Posted on 10/17/2011 6:38:46 PM PDT by smoothsailing
By JERI CLAUSING and PAUL DAVENPORT Associated Press
October 17,2011
"It was a joke," Cain said emphatically. "I apologize if I offended anyone. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea culpa."
(Excerpt) Read more at kttc.com ...
Jeez you are a simplistic chucklehead.
Maybe that is why Mr Cain Entertains you.
Would Mr Cain call poor black folks “Economic invaders”?
Or would he give them empowerment zones?
Charles, did you never see/hear of all the death and carnage illegals have caused in this country while ‘seeking jobs’ they legally cannot hold?
Rape
Murder
DUI deaths
Robbery
Gangs like MS13/Vatos
Just nice people seeking work, one and all.
You apologists make me sick but I pray the violence they wreak never visits you.
Dead people by the truckload as just happened last week ‘dumped’ in a Mexican intersection Charles...coming soon to America thanks to apologists like you to cowardly to keep them out of this country.
Prosecute them to the fullest.
Answer the questions. Stop ducking and dodging like a liberal.
So you think that if you fall astray of a technical law but other wise live and pay taxes here you should be killed?
Answer the questions. Stop ducking and dodging like a liberal.
So if I go to Canada and get on the wrong side of a technicality I should be executed?
Or if Canadians are overstaying their visas we should cap them?
Answer the questions. Stop ducking and dodging like a liberal.
I guess if you have no argument, you have to resort to name-calling. I read what you wrote, you said we COULD build a fence, and said nothing to explain why doing so was a workable solution.
Maybe you just don’t understand the definition of “workable”< and really think it means “possible”. And that’s why you think that “unworkable” means “impossible”, and that is why you argued that it was possible, which I never said it wasn’t.
So, where do YOU want to put the fence. Do you want to give our water rights and river access to Mexico, or do you want to go to war with Mexico to take possession of the river?
You have three choices. You can build it all on their side, and get into a war for annexing the land of a sovereign country. You can build it all on OUR side, ceding American soil to a foreign country without a shot being fired, cutting off thousands of landowners from their rightful water access, and killing populations of wildlife by dehydration.
Or, you can follow the actual border line, which means you will have some fence on this side, some on that side, some crossing the river back and forth cutting off all boat access (and causing a maintenance nightmare as the river pushes crud into the fence and gets clogged up). If you choose this option, you also have to cut people off from their own property, because there are many pieces of property that cross the border.
The river has changed location dozens of times, so the border isn’t in line with the current river. The river meanders all over the place — there are places where pieces of fence that are miles apart “borderwise” are close enough you could hit a baseball completely across and back into the same country.
There are places where the border is marshland, unsuitable for any construction. Other places where it is sheer cliffs. Other places where there are no roads for miles, and nobody is ever crossing the border.
So, what is your “fence”? And do you want to fence in our entire country, or just the parts of the country that share a river border with Mexico? I ask beause we have 12 miles of border out in the gulf, and 12 miles of border out into the ocean, and if you don’t fence those, the mexicans can cross illegally with 100-dollar rowboats, cheaper than the 35-foot ladders.
We can stop them by fencing off our beaches. Do you want to fence a mile or two of the gulf and pacific ocean beaches, to make it harder for mexicans to walk along the beach at low tide into our country, or to take a rowboat, or a $1 flotation air mattress?
Or do you only favor stragegic fencing, where it is more likely they will cross? And it’s just that you are stupid enough to think that “strategic” encompasses the ENTIRE land border, even though there are hundreds of miles of that border where it would be MUCH EASIER for mexicans to hop into a fishing boat and sail to our beaches then to cross at those land borders?
Even Iran did not execute those chucklehead kids.
Charles, you’d save a ton of typing if you eould just Answer the questions. Stop ducking and dodging like a liberal.
Just like mylife.
Why is it so hard? It’s a simple question to answer for a person who believes in the Constitution and in America.
Answer the questions. Stop ducking and dodging like a liberal.
OK. So, what liberties are you willing to give up for security, since you value security so highly that you would throw away sovereign territory for the illusion of security?
Of course, the problem with the argument is that you haven’t defined “security”. Obviously, if there was a serious security issue with a portion of the border, where America was actually in imminent danger and there was no reasonable alternative, we would want to build a fence. I believe we all agree that fencing has to be part of the equation.
But security isn’t a “yes/no” equation. It’s a matter of degree, and the question is really whether fencing off our river access is worth the minimal additional security a fence in those areas would actually provide.
If security was a yes/no equation, we’d fence off the gulf of mexico, since foreigners could bring boats into our country. We’d most certainly fence off the entire coast of florida, since we have regularly had cubans and haitians “invade” our country by boats in Florida.
But nobody advocating a fence has suggested fencing off Florida, so I presume that means they do actually understand that we don’t lightly trade off our sovereign access to resources for some vague illusion of security.
I presume you know this as well, and simply don’t understand or don’t care whether a fence along the river makes any sense or not.
It is obvious to everyone reading that you have no ability to answer the most basic of questions.
Imagine 1300 mi of border that the Feds wont fund.
We are looking at 13 feet in that pic in National City Ca.
“They have a fence you know” /s
“OK. So, what liberties are you willing to give up for security, since you value security so highly that you would throw away sovereign territory for the illusion of security?”
Oh look...a man made of straw. And a poster lacking the courage to protect his country.
Anyone seen Toto?
Imagine a liberal posting drivel on a conservative website.
That is an absurd argument. Herman Cain was a Mittbot 4 years ago, so I was in agreement with him. And he is a Mittbot today, and said he thinks Mitt would be a good choice for President, and he would be proud to be Mitt’s VP pick.
So why would my support for Cain’s 2008 candidate explain why I disagree with building a killer fence?
I was also joined by Jim DeMint in 2008.
And I don’t oppose Herman Cain. I haven’t decided who to support yet. I am arguing with freepers who think it’s OK to take human life for trespassing, and I think Cain saying we should build a killer fence was stupid, and I think BobL is wrong to call Cain a liar.
In fact, in my comments to BobL, I was DEFENDING Cain against a scurrilous claim that Cain was lying.
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.