RedDenver Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 7 minutes ago, B.B. Hemingway said: My point is that if you're going to have a consistent physical barrier on the southern border, why not make it as impenetrable as possible? The more unlikely it is that you'll get across when you arrive at the border, the more likely it is that you won't make the trek to begin with. For the record, I would be fine with a large fence if that's the route they go, but since money isn't an option (and it isn't with the government), why not go in with the best possible application? If that's the case, then I don't want to hear border wall supporters complaining about the costs of other programs. Heck, I'd support giving the full $50 billion to build the entire wall plus the $5 billion/year in estimated upkeep costs if that means Medicare-for-All - let's write up that bill and get the government funded again! 1 Link to comment
StPaulHusker Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 4 minutes ago, B.B. Hemingway said: My point is that if you're going to have a consistent physical barrier on the southern border, why not make it as impenetrable as possible? The more unlikely it is that you'll get across when you arrive at the border, the more likely it is that you won't make the trek to begin with. For the record, I would be fine with a large fence if that's the route they go, but since money isn't an option (and it isn't with the government), why not go in with the best possible application? There is zero proof that a wall will be any more or less impenetrable than the current fencing. The Democrat led House of Representatives passed a funding bill that gave billions to hiring new CBP agents, new fencing, fixing and upgrading new fencing, new tech, etc. In fact it was more than the $5B for a section of wall Link to comment
schriznoeder Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 EDIT: @RedDenver I was making a very similar post, but you beat me to it... Even though I think the wall is a terrible idea and a waste of money and resources, controversial things like it could serve as tremendous bargaining chips. For example, Pelosi could offer up funds for the wall in exchange for, say a life-time ban on assault rifle sales and/or extended magazines. Or maybe in exchange for a single-payer healthcare option. The list goes on and on. Instead of trying to find the middle ground on some of these topics, which in this day and age is generally a futile effort, how about each side be willing to sacrifice something near and dear to them in order to cancel out something on the other side of the political spectrum? Link to comment
StPaulHusker Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 7 minutes ago, B.B. Hemingway said: And not at all surprising.... I don't doubt it was a move out of pettiness, and pride from The Donald. I just think it was the right move. It's okay to say he did this in the most inappropriate way possible Link to comment
B.B. Hemingway Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 3 minutes ago, RedDenver said: If that's the case, then I don't want to hear border wall supporters complaining about the costs of other programs. This could go both ways, obviously. Link to comment
B.B. Hemingway Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 2 minutes ago, StPaulHusker said: It's okay to say he did this in the most inappropriate way possible Alright. I won't go to battle for Trump. I can't stand the guy. Link to comment
RedDenver Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 1 minute ago, B.B. Hemingway said: This could go both ways, obviously. Sure, I'll agree to include government cost and effectiveness into consideration of future policies. Link to comment
DevoHusker Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 33 minutes ago, RedDenver said: Look at the image above - the wall can be breached with a $10 hack saw. It's lunacy to spend billions when it's obviously not going to work. you are crazy if you think that was done with a hacksaw from Ace Hardware... Link to comment
DevoHusker Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 25 minutes ago, StPaulHusker said: So we know we will not get 100% security of the border with a wall. Can we all agree on that? McAllen, TX-Where Ortiz is in charge--100 people cross the border 6 cross the border where there is prohibitive fencing and then are apprehended-The fence and the CBP did a good job 94 cross where there is NO Fencing and are apprehended by the CBP-The CBP did a good job. So I still don't see the logic of needing to spend not just $5B for a wall. Because it is going to be more than that. But for what? An extra 2-3 apprehensions? Maybe? you are assuming that all who attempted to cross were apprehended...what about the hypothetical other 100 that were not caught? Link to comment
RedDenver Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 3 minutes ago, DevoHusker said: you are crazy if you think that was done with a hacksaw from Ace Hardware... Turns out I was wrong - it was a circular saw. So $40 for a battery-powered circular saw? https://www.engineering.com/BIM/ArticleID/18280/Trumps-New-Steel-Border-Wall-Wont-Be-Any-Better-Than-Concrete.aspx Quote "The steel bollard construction is based on the operational requirements of the United States Border Patrol and is a design that has been honed over more than a decade of use,” DHS spokesperson Katie Waldman said in a recent statement. While the new barrier design might be easier to see through, there’s one slight problem with it: the border wall prototype tests showed that steel bollards are relatively easy to cut through with a common circular saw. Link to comment
B.B. Hemingway Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 6 minutes ago, RedDenver said: Sure, I'll agree to include government cost and effectiveness into consideration of future policies. Which is relative to each individual.... Or each political party. Link to comment
B.B. Hemingway Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 4 minutes ago, RedDenver said: it was a circular saw. So $40 for a battery-powered circular saw? Maybe on Black Friday. Link to comment
RedDenver Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 5 minutes ago, B.B. Hemingway said: Maybe on Black Friday. Amazon.com - a wall breacher's friend ($37 Ryobi cordless circular saw): https://www.amazon.com/Ryobi-P506-Cordless-Circular-Carbide-Tipped/dp/B0091H50DU/ref=sr_1_5?s=power-hand-tools&ie=UTF8&qid=1547826458&sr=1-5&keywords=circular+saw&refinements=p_n_feature_four_browse-bin%3A9060577011 EDIT: I didn't notice that's without the battery. So lesson learned: if you're running from CBP, drop the saw but hang onto that battery. Link to comment
B.B. Hemingway Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 4 minutes ago, RedDenver said: Amazon.com - a wall breacher's friend ($37 Ryobi cordless circular saw): https://www.amazon.com/Ryobi-P506-Cordless-Circular-Carbide-Tipped/dp/B0091H50DU/ref=sr_1_5?s=power-hand-tools&ie=UTF8&qid=1547826458&sr=1-5&keywords=circular+saw&refinements=p_n_feature_four_browse-bin%3A9060577011 EDIT: I didn't notice that's without the battery. So lesson learned: if you're running from CBP, drop the saw but hang onto that battery. If they could get through that wall with one battery, I'd be impressed. I hate those battery-powered saws. Do we not have '110' outlets on the border?! Link to comment
RedDenver Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 Just now, B.B. Hemingway said: If they could get through that wall with one battery, I'd be impressed. I hate those battery-powered saws. Do we not have '110' outlets on the border?! Further off-topic: I'm pretty sure a modern battery powered saw would get through several steel bollards with a good steel-cutting blade. The batteries have gotten MUCH better the last couple years. I know a guy that runs a tree cutting business that has converted over to all battery-powered equipment. Link to comment
Recommended Posts