It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: network dude
I keep getting more confused by the day, and I'm not sure it's age creeping up with me. I see a huge uproar about kids being removed from their parents at the border. It's a big, loud uproar and it was really important. Really. So Trump asks congress to write a law and pass it that would fix this permanently. Congress fails. So Trump writes and EO to do the job. (Here is where the confusion starts)
Is this not what everyone was asking for? They all were disgusted by the thought of separating families. So Trump stopped that dead in it's tracks. (And I give zero #s about who started it, for all intents and purposes, it was handled with the EO.) But there is still anger, resentment, frustration. And no clear understanding of why.
What is it you want? I ask this in all sincerity. You don't like Trump, I get it. You are so afraid of Trump, you can't let a second go by without thinking of saying something about him, I get it. But at this point, I think it's time to step back and view this from an outside perceptive. You look like a lunatic. You have no clear message, and you don't seem to understand any of this, but all you know is you are angry.
Please, tell everyone what you want done, so the rest of us can understand what you are after here.
originally posted by: Alien Abduct
a reply to: howtonhawky
Well the context was given there in the post, it was posted with quotes and in the format used by every ATS member so I don’t see why you are having trouble understanding it. If you want to make yourself look like a fool by pretending you can’t understand it then that’s on you. Have a good day.
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: network dude
so we would need something like......a wall or something to go on both sides of the checkpoints, so people would know how to get in.
If our checkpoints were fast and easy to get through, with must less intervention and restriction, why would we need a wall?
To stop a few bad guys that don't want to go through the checkpoint?
originally posted by: howtonhawky
originally posted by: Alien Abduct
a reply to: howtonhawky
Well the context was given there in the post, it was posted with quotes and in the format used by every ATS member so I don’t see why you are having trouble understanding it. If you want to make yourself look like a fool by pretending you can’t understand it then that’s on you. Have a good day.
So that's a no go on the clarification.
Understood.
Good valid points can be made coherently or incoherently.
Funny thing is that the post you just made is understandable yet the other the meaning was lost in the hate.
I really do not feel like sifting through that previous pile so the offer stands that i will definitely listen if you decide to present it in a different manner i can comprehend.
we have a minimum wage
the states can regulate how many we let in
remove the federal protections and the handouts while keeping track of them
the numbers would not change much
this would not mean they could become citizens unless they go through the proper channels
why would someone seeking handouts come here if there were no handouts?
why would the dems want them here if they could not garner more votes?
think logically as to the current problems with the current system and find solutions
is there some incentives i am missing?
originally posted by: DAVID64
They want to be Anti Trump.
Period.
I'll just copy my reply from another thread. It works here just as well.
So basically, the Dems don't want the children seperated, so they whine and get what they want.
Now, the families will be kept together and housed at a military base....and the Dems whine.
So the takeaway is, the Dems don't get what they want, they whine.
Dems actually get what they want, They Whine.
Anyone else see a pattern here?
originally posted by: network dude
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: network dude
so we would need something like......a wall or something to go on both sides of the checkpoints, so people would know how to get in.
If our checkpoints were fast and easy to get through, with must less intervention and restriction, why would we need a wall?
To stop a few bad guys that don't want to go through the checkpoint?
If they were the one's you didn't want in, then yea, I'd think so. Otherwise, you would be just 'Trusting" that everyone would follow the rules, like in a utopian society. I'm glad I have a better understanding of what you want, I still completely disagree, but it's not abstract anymore. So thanks.
originally posted by: introvert
originally posted by: network dude
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: network dude
so we would need something like......a wall or something to go on both sides of the checkpoints, so people would know how to get in.
If our checkpoints were fast and easy to get through, with must less intervention and restriction, why would we need a wall?
To stop a few bad guys that don't want to go through the checkpoint?
If they were the one's you didn't want in, then yea, I'd think so. Otherwise, you would be just 'Trusting" that everyone would follow the rules, like in a utopian society. I'm glad I have a better understanding of what you want, I still completely disagree, but it's not abstract anymore. So thanks.
I know it may be tough to understand, but unless you want to limit freedoms based on fear, I see no other option.
The argument you are using is the same thing we hear from anti-firearm nuts. "We must limit or ban access to firearms, otherwise you would be just 'Trusting" that everyone would follow the rules".
Ironic isn't it? The same sort of argument applies to the border issue, as does the firearm issue.
You cannot stop the bad guys from crossing the border/getting a gun, if that is really want they want to do, right?. So why are you going to inconvenience law-abiding people and burden them further, just to make you feel a little safer in your narrow little box?
It's sad that you would actually make that sort of argument.
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: network dude
The principle is the same, regardless. You are forcing people to jump through hoops in order to protect you from the mean little baddies of the world.
Better push more regulations and "walls" up to save you, right? Freedoms be damned, right?
Sure you are not a liberal? You seem to think like one.
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: network dude
The principle is the same, regardless. You are forcing people to jump through hoops in order to protect you from the mean little baddies of the world.
Better push more regulations and "walls" up to save you, right? Freedoms be damned, right?
Sure you are not a liberal? You seem to think like one.
We have secure borders, because that is what we, as a nation decided we wanted. How on God's green Earth is protecting our borders infringing on my freedoms?
You used to be a challenge to go against, this is weak sauce. Too much emotion or something.
The laws are in place, no need to “jump through hoops” to do their job. We really wouldn’t need a wall if the current laws were being enforced like they should be.
I say if you or anyone else wants open borders or somewhat open borders or even a change in how we should be handling the border problem then I say great have at it.... but first change the laws! Otherwise laws are pointless.
It’s akin to someone wanting to be able to freely go around killing eagles. Most people are opposed to it which is a big reason why it’s illegal but guess what, if you made a good enough case with the people and the courts to kill eagles you might be able to get the laws changed and then you can go around freely killing eagles. Until then you can’t freely kill eagles because it’s illegal and there are consequences!