|
More info.. not looking good...
On 6/23/2013 9:40 AM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article z_ , says... It really doesn't matter whether a fence is erected along the U.S.-Mexico border, because such devices don't work. The Great Wall of China didn't work, and the Berlin Wall didn't work...both were breached many, many times. But calling for the building of such a wall gets the righties what they want...a delay in a real immigration plan "until" the wall is built. It's just more conservative cynicism. Walls and fences are a joke. So are the proposed "immigration plans" I've seen. About half of the illegal immigrants came in on legal visas. What will it take to fix just that piece? A massive change in visa procedures. And massive hiring of INS agents to track down and deport visa overstays. But wait. Why do people illegally cross the border or illegally overstay their visas? To work. A working e-verify system and strict enforcement of laws against hiring illegal immigrants, with stiff penalties - and I'm talking jail time - will take care of it all. Add a $500 government bounty for each illegal reported and deported. Shops using illegals didn't last long in the past. They got reported to the INS and a raid shortly followed. Any good union guy would report illegals. Now, with most unions almost dead, you need a $500 bounty to get the average dope thinking. Add swift and sure deportation for any illegal caught after whatever "amnesty" deadline is set. THAT'S the "secure border." That's all it takes. Which party has that in their "immigration plan?" Let me know when you find out. Basically what you all are saying is the proposed law that adds some 20,000 border agents will work to secure the border just fine, but if you add a wall first, it won't?? I don't get it... |
More info.. not looking good...
In article ,
says... On 6/23/2013 9:40 AM, Boating All Out wrote: In article z_ , says... It really doesn't matter whether a fence is erected along the U.S.-Mexico border, because such devices don't work. The Great Wall of China didn't work, and the Berlin Wall didn't work...both were breached many, many times. But calling for the building of such a wall gets the righties what they want...a delay in a real immigration plan "until" the wall is built. It's just more conservative cynicism. Walls and fences are a joke. So are the proposed "immigration plans" I've seen. About half of the illegal immigrants came in on legal visas. What will it take to fix just that piece? A massive change in visa procedures. And massive hiring of INS agents to track down and deport visa overstays. But wait. Why do people illegally cross the border or illegally overstay their visas? To work. A working e-verify system and strict enforcement of laws against hiring illegal immigrants, with stiff penalties - and I'm talking jail time - will take care of it all. Add a $500 government bounty for each illegal reported and deported. Shops using illegals didn't last long in the past. They got reported to the INS and a raid shortly followed. Any good union guy would report illegals. Now, with most unions almost dead, you need a $500 bounty to get the average dope thinking. Add swift and sure deportation for any illegal caught after whatever "amnesty" deadline is set. THAT'S the "secure border." That's all it takes. Which party has that in their "immigration plan?" Let me know when you find out. Great Wall didn't work, Iron Curtain didn't work?? Sure they did. Nothing is 100% but they didn't have the wholesale migration from one side to the other we have now here... You stupid fool, the Iron Curtain isn't a wall except in a few places!!! And: While the improved great wall prevented the Mongols from re-conquering China as they had previously in the 13th century, it did not keep them out completely. A band of mongols was able to sneak through and capture a 15th century Ming Dynasty emperor and hold him captive for a year. Then, in 1644, internal rebellions destroyed the ruling Ming Dynasty and the Manchu were able to enter China through the great wall?s gates. |
More info.. not looking good...
In article ,
says... On 6/23/2013 9:40 AM, Boating All Out wrote: In article z_ , says... It really doesn't matter whether a fence is erected along the U.S.-Mexico border, because such devices don't work. The Great Wall of China didn't work, and the Berlin Wall didn't work...both were breached many, many times. But calling for the building of such a wall gets the righties what they want...a delay in a real immigration plan "until" the wall is built. It's just more conservative cynicism. Walls and fences are a joke. So are the proposed "immigration plans" I've seen. About half of the illegal immigrants came in on legal visas. What will it take to fix just that piece? A massive change in visa procedures. And massive hiring of INS agents to track down and deport visa overstays. But wait. Why do people illegally cross the border or illegally overstay their visas? To work. A working e-verify system and strict enforcement of laws against hiring illegal immigrants, with stiff penalties - and I'm talking jail time - will take care of it all. Add a $500 government bounty for each illegal reported and deported. Shops using illegals didn't last long in the past. They got reported to the INS and a raid shortly followed. Any good union guy would report illegals. Now, with most unions almost dead, you need a $500 bounty to get the average dope thinking. Add swift and sure deportation for any illegal caught after whatever "amnesty" deadline is set. THAT'S the "secure border." That's all it takes. Which party has that in their "immigration plan?" Let me know when you find out. Basically what you all are saying is the proposed law that adds some 20,000 border agents will work to secure the border just fine, but if you add a wall first, it won't?? I don't get it... I'll bet NO one here is surprised that you don't get it. |
More info.. not looking good...
"JustWaitAFrekinMinute" wrote in message ... Great Wall didn't work, Iron Curtain didn't work?? Sure they did. Nothing is 100% but they didn't have the wholesale migration from one side to the other we have now here... --------------------------------- The "Iron Curtain" was a wall? |
More info.. not looking good...
"JustWaitAFrekinMinute" wrote in message ... Basically what you all are saying is the proposed law that adds some 20,000 border agents will work to secure the border just fine, but if you add a wall first, it won't?? I don't get it... -------------------------- A "wall" sounds so medieval. |
More info.. not looking good...
wrote in message ... On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 07:44:22 -0400, John H wrote: On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 21:02:37 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: "John H" wrote in message . .. On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 17:25:49 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: The background check simply verifies that you are not a felon, crazy or otherwise not permitted to own a gun. In MA, it's done at the time you apply for a permit and the reason it takes so long is because they actually *do* an FBI background check on you. Once it's done and the permit is issued, the only other "check" is done whenever you purchase a firearm. It's to verify that your permit is valid and in good standing, you are who you claim you are and there are no warrants etc., since getting the permit. Only takes a few minutes. Who pays whom? John H. ------------------------------------ Not sure what you are asking. If I go purchase a handgun or rifle tomorrow, I'll fill out a form, the dealer will either call or connect via Internet to the MA Criminal Bureau, give them my permit number and other info, have me put my index finger on a digital fingerprint pad and it transmits it to the Bureau. Within seconds the digital fingerprint image confirms that indeed, it's me (matches the original fingerprints taken when I applied for a permit), I pay for the gun and go home. I don't pay for any of the instant background check verification. If you sell a gun to your wife, who pays for the background check (s), and who gets paid? See, the impetus for all the background checking paperwork and bureaucracy isn't the safety of the citizens, it's bigger government and more taxes. Which of the atrocities over the years would have been prevented with a background check? Would the murder rate in Chicago or Detroit go down with more background checks? I am not convinced. John H. Many places require that any transfer of a handgun (private gift or sale) requires that the receiver of the gun must have a gun permit. Background checks don't seem to work, because they only "apply" to the lawful. By FAR, most of the gun violence is centered in large cities. -------------------------------- This debate is getting tangle footed. Here's what I would propose: A background check is required to obtain a permit to own a handgun or rifle. Once issued, the only "check" required to purchase a firearm is to ensure the permit is in good standing and the person buying the firearm is who he/she claims to be. That's where the fingerprints come in. I am not advocating a background check every time you buy a gun. The background check is done once to obtain a permit. |
More info.. not looking good...
|
More info.. not looking good...
On 6/23/13 10:13 AM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
Great Wall didn't work, Iron Curtain didn't work?? Sure they did. Nothing is 100% but they didn't have the wholesale migration from one side to the other we have now here... The Iron Curtain was not a physical wall, Scotty. There was a wall in Berlin, but that wasn't the Iron Curtain. And the Great Wall of China was breached, and more than once. |
More info.. not looking good...
On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 08:16:57 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
That $9.00 price point was keystoned, so the stores were paying $4.50 a shirt. The manufacturer was making a profit at $4.50 and the workers were supporting their families. === Your math and/or word usage is incorrect. The manufacturer had "revenue" of $4.50 a shirt. Profit is revenue minus expenses. Expenses are considerable and consist of things like labor, raw materials, energy, administration, amortization/depreciation of machinery/property, etc. What you'd like to see is a return to protectionism where artificial barriers are created to foreign made goods: Duties, Tariffs, etc. It turns out that protectionism is a two way street however and other countries soon follow with their own trade barriers. In addition to hurting our export markets/jobs, protectionism also results in artificially high prices to US consumers - not only for imported goods, but for goods produced here as well. Be careful what you ask for or you might end up paying twice as much for your next car and get an inferior product. Did you ever take any courses in economics? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:48 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com