ours? and again you deal with a country that severely restricts acess to anywhere near the border. as well as minefields and the free fire zone. your plan has some big holes and i'm still waiting for your assesment of staffing for your plan
The Korean Border with China is 879 miles in length, roughly the distance between New York and Chicago.
According to Wikipedia:
The international border between Mexico and the United States runs from San Diego, California, and Tijuana, Baja California, in the west to Matamoros, Tamaulipas, and Brownsville, Texas, in the east. It traverses a variety of terrains, ranging from major urban areas to inhospitable deserts. From the Gulf of Mexico it follows the course of the Rio Grande (R?o Bravo del Norte) to the border crossing at El Paso, Texas, and Ciudad Ju?rez, Chihuahua; westward from that binational conurbation it crosses vast tracts of the Sonoran and Chihuahuan Deserts, the Colorado River Delta, and the northernmost tip of the Baja California peninsula before reaching the Pacific Ocean.
The border's total length is 1,969 miles (3,169 km), according to figures given by the International Boundary and Water Commission.
I would propose dividing the border fence into sectors much as we did with the Berlin Wall and still do today with the Korean DMZ. In the case of our southern border, each sector would be represented by a state whose tasking would be to utilize national guard and state police resources to work in conjunction with the US military, Federal Border Patrol and where honesty can be established, the Mexican authorities. Corruption is of course rife in the area (on the Mexican side) but the right tunes haven't yet been played to take advantage of that situation to our benefit. I think there should be allowed a local ability to economically benefit regional governments on the Mexican side with agreements at the local level but still sanctioned by the US Senate. Making it "worth their while" to keep the borders clean of illegals waiting to cross would lessen the stress on our own LEO and military resources. The terrain works to our favor as well. Most folks don't hike across those inhospitable stretches of desert due to the fear of dying while exposed to the elements. This will ease the states staffing mandates for each individual sector. At the same time cracking down on stateside employers will eventually help to encourage the return of immigrants currently residing on US soil as well as discourage more from crossing a physical wasteland into what will become an economic wasteland for those who try and penetrate our borders with evil intent.
Post by: ExSoldier on February 28, 2008, 08:04:00 AM
I doubt anyone would be very happy with that. Even rock-ribbed alleged conservatives like yourself, to say nothing of those liberal handwringers.
Crack down on employers? Who is going to do that work? If you have to increase pay scales to attract American workers then you will price the item out of the marketplace. Production will move offshore so you will lose more jobs.
Yes, plunging the country into a prolonged recession will solve the immigration problem. No jobs, no reason to come here anymore.
Americans have been doing that work until the huge influx of illegals was hired to drive down the wages in construction to poverty levels. 20 years ago the wage for a carpenter was $14 per hour. Today it is $7 per hour and that's a direct result of illegal immigration. Folks have this quaint notion that immigrants are working in the fields of migrant camps and nothing could be further from the truth! They are sucking the life from our construction industry. Yes most of them are hard workers and skilled in those areas, but if the wages and benefits go up again American workers will be more than happy to come back, especially in our home born minorities. But as long as American developers can cut corners on wages and benefits they will continue to build office buildings and condos that can't be filled which leads to more foreclosures and a dollar devaluation. None of this interests the builders for once it's built and paid for it's the problem of the developers..... How will production move offshore when the product is land development? That is by far the largest areas of occupation for illegal aliens.
NAFTA and GATT have already insured that production for real goods has moved overseas for exactly the same reasons. Blame the globalists for that. Both Clinton and Bush supported those treaties and each used his considerable clout with the specific folks they had influence with to convince America to just BOHICA for the greater good. But whose greater good? That question went unasked and unanswered.
Post by: The Rabbi on February 28, 2008, 09:26:16 AM
Post by: ExSoldier on February 28, 2008, 09:53:54 AM
Geez. No wonder the GOP can't field a decent candidate.
Well, I don't like McCain but I'll hold my nose and vote for him, especially IF he picks a decent and young-ish running mate for the ticket. But I was just thinking the same thing about the RATs ... they can't do any better than Hilda-Beast or Barrack Hussein? Obama. That dude has become the "annointed one" with the media so he's been treated with kid gloves. No real analysis has been made of him. Wait till those floodgates open!
