Buffalo_Gal Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 Fox was following the bus around, circling, circling... and Shep (who I loathe) got in a funny: Shadowy figures on a bus, circling the Capitol. Sounds like how the government is run. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 "Trump went to Iraq during the shutdown"...............all dem spokespeople and the media ( But I repeat myself) shouting in unison....... The commander in chief making a Christmas visit to troops in a battle zone doesn't really equate to congressmen and women going on a public relations tour. Weirdly the people celebrating separation of powers when Pelosi canceled the SOTU yesterday have slightly different feelings about Trump returning the favor today 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 This is hilarious...and sad. Not an adult to be seen. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 Y'know, if he REALLY wanted to ***** with her, he would have canceled her flight back... 2 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LB3 Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 I think I figured out how we got to this time line... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bray Wyatt Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 So is Nancy now the dog? Can somebody ask Colbert? I need to know!! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 27 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: This is amazing... Adam Schiff just gave a news conference (no one asked him about the now exposed lies in his memo) and he looked like someone just kicked his dog. Wonder why they were so excited to go to Brussels... It's a mystery. ************************ Hard to argue against this if you're on the left considering the sob stories they've trotted out this week. ************************* 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 1 hour ago, Foxx said: 46 minutes ago, B-Man said: I assumed that the letter from President Trump to Speaker Pelosi was a fake, but no—it’s real, and it’s spectacular! Economy yawning at shutdown Let's just take a moment to truly appreciate this moment. I've done my share of trolling and so have many of my fellow PPP denizens, including some with TDS You truly have to admire this piece of trollcraft. Trump is an artist and this was a masterpiece 6 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 6 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Adam Schiff just gave a news conference (no one asked him about the now exposed lies in his memo) and he looked like someone just kicked his dog. Wonder why they were so excited to go to Brussels... It's a mystery. ************************ Hard to argue against this if you're on the left considering the sob stories they've trotted out this week. ************************* Absolutely amazing... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 Quote Byron YorkVerified account @ByronYork 51m51 minutes ago Much analysis of Trump letter to Pelosi as childish, playground, nah-nah gesture..... No argument here. Just yesterday, though, Pelosi's equally childish gesture was characterized as playing hardball. . TRUMP TO PELOSI: Sorry, your private-jet junket to Europe and parts east is a casualty of the shutdown. Clever how he mentions “flying commercial” just to make clear that she wasn’t planning to. White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders told reporters that Trump just wants to keep lawmakers in Washington until they can work out a deal to secure the U.S. border and fund ongoing government operations. “If she leaves, she guarantees that the second round of paychecks to workers won’t go out,” Sanders said. Trump Cancels Pelosi’s Taxpayer-Funded Vacations Following Her State Of The Union Stunt . 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_Gal Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said: Man, people are quick... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 Quote Derek HunterVerified account @derekahunter 14m14 minutes ago Just yesterday, @LeaderHoyer announced the recess next week was canceled because of the shutdown, but somehow the House was going to conduct business with the Speaker and a bunch of Members jetting off today to Europe and the Middle East for 7 days? Someone is lying. (Someone in the Democrat Party) Quote Glenn KesslerVerified account @GlennKesslerWP FollowFollow @GlennKesslerWP Glenn Kessler Retweeted Sarah Sanders Curious to see if half the cabinet and Javanka now sticks with the plan to go to Davos .Newsflash to the WAPO: none of those people can vote to address the border crisis or re-open the government 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan89 Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 On 1/11/2019 at 2:24 PM, Foxx said: ladders may work from the side your coming from, but then what? drop 30' to the ground? seems like you are asking for trouble not to mention dropping kids from that height might not be the best advice. Donald Trump asked that same question only to two seconds later claim that the technology behind ropes would foil a 30 foot drop. You could also toss a ladder on the other side and have someone climb down with a rope then place the ladder on the other side to make things easier for people who might not be able to use a rope. I don't doubt a wall would provide some impediment but is it honestly cost effective compared to other ways of border security? To build a wall that covers all of the border is going to