Politics, Current Events & History Debates on politics, current events, and world history. |
|
|
Senior Member
Posts: 1,459
Join Date: May 2003
Location: anchorage,ak
|

04-13-2005, 09:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by KTOG
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdeyes
sealing the borders helps the economy and promotes a good living standard in america
|
You know this because you live in Texas? ...oh wait...you live in ALASKA.
Sealing the borders doesn't do anything except promote more illegal immigration. We outsource jobs where they are cheap so as long as there are people out there willing to work for cheap our 'living standard' will not change.
|
you cant get in if the electric fence is installed , tough times demand tough answers.. freeloaders annoy:
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Major General
Posts: 13,482
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: University Park, PA
|

04-13-2005, 09:37 PM
they have tunnels that stretch a mile in length. I doubt that little fence will do anything.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Sergeant
Posts: 1,113
Join Date: Oct 2002
|

04-13-2005, 09:40 PM
Sealing the border would have more people trying to sneak in illegally since they couldn't get in legally. Besides constantly running a 2000 mile electric fence isn't feasable.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Senior Member
Posts: 1,459
Join Date: May 2003
Location: anchorage,ak
|

04-14-2005, 12:15 AM
is there a way to stop them from coming into america " illegally"?
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Major General
Posts: 13,482
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: University Park, PA
|

04-14-2005, 04:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdeyes
is there a way to stop them from coming into america " illegally"?
|
i don't think there's anything you can do to drastically change it. Well, you could probably start shooting everyone that tries to come across and that will be leaked over to Mexico and they'll be too afraid to cross! happy:
|
|
|
 |
|
|
2nd Lieutenant
Posts: 3,358
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Good ol' England!
|

04-14-2005, 04:28 AM
implant everyone with a microchip which explodes when the person crosses the border happy:
|
|
|
 |
|
|
1st Lieutenant
Posts: 4,860
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: The Greater Philidelphia Area
|

04-14-2005, 04:03 PM
-privatize public schools
-give back america it's constituation
-cut off arms deals with the israelis
-get off the middle east's back
-make it a lot easier to start a business
-cut military spending by half or less
-repeal any marriage laws against two consenting adults (this means yes to gay marriage)
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Major General
Posts: 13,482
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: University Park, PA
|

04-14-2005, 04:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merlin122
-cut military spending by half or less
|
ed:
|
|
|
 |
|
|
1st Lieutenant
Posts: 4,860
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: The Greater Philidelphia Area
|

04-14-2005, 08:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coleman
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merlin122
-cut military spending by half or less
|
ed:
|
I believe an army should be used for defense purposes only. Needless to say, we aren't exactly doing that at the moment.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Senior Member
Posts: 3,161
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Detroit, MI
|

04-15-2005, 07:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merlin122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coleman
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merlin122
-cut military spending by half or less
|
ed:
|
I believe an army should be used for defense purposes only. Needless to say, we aren't exactly doing that at the moment.
|
so by cutting it in half you are willing to doom the soldiers already out there? Clinton slashed defense spending and now our humvees dont have the proper armor
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Master Sergeant
Posts: 1,789
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Marietta, GA
|

04-15-2005, 07:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merlin122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coleman
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merlin122
-cut military spending by half or less
|
ed:
|
I believe an army should be used for defense purposes only. Needless to say, we aren't exactly doing that at the moment.
|
If you cut military spending in half you won't have enough of an army to defend either.
I think we could cut spending on every line item. I would not target one particular group or agency. I would make them all reduce their spending by 5%. With all of the inefficiency in our goverment, each agency should have no trouble finding 5% to cut. And I mean an actual cut, not a reduction of the increase.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Captain
Posts: 5,558
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Anaheim, CA
|

04-15-2005, 08:24 PM
[quote="Sgt>Stackem":c31c3]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merlin122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coleman
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merlin122
-cut military spending by half or less
|
ed:
|
I believe an army should be used for defense purposes only. Needless to say, we aren't exactly doing that at the moment.
|
so by cutting it in half you are willing to doom the soldiers already out there? Clinton slashed defense spending and now our humvees dont have the proper armor[/quote:c31c3]
yeah, that has nothing to do with anything, considering clinton was out of office a good 2 years before our military was in iraq. oOo:
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Master Sergeant
Posts: 1,789
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Marietta, GA
|

04-16-2005, 12:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Madmartagen
yeah, that has nothing to do with anything, considering clinton was out of office a good 2 years before our military was in iraq. oOo:
|
Have you ever sold the governement anthing? Do you realize how long it is from approval for an expenditure and when the thing that they bought actually goes into service? Especially on tanks, vehicles, planes, etc.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Captain
Posts: 5,558
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Anaheim, CA
|

04-16-2005, 01:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colonel
Quote:
Originally Posted by Madmartagen
yeah, that has nothing to do with anything, considering clinton was out of office a good 2 years before our military was in iraq. oOo:
|
Have you ever sold the governement anthing? Do you realize how long it is from approval for an expenditure and when the thing that they bought actually goes into service? Especially on tanks, vehicles, planes, etc.
|
if that was the case, then bush should have waited until the army had the supplies before he sent in the troops. if the clinton military was so underfunded, then it wouldnt have been able to knockout the taliban and iraqi govt. lack of armor and equiptment was only noticeable until after the occupation began and when bush introduced his first military budget.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Brigadier General
Posts: 10,721
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: C-eH-N-eH-D-eH eH?
|

04-16-2005, 06:10 AM
I would still nuke the red states.
|
|
|
 |
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.12 by ScriptzBin Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
vBulletin Skin developed by: vBStyles.com
© 1998 - 2007 by Rudedog Productions | All trademarks used are properties of their respective owners. All rights reserved.
|