Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

(01-27-2019, 03:24 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-27-2019, 03:20 PM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ]Really, you're going to play the age card? My background is in IT, yours is in...golf?

My background is in IT. CIS degree from UNF in 2001 and in industry ever since.

Again, you didn't elaborate. I'm not shocked. Typical liberal.

Such great discussions.....

(01-27-2019, 03:32 PM)Cleatwood Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-27-2019, 03:24 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]My background is in IT. CIS degree from UNF in 2001 and in industry ever since.

Again, you didn't elaborate. I'm not shocked. Typical liberal.

Such great discussions.....

Just waiting around for RJ to present us with border technology ideas 68 and 78 year old Schumer and Pelosi came up with to discuss further.

(01-27-2019, 09:52 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-27-2019, 09:29 AM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ]Except both of your examples did not include a Border Agent stating walls don’t work. In fact, you just offered proof that they do. 

Example #1: Illegal activity funneled/forced through Port of Entry at a sector that has a wall. 

Example #2: The wall slowed down trafficking long enough to have patrols get into position to survey, record, and then apprehend. Proof activity was against asylum claims and returning them back to where they came from.

I watched Trump from the border actually talking to border agents about if a wall will work. Every one of them said yes.

I always compare the "ladder on the border wall" left argument to a person dying in an auto accident while wearing a seatbelt then people saying seat belts don't work..

Qz.com.......lol, wow.

---

(01-27-2019, 01:47 AM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ]https://qz.com/1520651/border-patrol-age...wont-work/
https://thehill.com/latino/426857-border...ith-ladder

TJH, respond with a yes or no to this question. Nothing else.

If walls don't work, should we remove all existing barrier fence at the southern border?

No. Walls do work in urban areas where someone is literally a 20-foot walk across the street from being a shadow. Ever been to Otay Mesa, CA? It's right on the border at the southern end of San Diego, and it's a massive warehouse and industrial center. If someone gets across there, they're gone. That's why the wall is so heavily fortified there, and in that situation it's absolutely doing what it needs to do to be a good investment. That's why every metropolitan area along the border has some form of physical barrier, and I'm in favor of using federal dollars to upgrade what's already in place.

What doesn't make sense is putting a wall up in the desert, where someone is a 10-mile hike from the nearest main road, when FLIR cameras, drones with thermal imaging and a heavier Border Patrol presence with better equipment for the terrain (including horses, I am dead serious about horses--cowboys used them for a reason) would be every bit as effective. Probably more so if the funds going to that wall would otherwise go towards those things.

(01-27-2019, 03:45 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-27-2019, 09:52 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]I watched Trump from the border actually talking to border agents about if a wall will work. Every one of them said yes.

I always compare the "ladder on the border wall" left argument to a person dying in an auto accident while wearing a seatbelt then people saying seat belts don't work..

Qz.com.......lol, wow.

---

TJH, respond with a yes or no to this question. Nothing else.

If walls don't work, should we remove all existing barrier fence at the southern border?

No. Walls do work in urban areas where someone is literally a 20-foot walk across the street from being a shadow. Ever been to Otay Mesa, CA? It's right on the border at the southern end of San Diego, and it's a massive warehouse and industrial center. If someone gets across there, they're gone. That's why the wall is so heavily fortified there, and in that situation it's absolutely doing what it needs to do to be a good investment. That's why every metropolitan area along the border has some form of physical barrier, and I'm in favor of using federal dollars to upgrade what's already in place.

What doesn't make sense is putting a wall up in the desert, where someone is a 10-mile hike from the nearest main road, when FLIR cameras, drones with thermal imaging and a heavier Border Patrol presence with better equipment for the terrain (including horses, I am dead serious about horses--cowboys used them for a reason) would be every bit as effective. Probably more so if the funds going to that wall would otherwise go towards those things.

Ted Cruz touches on this and expands upon why walls are effective, even in remote places. If you don't want to watch the whole political spiel, skip to the 3:30 mark for his explanation. 

https://youtu.be/T1fKlcfgx3o

(01-27-2019, 03:12 PM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-26-2019, 11:16 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah... like a wall.

Yes, there are places where a physical barrier makes sense. But Trump is the one stressing it must be 5+ billion for a wall. Not a mixture of methods, not bolstering what we have, he is demanding a wall. Efforts to depict this as Pelosi being inflexible gloss over this fact. He promised a wall and set a figure over which he would not negotiate.

That isn’t true at all. He’s pushing for all of it, but he’s pushing harder for the wall. That doesn’t mean he doesn’t want the other stuff too.

(01-27-2019, 03:12 PM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-26-2019, 11:16 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah... like a wall.

Yes, there are places where a physical barrier makes sense. But Trump is the one stressing it must be 5+ billion for a wall. Not a mixture of methods, not bolstering what we have, he is demanding a wall. Efforts to depict this as Pelosi being inflexible gloss over this fact. He promised a wall and set a figure over which he would not negotiate.

You’re just flat wrong. 5.7B is another installment on mixed method border security that includes...nevermind. Go read more. There are other outlets besides CNN and Vice. Start at the sources themselves. Getting ridiculous.

---

(01-27-2019, 03:45 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-27-2019, 09:52 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]I watched Trump from the border actually talking to border agents about if a wall will work. Every one of them said yes.

I always compare the "ladder on the border wall" left argument to a person dying in an auto accident while wearing a seatbelt then people saying seat belts don't work..

Qz.com.......lol, wow.

---

TJH, respond with a yes or no to this question. Nothing else.

If walls don't work, should we remove all existing barrier fence at the southern border?

No. Walls do work in urban areas where someone is literally a 20-foot walk across the street from being a shadow. Ever been to Otay Mesa, CA? It's right on the border at the southern end of San Diego, and it's a massive warehouse and industrial center. If someone gets across there, they're gone. That's why the wall is so heavily fortified there, and in that situation it's absolutely doing what it needs to do to be a good investment. That's why every metropolitan area along the border has some form of physical barrier, and I'm in favor of using federal dollars to upgrade what's already in place.

What doesn't make sense is putting a wall up in the desert, where someone is a 10-mile hike from the nearest main road, when FLIR cameras, drones with thermal imaging and a heavier Border Patrol presence with better equipment for the terrain (including horses, I am dead serious about horses--cowboys used them for a reason) would be every bit as effective. Probably more so if the funds going to that wall would otherwise go towards those things.

Reading the DHS and Custom and Border Protection reports, as well as their Strategic Plan would clarify quite a bit for you and others.

https://www.cbp.gov/

(01-27-2019, 03:45 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-27-2019, 09:52 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]I watched Trump from the border actually talking to border agents about if a wall will work. Every one of them said yes.

I always compare the "ladder on the border wall" left argument to a person dying in an auto accident while wearing a seatbelt then people saying seat belts don't work..

Qz.com.......lol, wow.

---

TJH, respond with a yes or no to this question. Nothing else.

If walls don't work, should we remove all existing barrier fence at the southern border?

No. Walls do work in urban areas where someone is literally a 20-foot walk across the street from being a shadow. Ever been to Otay Mesa, CA? It's right on the border at the southern end of San Diego, and it's a massive warehouse and industrial center. If someone gets across there, they're gone. That's why the wall is so heavily fortified there, and in that situation it's absolutely doing what it needs to do to be a good investment. That's why every metropolitan area along the border has some form of physical barrier, and I'm in favor of using federal dollars to upgrade what's already in place.

What doesn't make sense is putting a wall up in the desert, where someone is a 10-mile hike from the nearest main road, when FLIR cameras, drones with thermal imaging and a heavier Border Patrol presence with better equipment for the terrain (including horses, I am dead serious about horses--cowboys used them for a reason) would be every bit as effective. Probably more so if the funds going to that wall would otherwise go towards those things.

Claymores are only a hundred bucks apiece.

(01-27-2019, 03:24 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-27-2019, 03:20 PM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ]Really, you're going to play the age card? My background is in IT, yours is in...golf?

My background is in IT. CIS degree from UNF in 2001 and in industry ever since.

Again, you didn't elaborate. I'm not shocked. Typical liberal.

You discount Pelosi and Shumer because of their age, then expect me to take you seriously.

Typical Trumpette.

(01-27-2019, 11:05 PM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-27-2019, 03:24 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]My background is in IT. CIS degree from UNF in 2001 and in industry ever since.

Again, you didn't elaborate. I'm not shocked. Typical liberal.

You discount my post because of my age, then expect me to take you seriously.

Typical Trumpette.

You completely misunderstood me. I don't know your age. I was referring to Pelosi and Schumer thinking they know what is best for border security throwing around the word "technology ".

(01-27-2019, 04:26 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-27-2019, 03:12 PM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, there are places where a physical barrier makes sense. But Trump is the one stressing it must be 5+ billion for a wall. Not a mixture of methods, not bolstering what we have, he is demanding a wall. Efforts to depict this as Pelosi being inflexible gloss over this fact. He promised a wall and set a figure over which he would not negotiate.

That isn’t true at all. He’s pushing for all of it, but he’s pushing harder for the wall. That doesn’t mean he doesn’t want the other stuff too.

Nuh uh...if that $5 billion wasn't in there for a wall, he wasn't going to agree. He was very clear.

(01-27-2019, 11:07 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-27-2019, 11:05 PM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ]You discount my post because of my age, then expect me to take you seriously.

Typical Trumpette.

You completely misunderstood me. I don't know your age. I was referring to Pelosi and Schumer thinking they know what is best for border security throwing around the word "technology ".

Yeah, I figured that out from your next post, but my point stands. Why would they know less about border technology because of their age. Good grief, can you be more bigoted? Your boy Trump isn't much younger, wou...

...ok, point taken.

(01-27-2019, 11:10 PM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-27-2019, 11:07 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]You completely misunderstood me. I don't know your age. I was referring to Pelosi and Schumer thinking they know what is best for border security throwing around the word "technology ".

Yeah, I figured that out from your next post, but my point stands. Why would they know less about border technology because of their age. Good grief, can you be more bigoted? Your boy Trump isn't much younger, wou...

...ok, point taken.

It is not a bigoted view to make the observation that Nancy isn't "all there".

(01-27-2019, 08:53 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-27-2019, 03:45 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ]No. Walls do work in urban areas where someone is literally a 20-foot walk across the street from being a shadow. Ever been to Otay Mesa, CA? It's right on the border at the southern end of San Diego, and it's a massive warehouse and industrial center. If someone gets across there, they're gone. That's why the wall is so heavily fortified there, and in that situation it's absolutely doing what it needs to do to be a good investment. That's why every metropolitan area along the border has some form of physical barrier, and I'm in favor of using federal dollars to upgrade what's already in place.

What doesn't make sense is putting a wall up in the desert, where someone is a 10-mile hike from the nearest main road, when FLIR cameras, drones with thermal imaging and a heavier Border Patrol presence with better equipment for the terrain (including horses, I am dead serious about horses--cowboys used them for a reason) would be every bit as effective. Probably more so if the funds going to that wall would otherwise go towards those things.

Claymores are only a hundred bucks apiece.

And it would look awesome if you charged the border shouting, "There can be only one!"

(01-27-2019, 03:45 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-27-2019, 09:52 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]I watched Trump from the border actually talking to border agents about if a wall will work. Every one of them said yes.

I always compare the "ladder on the border wall" left argument to a person dying in an auto accident while wearing a seatbelt then people saying seat belts don't work..

Qz.com.......lol, wow.

---

TJH, respond with a yes or no to this question. Nothing else.

If walls don't work, should we remove all existing barrier fence at the southern border?

No. Walls do work in urban areas where someone is literally a 20-foot walk across the street from being a shadow. Ever been to Otay Mesa, CA? It's right on the border at the southern end of San Diego, and it's a massive warehouse and industrial center. If someone gets across there, they're gone. That's why the wall is so heavily fortified there, and in that situation it's absolutely doing what it needs to do to be a good investment. That's why every metropolitan area along the border has some form of physical barrier, and I'm in favor of using federal dollars to upgrade what's already in place.

What doesn't make sense is putting a wall up in the desert, where someone is a 10-mile hike from the nearest main road, when FLIR cameras, drones with thermal imaging and a heavier Border Patrol presence with better equipment for the terrain (including horses, I am dead serious about horses--cowboys used them for a reason) would be every bit as effective. Probably more so if the funds going to that wall would otherwise go towards those things.

I think this is the good point where walls are needed they have been built i.e. urban areas.  This isn't what is being debated, this is about putting walls up in sparsely populated private land for the most part.  Trump started off saying he wanted a 30 ft concrete wall from sea to shining sea, now its 250 miles of steel slats he'll eventually be down to tens of miles of fencing and sell it as a promised fulfilled.  Be prepared for a National Emergency declaration, I highly doubt there will be another shutdown but hey if they want shoot themselves in the foot again have at it, the wall issue will be tied up in the court for years and nothing will get built.  This lays bare how cynical and political this was for Trump, if he came in on day 1 and put forth maximum effort he mostly likely could have broke the filibuster in the Senate by pressuring vulnerable candidates up for reelection in 2018 and built the wall.  The fact that he waited until another election and the house changed hands shows he is easily distracted and a terrible planner/strategist and/or never cared about the wall.

(01-27-2019, 11:14 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-27-2019, 11:10 PM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah, I figured that out from your next post, but my point stands. Why would they know less about border technology because of their age. Good grief, can you be more bigoted? Your boy Trump isn't much younger, wou...

...ok, point taken.

It is not a bigoted view to make the observation that Nancy isn't "all there".

Well for not being "all there" she just punked Trump, quite easily too.  It won't be the last time either.  She came out stronger than ever, he's limping back to the sidelines.  In 3 weeks she'll finish him off or make him kiss the ring.

(01-28-2019, 04:07 PM)jradMITEX Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-27-2019, 11:14 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]It is not a bigoted view to make the observation that Nancy isn't "all there".

Well for not being "all there" she just punked Trump, quite easily too.  It won't be the last time either.  She came out stronger than ever, he's limping back to the sidelines.  In 3 weeks she'll finish him off or make him kiss the ring.

This is what is scary in America...people like you see it as simple as what politician won or lost. The general public and federal workers got punked thinking Pelosi is for "the people". Right. Also, to not even step foot on the field of play and take what would have been DHS funding of $5.7B for mixed methods of border security and trade that for $50 billion in shutdown costs (lower estimate). Ridiculous. What about the SOTU? What's the plan in 2 1/2 weeks? Both sides failed to do their job.

All Pelosi and the Dems did was reinforce the President ability and/or necessity to claim a National Emergency to get border security taken care of. In other words, there was always going to be some form of obstruction and no doubt lawsuits when he put forth the order. This is why he did not go straight to playing the National Emergency card. Now he can offer the most liberal of courts several solid reasons and show step by step in the process where Congress failed in their role for enabling said security. Justification if you will. Pelosi is now pigeonholed and must negotiate from a lower standing. So who really got played, punked, outwitted, or whatever term you want to use?

(01-28-2019, 04:00 PM)jradMITEX Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-27-2019, 03:45 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ]No. Walls do work in urban areas where someone is literally a 20-foot walk across the street from being a shadow. Ever been to Otay Mesa, CA? It's right on the border at the southern end of San Diego, and it's a massive warehouse and industrial center. If someone gets across there, they're gone. That's why the wall is so heavily fortified there, and in that situation it's absolutely doing what it needs to do to be a good investment. That's why every metropolitan area along the border has some form of physical barrier, and I'm in favor of using federal dollars to upgrade what's already in place.

What doesn't make sense is putting a wall up in the desert, where someone is a 10-mile hike from the nearest main road, when FLIR cameras, drones with thermal imaging and a heavier Border Patrol presence with better equipment for the terrain (including horses, I am dead serious about horses--cowboys used them for a reason) would be every bit as effective. Probably more so if the funds going to that wall would otherwise go towards those things.

I think this is the good point where walls are needed they have been built i.e. urban areas.  This isn't what is being debated, this is about putting walls up in sparsely populated private land for the most part.  Trump started off saying he wanted a 30 ft concrete wall from sea to shining sea, now its 250 miles of steel slats he'll eventually be down to tens of miles of fencing and sell it as a promised fulfilled.  Be prepared for a National Emergency declaration, I highly doubt there will be another shutdown but hey if they want shoot themselves in the foot again have at it, the wall issue will be tied up in the court for years and nothing will get built.  This lays bare how cynical and political this was for Trump, if he came in on day 1 and put forth maximum effort he mostly likely could have broke the filibuster in the Senate by pressuring vulnerable candidates up for reelection in 2018 and built the wall.  The fact that he waited until another election and the house changed hands shows he is easily distracted and a terrible planner/strategist and/or never cared about the wall.

(01-28-2019, 04:36 PM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-28-2019, 04:07 PM)jradMITEX Wrote: [ -> ]Well for not being "all there" she just punked Trump, quite easily too.  It won't be the last time either.  She came out stronger than ever, he's limping back to the sidelines.  In 3 weeks she'll finish him off or make him kiss the ring.

This is what is scary in America...people like you see it as simple as what politician won or lost. The general public and federal workers got punked thinking Pelosi is for "the people". Right. Also, to not even step foot on the field of play and take what would have been DHS funding of $5.7B for mixed methods of border security and trade that for $50 billion in shutdown costs (lower estimate). Ridiculous. What about the SOTU? What's the plan in 2 1/2 weeks? Both sides failed to do their job.

All Pelosi and the Dems did was reinforce the President ability and/or necessity to claim a National Emergency to get border security taken care of. In other words, there was always going to be some form of obstruction and no doubt lawsuits when he put forth the order. This is why he did not go straight to playing the National Emergency card. Now he can offer the most liberal of courts several solid reasons and show step by step in the process where Congress failed in their role for enabling said security. Justification if you will. Pelosi is now pigeonholed and must negotiate from a lower standing. So who really got played, punked, outwitted, or whatever term you want to use?

Exactly.

They wouldn't even vote on a bill to pay the coast guard that included absolutely nothing related to the border. GOP is on the right side of this, but they just need to relay that to the American people.

(01-28-2019, 04:36 PM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-28-2019, 04:07 PM)jradMITEX Wrote: [ -> ]Well for not being "all there" she just punked Trump, quite easily too.  It won't be the last time either.  She came out stronger than ever, he's limping back to the sidelines.  In 3 weeks she'll finish him off or make him kiss the ring.

This is what is scary in America...people like you see it as simple as what politician won or lost. The general public and federal workers got punked thinking Pelosi is for "the people". Right. Also, to not even step foot on the field of play and take what would have been DHS funding of $5.7B for mixed methods of border security and trade that for $50 billion in shutdown costs (lower estimate). Ridiculous. What about the SOTU? What's the plan in 2 1/2 weeks? Both sides failed to do their job.

All Pelosi and the Dems did was reinforce the President ability and/or necessity to claim a National Emergency to get border security taken care of. In other words, there was always going to be some form of obstruction and no doubt lawsuits when he put forth the order. This is why he did not go straight to playing the National Emergency card. Now he can offer the most liberal of courts several solid reasons and show step by step in the process where Congress failed in their role for enabling said security. Justification if you will. Pelosi is now pigeonholed and must negotiate from a lower standing. So who really got played, punked, outwitted, or whatever term you want to use?

LOL, what is so hilarious to me is that despite Trump personally saying he would be proud to shut the government down, literally saying he would take the blame, you don't blame him.  Despite the fact he signed nearly exactly the same bill that was offered before Christmas, you blame Pelosi?  Trump shut the government down period.  He didn't care about the workers, the man is nearly devoid of any empathy, wait were the workers for the shutdown or were they mostly democrats as he suggested both ways.   The house passed several bills piecemeal in the first week that would have funded every agency outside of DHS, McConnel didn't even takes those bills up because Trump indicated he wouldn't sign them so who really cared about federal workers?  In fact only after his approval ratings dropped and he disapproval ratings peaked, and the fact that he was taking political heat did he relent, he never cared about the workers, he even suggested that you could get groceries for free because they know you.    Negotiating during a shut down would have set a bad precedent, only encouraging more shut downs when he didn't get what he wanted. 

The SOTU was pure politics it always is, the president doesn't have a constitutional right to address a joint chamber of congress in person only to deliver the message in written form.  The speaker of the house has to put the resolution forward, Pelosi had every right not to, and it hurt Trump where it hurt (his vanity), and she didn't pay a political price for doing it hence making it a shrewd move, seemed to motivate him a little. 

I think you are operating from the assumption that Trump should get what he wants just because he wants it, but there is the legislative branch and they hold the purse strings, they are a coequal branch of government, you have to win them over period.   They have every right not to do so, and judging by the polls they are following the will of the people who elected them.  The onus is on him to get the votes, this isn't a dictatorship, not signing a budget or CR is on him, it has nothing to do with funding the wall.  Another shutdown will be on him.  I bet you were upset when McConnell didn't give Garland a hearing because of the same reason?

Legislative intransigence is not a reason to declare an emergency and because he has taken so long it will only hurt his already very weak argument.  The reason he hasn't declared a national emergency is because they know it will ultimately fail.  There is no emergency, illegal border crossing are at decades old lows.  Does your blind loyalty to him keep you from seeing how bad of a precedent this would be?  It would make an imperial presidency.  

What will happen in 2.5 weeks?  If Trumps wants to take another political beating he can shut down the government again, have at it, he'll get the blame again and I suspect the Senate would eventually go against him.   He's going to either come off something really big like DACA/TPS path to citizenship or sign a CR with increased border security funding and no wall and declare an emergency and get stopped in the courts.  He isn't going to win this one, the public is against him, and Pelosi holds too many of the cards.

Some people are as far up Pelosis butt as others are up Trumps.

(01-28-2019, 06:43 PM)Sammy Wrote: [ -> ]Some people are as far up Pelosis butt as others are up Trumps.

Something tells me Pelosi would enjoy that.  Heck,  maybe she needs it.  Do we have any volunteers willing to take one for the team?