[Houmatt]

What's YOUR answer?

Sorry, Charlie, but once 9-11 came down, most people wanted the borders secured. As in right then.

Not only has the Bush Administration failed to listen to the people in this matter, they have proposed to make the situation worse.

THAT is what pissed Michael Savage off. And only the unreasonable (read: RATS and Bushbots) does not see where he is coming from.

[Dane]

And only the unreasonable (read: RATS and Bushbots) does not see where he is coming from.

And what is your "reasonable" solution?

[NYC Republican]

My answer? I'd LOVE to have the borders sealed. If you put 20,000 people on the southern border - about 8,000 miles or so (my math could be wrong, I know it's just over 3,000 miles if it's a straight-shot, but it's not), you'd have one person every 2 1.2 miles - 3 shifts per slot- 60,000 people, cost of 100,000 total (including benefits), it would cost $6 billion a year, plus monitoring equipment, stations, etc, bringing the cost to $10 billion. Not an outrageous amount, but the fact is, there's no appetite in congress for this. Tancredo is great, but very few others are willing to touch this. Pandering occurs on both sides of the congressional aisle.

Having said that, back to my original point... I wasn't disagreeing with the content or arguments Savage pushes forward... rather, I object to his delivery mechanism, which is disgraceful... I think he should also be a bit more pragmatic... if he entices people to stay home during the election, we're looking at French-looking Ketchup boy for 8 years. That would mean 16 years of libs, wrapped around 4 years of moderate conservatism. It would destroy us.