The Dems are trapped either way. If they nominate Hillary the Republicans who are only lukewarm voters will crawl over broken glass to vote AGAINST her. If the nominee is Obama, the red states and the dems living in "fly over country" will go to the ends of the earth to send him packing. I was thinking that things never looked so good for the Republican candidates.
Post by: thebaldguy on February 28, 2008, 01:16:10 PM
The Republican convention is here this year. My money is on Pawlenty.
Post by: The Rabbi on February 28, 2008, 04:32:52 PM
Post by: ExSoldier on February 29, 2008, 10:11:27 AM
When I saw a quotation from Pawlenty where he said "gov't needs to be more proactive" he lost my support. Merely a Romney-lite.
Pawlenty? Never heard of him. Conventional political thinking would seem to indicate that a veep should bring something major to the table in the way of electoral votes or some individual trait that makes this individual stand out in a crowd. Pawlenty? How many electoral votes has Minnesota got? Is the way that state votes likely to influence much of the way other states in the area vote? Pawlenty?
Sorry, I just don't see this as realistic.
Post by: Manedwolf on February 29, 2008, 10:14:55 AM
Post by: ExSoldier on February 29, 2008, 10:19:50 AM
I would just hope that Obama gets someone horrifyingly unacceptable to most of the American populace.
Hillary?
Post by: Manedwolf on February 29, 2008, 10:21:37 AM
I would just hope that Obama gets someone horrifyingly unacceptable to most of the American populace.
Hillary?
She won't settle for second place. And he knows he'd have to watch his back every second, or she'd get him impeached and take over.
Post by: ilbob on February 29, 2008, 12:24:00 PM
Start with a serious fence/wall (or whatever it takes) in populated areas, and a set of wires 50 yards apart in less hospitable areas.
Less hospitable areas can be patrolled primarily by armed drone aircraft controlled from remote stations. A drone can easily see 2 or 3 miles so could patrol a 5 mile section of the border. At a couple million each, you could do it for a billion or two, including the ground stations. Can staff them with another few thousand pilots and ground support people. Can probably run the whole thing for 5-10 billion a year.
Someone violates the border, a warning shot is fired in front of them. If they refuse to return to their side of the border, something nastier happens. Maybe tear gas. But if that doesn't work you have to get nastier yet.
Once we have control of the border, and have deported the illegals, we can work out some kind of guest worker program if it is truly needed.
Post by: The Rabbi on February 29, 2008, 12:51:59 PM
Post by: ilbob on February 29, 2008, 01:50:10 PM
Why not just sell hunting licenses? It won't cost the gov't anything at all.
because mexicans are still people, even if they are trying to violate our border.its fair to give them a chance to go back where they came from before dealing with them in a more harsh way. but ultimately, if they chose to cross the border without legal sanction, they bear the burden of what happens to them.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on February 29, 2008, 02:31:09 PM
Post by: seeker_two on March 01, 2008, 05:40:01 AM
Why not just sell hunting licenses? It won't cost the gov't anything at all.
because Fixed....
I propose injecting each illegal alien deported with an RFID chip that can be scanned at distance. Then mine the border with anti-personnel charges that scan for the chips, armed arial drones with chip detectors, and sniper posts with chip readers. If a chip is detected crossing the border without permission.....well, they were warned.....
Post by: longeyes on March 02, 2008, 08:59:37 AM
How 'bout Vincente Fox?
Obama?
Gen. Wesley "I [heart] Kosovo" Clark?
Post by: doc2rn on March 02, 2008, 10:36:35 AM
Post by: ilbob on March 02, 2008, 10:52:45 AM
so which one of you fellers is gonna trip that trigger on some kid? or you all about someone else doing it? or does it just seem easier from the keyboard
You will note my suggestion was tear gas. There are a lot of choices before killing, but ultimately that is the choice of the criminal who is committing the crime.
Maybe some kind of taser. There are all kinds of options if you really want to deal with the problem rather than pretend there is no solution.
Just making it a little harder will reduce the numbers. I don't think you can eliminate it entriely, but I know you can reduce the problem substantially in a relatively cost effective way.
Post by: longeyes on March 03, 2008, 11:48:51 PM
Quote
so which one of you fellers is gonna trip that trigger on some kid? or you all about someone else doing it? or does it just seem easier from the keyboard
Unfortunately, illegal aliens are killing OUR children, both literally and figuratively.
But what you fail to grasp, in your infinite compassion, is that when you are a tribal society the number of your progeny is your weapon. Do what you wish with that information.