Posted on 09/29/2006 7:40:28 PM PDT by The Spirit Of Allegiance
Edited on 09/29/2006 7:52:46 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Hey, I know of someone 90 miles from Florida who doesn't need any votes for him to govern. It's something he never needs to worry about.
I think you misunderstood my post # 88. I was telling CWJackson that if (huge if) the democrats controlled congress and make a bill to stop the fence then the President will veto the bill. Again it is not going to happen, so I do not worry about it at all.
You thinking building a fence is cheap? This isn't going to be your Home Depot fence that you see in suburban backyards.
PING!!!!
People like you cannot fool the vast majority of us, so stop the crap you are spewing.
Your objections were addressed in post #43 by Lurker, and further explaination by JH in #89, just downthread of your questions.
You'll have to give us a clue on what grounds. It's not the much abused interstate commerce clause.
Personally, I don't think the fence will be completely effective. Maybe 75%, but Americans would take that for starters.
Understood. My bad, thanks for the clarification.
I disagree. The fence on the Mexico/California border isn't perfect....but it did significantly reduce the number of illegal border crossings (and helped move the illegals to crossing in Arizona).
Sorry about that, Arizonians. Guess that is one more reason not to like folks from the PRC!!!
"There is still the little matter of getting it built"
ABSOLUTELY. Any sense of Citizens easing up the pressure would enable an enormous amount of foot-dragging at many levels. Get it done.
Because parts of the U.S./Mexican border is rocky along the Rio Grande River. A fence just isn't feasible. Hence the funding for sensors and cameras.
Despite the naysayers and teeth-gnashers on this thread (Not you KoRn) this is a SOLID victory for border security advocates.
God Bless them!
I'd like to hear a statement from J.D. or Sessions to be sure the amnesty seekers didn't sneak something into this and I still await the funding approval, but I'm issuing a cautionary "WooHoo" for the moment.
What you talkin' 'bout, Willis? This has been an awesome week - conservatives showed muscle in pushing through the detainee rules and the good parts of immigration reform - gas prices have plummeted and the DOW is flirting with all time high - the declassified NIE report pretty much nuked the MSM/DEM spin efforts on the leaked pieces - Al Qaeda has released tapes indistinguishable from Democratic campaign commercials - and W seems to be in a kick-a$$ mood - all in all, one of the most exciting weeks I can recall in years.
It's a done deal. It only awaits the President's signature to make it a law.
The current legislation is for 700 miles...my guess is that very little will be on private land at this point. But I believe we need the barrier along the entire border and would welcome the legislation inacting it and funding it.
You are free to feel as you wish and use your rights of free speech and petition to influence this however you wish. I and others have that same right.
As to those coming here demanding or seeking a "democracy" should be sent packing. This nation is not, never has been, and was never intended to be a democracy. The form of government ensured by the constitution and stipulated therein is a Republic.
"On a vote of 80-19 the Senate approved the bill already passed by the House of Representatives and it now goes to Bush for his signature."
More Dems voted for the bill than against it. This is truly a bipartisan bill.
That's a stompin' if I've ever seen one.
So we have common ground. I believe that a fence will cause problems with legitimate business, as well as proving a teency weency inconvenience for the worthless coyotes and smugglers. For starters, I would LOVE an exclusionary zone for South American and Mexican criminals. Yet I am called an extremist for demanding that Mexico enforce this, upon pain of military action. Others say let us quietly build a wall, and elect more people to pick our pockets. This is a schizophrenic approach, IMHO.
WE not only TOOK it from them...WE BOUGHT IT...only in Texas was the land "taken" - and that because Santa Ana overthrow Mexico's constitution and tried to be teh Napoleon of the West. Didnt sit too well with a lot of Tejanos, not to mention the Anglos that agreed to come do what the Mexican government would not: settle the land and work it and fight with the Indians of the area.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.