cost more than 5.7 billion dollars. I am not opposed to limited fencing for more remote areas but a massive border wall would cost 20 plus billion dollars and still need billions of dollars of man power and technology behind it. I would rather put that 20 billion into hiring 10,000 border patrol agents for 10 years. implementing technology to secure the border, and do limited fencing in higher risk areas if that's something border experts would think is necessary. A wall across all of the border seems like a symbolic gesture devoid of any real impact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 3 minutes ago, billsfan89 said: Donald Trump asked that same question only to two seconds later claim that the technology behind ropes would foil a 30 foot drop. You could also toss a ladder on the other side and have someone climb down with a rope then place the ladder on the other side to make things easier for people who might not be able to use a rope. I don't doubt a wall would provide some impediment but is it honestly cost effective compared to other ways of border security? To build a wall that covers all of the border is going to cost more than 5.7 billion dollars. I am not opposed to limited fencing for more remote areas but a massive border wall would cost 20 plus billion dollars and still need billions of dollars of man power and technology behind it. I would rather put that 20 billion into hiring 10,000 border patrol agents for 10 years. implementing technology to secure the border, and do limited fencing in higher risk areas if that's something border experts would think is necessary. A wall across all of the border seems like a symbolic gesture devoid of any real impact. Man power and funding can change on a whim with a downturn, new Congress, or new President. A wall is a permanent structure which will address the problem regardless of the politics of the day. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 33 minutes ago, /dev/null said: Let's just take a moment to truly appreciate this moment. I've done my share of trolling and so have many of my fellow PPP denizens, including some with TDS You truly have to admire this piece of trollcraft. Trump is an artist and this was a masterpiece President Hogboy. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 14 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Best President Ever 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 7 minutes ago, billsfan89 said: Donald Trump asked that same question only to two seconds later claim that the technology behind ropes would foil a 30 foot drop. You could also toss a ladder on the other side and have someone climb down with a rope then place the ladder on the other side to make things easier for people who might not be able to use a rope. I don't doubt a wall would provide some impediment but is it honestly cost effective compared to other ways of border security? To build a wall that covers all of the border is going to cost more than 5.7 billion dollars. I am not opposed to limited fencing for more remote areas but a massive border wall would cost 20 plus billion dollars and still need billions of dollars of man power and technology behind it. I would rather put that 20 billion into hiring 10,000 border patrol agents for 10 years. implementing technology to secure the border, and do limited fencing in higher risk areas if that's something border experts would think is necessary. A wall across all of the border seems like a symbolic gesture devoid of any real impact. 3 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: Man power and funding can change on a whim with a downturn, new Congress, or new President. A wall is a permanent structure which will address the problem regardless of the politics of the day. not to mention that the CBP has stated repeatedly that a barrier is an effective means of deterrent. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan89 Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 8 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: Man power and funding can change on a whim with a downturn, new Congress, or new President. A wall is a permanent structure which will address the problem regardless of the politics of the day. As many have stated a walls effectiveness is only as good as the maintenance and manpower behind it. So why put up a 20 billion dollar structure whose impact is limited to how well you patrol it? So this idea that you put the wall up and that solves the issue for all time is just not true. If your manpower behind the wall and the funding to maintain the wall gets lower than it becomes very ineffective and just stands as more of a symbol and a minor inconvenience over come by ropes, carpets, and ladders. Not to mention the other secondary costs of a wall such as having to take land from citizens of the US, the logistical and legal implications of such a large use of imminent domain, the environmental costs, and the loss of access to the Rio Grande river. You could literally take the 20 billion in funding a full scale border wall would create and pay for 10 years worth of 10,000 additional border patrol agents, new technology, and even limited fencing. But instead you want a wall that will still require all those things and come at a much steeper cost? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 2 minutes ago, billsfan89 said: As many have stated a walls effectiveness is only as good as the maintenance and manpower behind it. So why put up a 20 billion dollar structure whose impact is limited to how well you patrol it? So this idea that you put the wall up and that solves the issue for all time is just not true. If your manpower behind the wall and the funding to maintain the wall gets lower than it becomes very ineffective and just stands as more of a symbol and a minor inconvenience over come by ropes, carpets, and ladders. Not to mention the other secondary costs of a wall such as having to take land from citizens of the US, the logistical and legal implications of such a large use of imminent domain, the environmental costs, and the loss of access to the Rio Grande river. You could literally take the 20 billion in funding a full scale border wall would create and pay for 10 years worth of 10,000 additional border patrol agents, new technology, and even limited fencing. But instead you want a wall that will still require all those things and come at a much steeper cost? No, you literally could not, because in a 10 year cycle there will be multiple new Congresses, at least one new President, and a likely downturn. Today's government cannot make decisions about what future government will do, and insisting that it can is asinine. And again, the wall is a permanent structure, and thus would make at least part of the solution permanent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Dude Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 5 minutes ago, billsfan89 said: As many have stated a walls effectiveness is only as good as the maintenance and manpower behind it. So why put up a 20 billion dollar structure whose impact is limited to how well you patrol it? So this idea that you put the wall up and that solves the issue for all time is just not true. If your manpower behind the wall and the funding to maintain the wall gets lower than it becomes very ineffective and just stands as more of a symbol and a minor inconvenience over come by ropes, carpets, and ladders. Not to mention the other secondary costs of a wall such as having to take land from citizens of the US, the logistical and legal implications of such a large use of imminent domain, the environmental costs, and the loss of access to the Rio Grande river. You could literally take the 20 billion in funding a full scale border wall would create and pay for 10 years worth of 10,000 additional border patrol agents, new technology, and even limited fencing. But instead you want a wall that will still require all those things and come at a much steeper cost? ....my boy, Hadrian, would really disagree with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 21 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: Man power and funding can change on a whim with a downturn, new Congress, or new President. A wall is a permanent structure which will address the problem regardless of the politics of the day. Bingo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 YOU’RE GROUNDED!!! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 the internet IS fast 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan89 Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 2 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: No, you literally could not, because in a 10 year cycle there will be multiple new Congresses, at least one new President, and a likely downturn. Today's government cannot make decisions about what future government will do, and insisting that it can is asinine. And again, the wall is a permanent structure, and thus would make at least part of the solution permanent. My argument is that the wall is massively expensive (and comes with other costs) and its not effective without the manpower behind it. The manpower's funding can change thus the wall's permanence is fairly meaningless if it offers little more than a minor inconvenience for those looking to cross the border. Its nothing more than an expensive symbol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 Just now, billsfan89 said: My argument is that the wall is massively expensive (and comes with other costs) and its not effective without the manpower behind it. The manpower's funding can change thus the wall's permanence is fairly meaningless if it offers little more than a minor inconvenience for those looking to cross the border. Its nothing more than an expensive symbol. yet, those with much more life experience (CBP) say that it an effective tool. pay no attention though, just continue to profess that you know more than the boots on the ground. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 5 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 1 minute ago, billsfan89 said: My argument is that the wall is massively expensive (and comes with other costs) and its not effective without the manpower behind it. The manpower's funding can change thus the wall's permanence is fairly meaningless if it offers little more than a minor inconvenience for those looking to cross the border. Its nothing more than an expensive symbol. No, it's a permanent bulwark designed to reroute modern day slave ships, and as such is worth the cost associated with it, unless you're going to argue that their is a level of slavery and child molestation in America that you find acceptable. The other costs (the seizure of private land) is accounted for in the Constitution in the 4th Amendment. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 Out. Of. Touch. It "punishes" the troops when Pelosi isn't allowed to visit them. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 Trump's next move should be to kick Pence to the curb so Nancy has the opportunity then to report to the Donald. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan89 Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 16 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: No, it's a permanent bulwark designed to reroute modern day slave ships, and as such is worth the cost associated with it, unless you're going to argue that their is a level of slavery and child molestation in America that you find acceptable. The other costs (the seizure of private land) is accounted for in the Constitution in the 4th Amendment. This is the most hilarious straw man arguments I have ever heard. I claim that there is a better more cost effective way to handle securing the border and you basically equate that to supporting slavery and child molestation because I state that your solution is expensive, ineffective, and is still reliant on other forms of manpower that is subject to change. That's some Stephen Colbert level hilarity. Dam I knew this place was a Trump echo chamber but this one really made me laugh. "Hey I agree there is a problem at the border but I don't think a wall solves it and its not cost effective for the level of security it provides." "So you support sex trafficking?" The other costs such as imminent domain are things the government can do but do we really want to exercise federal powers to take people's land for a border security measure that is massively expensive and isn't going to be effective enough without manpower behind it? Not to mention the other costs that would come with such a large construction project. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 28 minutes ago, The_Dude said: ....my boy, Hadrian, would really disagree with you. Hadrian's Wall was garrisoned by two legions and a cavalry regiment, plus local auxiliaries. "Your boy" Hadrian disagrees with you, you idiot. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 (edited) 4 minutes ago, billsfan89 said: This is the most hilarious straw man arguments I have ever heard. I claim that there is a better more cost effective way to handle securing the border and you basically equate that to supporting slavery and child molestation because I state that your solution is expensive, ineffective, and is still reliant on other forms of manpower that is subject to change. That's some Stephen Colbert level hilarity. Dam I knew this place was a Trump echo chamber but this one really made me laugh. "Hey I agree there is a problem at the border but I don't think a wall solves it and its not cost effective for the level of security it provides." "So you support sex trafficking?" The other costs such as imminent domain are things the government can do but do we really want to exercise federal powers to take people's land for a border security measure that is massively expensive and isn't going to be effective enough without manpower behind it? Not to mention the other costs that would come with such a large construction project. No, it's the argument you're making, as the experts who spend their days trying to upend human slavery and child sex trafficking have stated that we need a wall in order for them to best accomplish this task. That they believe this to be the case, and for you to then say that the expense is too high, means that they will not be able to effectively curb the slave trade and child sex trafficking to the maximum about they are able, which means that you believe that there is an acceptable level of such activity in the United States. Edited January 17, 2019 by TakeYouToTasker 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Dude Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 (edited) 13 minutes ago, DC Tom said: Hadrian's Wall was garrisoned by two legions and a cavalry regiment, plus local auxiliaries. "Your boy" Hadrian disagrees with you, you idiot. I’m like 100% sure I know way more about it than you. What you probably don’t know was Hadrians obsession with efficiency on the frontiers and manning only points that could easily be defended hence his abandoning Tajans gains. If youre countering to his point about upkeep, well yeah. My point was about their effectiveness. But you just assumed. Typical, Tammy. Edited January 17, 2019 by The_Dude Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 28 minutes ago, billsfan89 said: This is the most hilarious straw man arguments I have ever heard. I claim that there is a better more cost effective way to handle securing the border and you basically equate that to supporting slavery and child molestation because I state that your solution is expensive, ineffective, and is still reliant on other forms of manpower that is subject to change. That's some Stephen Colbert level hilarity. Dam I knew this place was a Trump echo chamber but this one really made me laugh. "Hey I agree there is a problem at the border but I don't think a wall solves it and its not cost effective for the level of security it provides." "So you support sex trafficking?" The other costs such as imminent domain are things the government can do but do we really want to exercise federal powers to take people's land for a border security measure that is massively expensive and isn't going to be effective enough without manpower behind it? Not to mention the other costs that would come with such a large construction project. You need to hear more strawman arguments, then. His argument is accurate. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts