Replies

>
There's an election underway. Conversation about issues is ended.
No sh*t.
Both Republicrat candidates are avoiding substantive discussion of issues like the plague.
All the more reason to vote "none of the above".
>

Well, you're in Nevada so you matter a tad. If I didn't know that, I would not be paying my own travel to Reno next weekend to work the phones for the campaign, where I volunteered two weeks ago. Cheap airfare from Utah. No big deal.

You know, the reason this issue wasn't embraced by either side is pretty clear. It's because focus groups could not make clear what was the winning position. More specifically, what was the winning position in battlegrounds of the midwest.

Bush took a position and Kerry didn't. That's pretty much that.

I know little of the details of the issue. I suppose "close the borders and defend them" involves automatic weapons. Is there a presumption that troops are to mow them down as they approach? Or what does a big fence that long cost and will conservatives complain about furthering the deficit? What is the proposed mechanism on all this?

You know, the reason this issue wasn't embraced by either side is pretty clear. It's because focus groups could not make clear what was the winning position. More specifically, what was the winning position in battlegrounds of the midwest.

Public opinion surveys consistantly show that Americans overwelmingly support stricter border controls.
Entrenched Republicrat politicians arrogantly ignore this fact to pander to their more extremist factions.

The 'Rats want open borders to expand their base of "oppressed" minorities.
The GOP wants a cheap and dumbed-down labor force.

I know little of the details of the issue.

When losing a debate, feign ignorance and imply that your opponent has "unreasonable" proposals.

I suppose "close the borders and defend them" involves automatic weapons. Is there a presumption that troops are to mow them down as they approach? Or what does a big fence that long cost and will conservatives complain about furthering the deficit? What is the proposed mechanism on all this?

As potential terrorists and drug smugglers can be presumed to be armed and dangerous, yes it is necessary that those who patrol and defend our borders be armed. Do you have a problem with that?

Fences and walls already exist where necessary in the more densely populated urban areas along our border. In the more remote areas, the terrain is naturally inhospitable to travel. Walls and fences are less necessary. Tightened security would be more economicly facilitated by increased surveillance: motion sensors, remotely operated drones, etc. Border control personnel could then be dispatched more quickly to the necessary location.

"You know, the reason this issue wasn't embraced by either side is pretty clear. It's because focus groups could not make clear what was the winning position. More specifically, what was the winning position in battlegrounds of the midwest."

Wow, it makes my heart warm to know our leadership would take a position if they were certain it wouldn't involve any risk. This is truly inspiring, like the courage shown by our Founding Fathers, Lincoln or Churchill.

I suppose "close the borders and defend them" involves automatic weapons. Is there a presumption that troops are to mow them down as they approach?
Er, yep. So?

Or what does a big fence that long cost and will conservatives complain about furthering the deficit?
Only Dems and Libertarians complain about deficits, Republicans see the bigger cyclical picture.