I'd say half the respondents supported zapping anyone trying to illegally cross the Tex-Mex border.
Some said if that doesn't work to use land mines. A few even suggested machine guns as an option.
I think joke or not, Herman Cain opeNd a can of worms with his questionable rhetoric.
Remember that?
Maybe you might start thinking before posting "Reagan Man"
“There was a long thread on FR yesterday about Cain’s remarks on the electrified fence. I’d say half the respondents supported zapping anyone trying to illegally cross the Tex-Mex border.”
...and I was one probably the biggest poster on that thread. And no, I didn’t want to see anyone killed, and doubt more than a handful of people would be killed by that kind of fence (the ones that test the system). Simply put, people are not going to test it as long as they believe it’s real.
Supporting the status-quo (i.e., no fence) means that those people are fine with Hispanics (and others) by the HUNDREDS dying every year in the Arizona desert and other remote places. If the wall is there, they don’t try, and they live.
Given the above, I’d say the status-quo people are MUCH MORE bloodthirsty than the pro-fence people.
It is a can of worms that needed to be opened for a long time.
"I'd say half the respondents supported zapping anyone trying to illegally cross the Tex-Mex border."
"Some said if that doesn't work to use land mines. A few even suggested machine guns as an option."
And?? What's the problem?
I want to know if all the worlds population managed to get to Mexico and then cross into the US illegally would we taxpayers here in America have to pay for ALL of them? If not, then why do we have to pay for ANY of them? Just askin.