To: longtermmemmory
11 posted on
10/06/2006 7:06:35 AM PDT by
Dog Gone
To: Dog Gone
I think what you may be missing in this is the give with one hand and take with another. The money statement I believe is:
"This case reflects political calculations by GOP strategists that voters do not mind the details"If it really was a matter as to what area(s) were more suitable that could well have been and should have been the focus of the bill. As it is now we have the fox guarding the hen house.
14 posted on
10/06/2006 7:13:25 AM PDT by
engrpat
To: Dog Gone
Looks like there is a bit of a natural barrier there.
But since there is only funding for 700 miles of fence, stripping that money off the roll for other projects may leave areas that are an easy walk across wide open.
21 posted on
10/06/2006 7:37:35 AM PDT by
Smokin' Joe
(How often God must weep at humans' folly.)
To: Dog Gone
The best thing for that area would be armed minutemen. Its stupid that we can't fire warning shots at people entering the country. You might be sued. They would surely turn around and think again about entering the country illegally. We just got played big time by our own party. How disgusting. Guess i am going to be spending the weekend writing letters.
23 posted on
10/06/2006 7:39:29 AM PDT by
ritewingwarrior
(Where does free speech end, and sedition begin?)
To: Dog Gone
"Would you demand a fence on this stretch of the Texas/Mexican border?'You win,
I'd settle for piranha.
26 posted on
10/06/2006 7:49:28 AM PDT by
norton
To: Dog Gone
Would you demand a fence on this stretch of the Texas/Mexican border? In a word, yes. That particular location is in a National park which means the Federal government owns all the land. I'm sure they could find a suitable location for the fence.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson