Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #251  
Old 01-10-2019, 10:45 AM
enipla enipla is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Colorado Rockies.
Posts: 13,515
I propose 10 million dollars for a needs analysis and environmental impact study. This would include looking at ongoing maintenance and other options. That's sort of how big projects start. Do not give the contract to Russia for analysis. Split it between ~4 firms. Two chosen by the House, and two chosen by the Senate.

THEN and ONLY THEN we can talk about this.

Trump will, of course disagree because he is the best business man EVER !!1!11 (he can only get loans from Russia) and he knows more about technology than anyone (he sure can Tweet like a 12 year old)

You want to talk about a wall Mr. President? Let's look at the facts.
__________________
I don't live in the middle of nowhere, but I can see it from here.
  #252  
Old 01-10-2019, 10:50 AM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 12,040
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
So, just to be clear, ...
Bone's "So" rule strikes again!

I feel like you've missed most of the discussion in this thread. Maybe you should go read it and then come back to posting in it.
  #253  
Old 01-10-2019, 10:57 AM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,034
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Bone's "So" rule strikes again!

I feel like you've missed most of the discussion in this thread. Maybe you should go read it and then come back to posting in it.
I thought his "applause light" comment was very important. Especially after you posted a survey of border patrol agents which essentially asked if certain strategic points on the border should have a barrier (a negative answer meaning that we should not have barriers at strategic points on the barrier).
  #254  
Old 01-10-2019, 11:11 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,567
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Bone's "So" rule strikes again!

I feel like you've missed most of the discussion in this thread. Maybe you should go read it and then come back to posting in it.
I'm sorry if I misrepresented your position. Are you against the wall? If so, have you written to your congressman demanding that they end this stupid shutdown?

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 01-10-2019 at 11:11 AM.
  #255  
Old 01-10-2019, 11:19 AM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 12,040
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
I'm sorry if I misrepresented your position. Are you against the wall? If so, have you written to your congressman demanding that they end this stupid shutdown?
Again, I urge you to read the thread. This has already been covered.
  #256  
Old 01-10-2019, 11:24 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,567
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Again, I urge you to read the thread. This has already been covered.
Given how you're not giving me a straight answer here, I'm afraid that I'm going to read five pages and still be back here thinking, "Gosh, now what does Ditka actually think?" And I'm gonna be honest, I'd rather not be in that position.
  #257  
Old 01-10-2019, 11:27 AM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 12,040
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Given how you're not giving me a straight answer here, I'm afraid that I'm going to read five pages and still be back here thinking, "Gosh, now what does Ditka actually think?" And I'm gonna be honest, I'd rather not be in that position.
I'll give you a hint: If you start reading at post #183 and continue to the end, you'll probably get most of the relevant bits and only have to read a couple of pages. It might save you from writing more foolish posts.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 01-10-2019 at 11:29 AM.
  #258  
Old 01-10-2019, 11:34 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 58,930
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I'll give you a hint: If you start reading at post #183 and continue to the end, you'll probably get most of the relevant bits and only have to read a couple of pages. It might save you from writing more foolish posts.
Hints? Why not make it into a crossword puzzle or a Word Jumble or a Word Seek Puzzle?

Better yet, why not just give a straight answer to a simple question?
  #259  
Old 01-10-2019, 11:36 AM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 12,040
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Hints? Why not make it into a crossword puzzle or a Word Jumble or a Word Seek Puzzle?

Better yet, why not just give a straight answer to a simple question?
Because I already responded to those arguments yesterday. If he can't be bothered to read that, I don't want to write another 10 posts repeating what I said (again, JUST YESTERDAY), and be back in the position where BPC once again didn't read what I wrote. "I'd rather not be in that position."

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 01-10-2019 at 11:38 AM.
  #260  
Old 01-10-2019, 11:50 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,567
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I disagree. We all know that there is no obligation for Mexico to pay, just like my neighbor has no obligation to pay for the property line fence.

But maybe in past years I have given the neighbor tomatoes and peppers out of my garden or venison steak after hunting. Maybe I helped him change a flat tire last year or I represented his son free of charge after a DUI charge last year.

We need a fence because his dogs keep coming over and shitting on my back porch, but he doesn't want to pay? I'm not bothering him. I would rather not have a fence, but his dogs keep coming over (and please understand this is an analogy and I am not saying that Mexicans are dogs). Then he will pay in an indirect way.

And I think my wife would know that despite anything I said taken absolutely literally, that she really did not reasonably think that I was going to steal his checkbook or march him at gunpoint down to Home Depot.
This was almost funny enough to not make me regret going back through the whole thing. Then I reached this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ancient Erudite View Post
I don't think Trump supporters judge him on what he says on a campaign or cares about fact-checking.
And I just got sad again, because I realized that Ancient Erudite doesn't see this as a problem. (In case you're still reading: it's a really fucking big problem!)

And then I read this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
"The wall" (a full-border-length 2000-mile stretch of concrete wall) is not what this shutdown is about. It's about $5B. That's going to buy a bit more wall / fencing / physical barriers than we have today. Somehow, that seems wildly racist / immoral to a good number of leftists. That's also a position I do not agree with.
And I got mad, because it's maddening nonsense that gets the positions of both parties wrong, ignoring context and what either side actually has to say on the matter.

But my prediction:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Given how you're not giving me a straight answer here, I'm afraid that I'm going to read five pages and still be back here thinking, "Gosh, now what does Ditka actually think?" And I'm gonna be honest, I'd rather not be in that position.
Was in fact falsified. I know what you think now! It makes no sense and is based entirely on ignoring everything Trump has had to say about the wall since the shutdown began, but hey - now we know. You are:

- Against a 2000-mile wall at the border
- In favor of what Trump proposes, except that you don't seem to realize that what Trump proposes is a 2000-mile wall at the border
- In favor of a series of fences and walls at strategic points at the border
- Against what we have right now, except that you don't seem to realize that what we have right now is a series of fences and walls at strategic points at the border and that every time someone has said, "Trump means this when he talks about the wall" Trump has responded by saying "no I don't, I mean a 2000-mile wall at the border" and oh my I've gone cross-eyed again haven't I.

So hey, your position is clear. It's utter nonsense, but it's at least coherent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
It might save you from writing more foolish posts.

Great, so that's one of us. What can possibly save you?

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 01-10-2019 at 11:52 AM.
  #261  
Old 01-10-2019, 12:20 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 12,040
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
... In favor of what Trump proposes, except that you don't seem to realize that what Trump proposes is a 2000-mile wall at the border...
This bit right here is what you got wrong, which is some kind of feat given how many times I've clarified it in this thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I'm not "trying to deny it", but I don't think it's the topic of the current thread (titled "The five billion dollar wall") or the source of the shutdown impasse. President Trump has requested $5B in this budget to "build primary wall or physical barriers in the areas of greatest need" (from a presentation the White House sent to congress four days ago). That's not "a 2000 mile wall" like some here are pretending.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
... "The wall" (a full-border-length 2000-mile stretch of concrete wall) is not what this shutdown is about. It's about $5B. That's going to buy a bit more wall / fencing / physical barriers than we have today. ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
... As I said then, this current discussion and the current shutdown revolves around $5B in funding for some physical barriers along the southern border, not a 2,000-mile wall.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
The presentation he gave to Congress was brief. I suppose he was afraid that Nancy's recent penchant for getting lost would work against him if he went into more detail. Here is some more detail for you:

If you follow the link, you'll see that this is only one aspect of a multi-faceted effort including updating inspection technology at ports of entry, hiring more BP and ICE agents, enhanced facilities and supplies to accommodate those taken into custody, and hiring more immigration judges to work through the case backlog.

But it's probably more fun for you to pretend "his plan is one sentence", huh?
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Can you clarify if "234 miles of new physical barrier" is considered "the wall" or "other border security efforts" in the eyes of Dems? Given their position on the funding measures, it would seem to be the former, but given some of the quotes by steronz in this thread, I wonder if it might be the latter.


That probably hinges on the answer to the above. I'm "with the Dems" in that I don't necessarily demand a 2000-mile-long 30-foot-high all-concrete "wall", but OTOH, I'm "with the GOP" in that I'd prefer to see some improvements made. Something like 243 miles of new physical barrier sounds good to me.


I'm not really "worked up in a lather", I'm pretty mellow actually. My preferred policy position is, as I already stated, "I would like to see border security be more of a priority for the federal government than it has been previously." If the Democrats are fine with "other border security" taking the form of 243 miles of new physical ("steel-slat") barrier, then you're right that the Democrats and I agree, you can go tell Nancy and we'll all go to the soup kitchen together.

But that doesn't seem to be the situation we have here.
  #262  
Old 01-10-2019, 12:40 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,034
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I'll give you a hint: If you start reading at post #183 and continue to the end, you'll probably get most of the relevant bits and only have to read a couple of pages. It might save you from writing more foolish posts.
The problem may be that you either have some fine fine nuance in your position that causes different posts to make me (and others apparently) think your position keeps changing.... or your position keeps changing. For example:


Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
In a word, "no", it wouldn't be my first choice. It's also a LONG ways down my list of things that I think the US should not spend taxpayer dollars for. Generally, I would like to see border security be more of a priority for the federal government than it has been previously. I'm not rigidly stuck on the idea that that has to mean a 30-foot concrete wall along every inch of the southern border (and neither is President Trump apparently).
This makes me think that the idea of a wall just isn’t all that important if other things are being done to improve border security.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
My preferred policy position is, as I already stated, "I would like to see border security be more of a priority for the federal government than it has been previously." If the Democrats are fine with "other border security" taking the form of 243 miles of new physical ("steel-slat") barrier, then you're right that the Democrats and I agree, you can go tell Nancy and we'll all go to the soup kitchen together.
This makes me think that any deal of border security has to include some version of the wall, no matter what else is in the deal.

I guess these positions make perfect sense in your mind, but when I look at two posts like this next to each other, I’m not totally clear how important a wall is to you. Especially after I made a comment that it seems like there’s a lot better things to spend money on for border security, which you seemed to take issue with... I’m left with the feeling that you don’t care about the wall that much but it would bother you if the Dems “won” on this issue.

I suppose you may tell others to go reread the same posts that seem contradictory to many of us. Or you could just answer a question like, “If there was a bill that had $3.5 billion in new technology and agents (twice as much as last year’s funding) but no money for a wall, would Congressman HD support or oppose that?”
  #263  
Old 01-10-2019, 12:47 PM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,567
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
This bit right here is what you got wrong, which is some kind of feat given how many times I've clarified it in this thread.
I could be mean and point out that it's no more a feat than misquoting a wikipedia article in such a way that you cut out a snippet of a sentence so that it looks like it says the exact opposite of what it really says, but instead let's just focus on this:

Quote:
... "The wall" (a full-border-length 2000-mile stretch of concrete wall) is not what this shutdown is about. It's about $5B. That's going to buy a bit more wall / fencing / physical barriers than we have today. ...
You're just wrong. Nothing about this is true.
  #264  
Old 01-10-2019, 12:50 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 12,040
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
... “If there was a bill that had $3.5 billion in new technology and agents (twice as much as last year’s funding) but no money for a wall, would Congressman HD support or oppose that?”
Oppose. Would Congressman Ravenman support or oppose $3.4 billion in new technology and agents and $0.1 billion for however many miles of steel bollard physical barriers that buys (not many, I imagine)?
  #265  
Old 01-10-2019, 12:51 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 12,040
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
... You're just wrong. Nothing about this is true.
I'm confident that readers can see the cites I posted upthread (and repeated in post #261 for your benefit) and reach their own conclusions.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 01-10-2019 at 12:51 PM.
  #266  
Old 01-10-2019, 12:53 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,034
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Oppose. Would Congressman Ravenman support or oppose $3.4 billion in new technology and agents and $0.1 billion for however many miles of steel bollard physical barriers that buys (not many, I imagine)?
I wouldn't have a problem with that. Would you support it?

Further question: would you reopen the government while talks on border security continue? I would.
  #267  
Old 01-10-2019, 01:00 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 31,886
The best chance Trump had for his wall was when there was a deal on the table for billions for the wall in exchange for DACA. That was when the Republicans were in charge of the House. But Trump said no.

Now the Democrats have the House. And Trump is still offering nothing in exchange for the wall. And the Republican-controlled Senate is doing nothing. Only the Democrats in Congress are doing something -- passing bills to open the government at funding levels the Republicans already voted for.
  #268  
Old 01-10-2019, 01:03 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 12,040
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
I wouldn't have a problem with that. Would you support it?
That's probably a bit of a lowball for me. I was mostly trying to understand if yours was a moral opposition to ANY additional barriers on our southern border, or you just didn't think the price was right. I suspect the two sides will eventually land somewhere in between the $5B and $1.6B originally offered by each side (although, there's so much emotion wrapped up in it now, who knows).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
... Further question: would you reopen the government while talks on border security continue? I would.
No. Reopening the government would, I imagine, remove any incentive for the Dems to "negotiate" at all.
  #269  
Old 01-10-2019, 01:08 PM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,567
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I'm confident that readers can see the cites I posted upthread (and repeated in post #261 for your benefit) and reach their own conclusions.
Well gosh, I hope they clicked through and read for context.
  #270  
Old 01-10-2019, 01:41 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers Bryan Ekers is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 58,248
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
This bit right here is what you got wrong, which is some kind of feat given how many times I've clarified it in this thread.
Sounds like you're starting to realize the Sisyphean nature of trying to explain/defend Trump policies. Getting a rational person to understand (let alone agree) is the boulder that keeps slipping away, though if they feel like mocking you especially cruelly, they might let you think you've almost convinced them and you might succeed with just a... little... more... clarification.... and, oops, down the hill again.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #271  
Old 01-10-2019, 01:42 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,034
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
No. Reopening the government would, I imagine, remove any incentive for the Dems to "negotiate" at all.
I think it is a despicable to take hostages during a political negotiation, especially when the hostages have literally nothing to do with the controversy.

Deliberately messing with the livelihoods of ordinary people seems to be part of this psychopathy that has infected politics over the last decade or so. it's not enough to have a disagreement -- or even heated one -- with someone who disagrees with you. Looking at the opposition (or in this case, just regular people who are engaged in some kind of public service or another) in a way that dehumanizes them into pawns who should be yanked around in order to get what someone wants is a deeply immoral act. It's as though the political class has resolved that honoring the the phrase "my fellow Americans" with real action is now a betrayal of one's expected first allegiance, one's political party.
  #272  
Old 01-10-2019, 01:46 PM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,567
For anyone curious what's going on here, this article may have some insight.

New GOP Thing Is to Pretend No One Is Talking About a Wall Except Democrats, as if We Are All Idiots With No Memory.

... Yeah. Yikes.
__________________
If you want to vote for people who will attack the rights of me and those close to me, we cannot be friends, and I will not accept that you're a good person.
  #273  
Old 01-10-2019, 01:52 PM
andros andros is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Dejagore
Posts: 10,406
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
That's probably a bit of a lowball for me. I was mostly trying to understand if yours was a moral opposition to ANY additional barriers on our southern border, or you just didn't think the price was right. I suspect the two sides will eventually land somewhere in between the $5B and $1.6B originally offered by each side (although, there's so much emotion wrapped up in it now, who knows).


No. Reopening the government would, I imagine, remove any incentive for the Dems to "negotiate" at all.
But you do acknowledge that congressional Democrats are not in opposition to "ANY additional barriers on our southern border," right? I mean, they've been pretty clear that they are willing to fund fencing and other physical barriers, where appropriate and effective and in addition to other appropriate and effective security measures.

They are currently unwilling to fund these things to the degree you'd prefer, but that's a policy debate that can occur while the government is operational and Federal employees are not missing rent and utility payments. Right? We can take POTUS' magic WALL off the table and discuss funding priorities like grownups?
  #274  
Old 01-10-2019, 01:55 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by andros View Post
But you do acknowledge that congressional Democrats are not in opposition to "ANY additional barriers on our southern border," right? I mean, they've been pretty clear that they are willing to fund fencing and other physical barriers, where appropriate and effective and in addition to other appropriate and effective security measures.

They are currently unwilling to fund these things to the degree you'd prefer, but that's a policy debate that can occur while the government is operational and Federal employees are not missing rent and utility payments. Right? We can take POTUS' magic WALL off the table and discuss funding priorities like grownups?
Yes, they already had said Ok to about a billion $ in border security measures, which included improving the already existing fence.
  #275  
Old 01-10-2019, 01:58 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 58,930
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
No. Reopening the government would, I imagine, remove any incentive for the Dems to "negotiate" at all.
This is insane! The only way to properly "negotiate" with Democrats is to shut the government down and hold it hostage? That isn't negotiation-that is a hijacking of the government.
  #276  
Old 01-10-2019, 02:00 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 12,040
Quote:
Originally Posted by andros View Post
But you do acknowledge that congressional Democrats are not in opposition to "ANY additional barriers on our southern border," right? I mean, they've been pretty clear that they are willing to fund fencing and other physical barriers, where appropriate and effective and in addition to other appropriate and effective security measures.

...
I think Congressional Democrats have been unclear about what they're willing to fund. The other day Pelosi was asked about it and here's what she said:

Quote:
... She was asked whether there’s any scenario under which Democrats would accept “even a dollar” for new construction of Trump’s border wall.

“A dollar? A dollar? Yeah, one dollar,” Pelosi told a group of reporters just off of the House floor.

She later seemed to rescind even that offer. ...
source

ETA: if she's backtracked from that intransigent position and is now offering some number of billions of dollars for physical barriers, I'd be delighted to hear about it.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 01-10-2019 at 02:02 PM.
  #277  
Old 01-10-2019, 02:03 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot bobot is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 7,047
Yes. She said that about "Trump's border wall".
  #278  
Old 01-10-2019, 02:07 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,034
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I think Congressional Democrats have been unclear about what they're willing to fund.
So has Trump. Reports over the weekend say that Pence offered a lower number, but then Trump (while at the table with Schumer, Pelosi, etc) denied that Pence was authorized to make such an offer.


Quote:
Originally Posted by andros
But you do acknowledge that congressional Democrats are not in opposition to "ANY additional barriers on our southern border," right? I mean, they've been pretty clear that they are willing to fund fencing and other physical barriers, where appropriate and effective and in addition to other appropriate and effective security measures.
And to that end, Democrats signed off on last year's funding for fixing fences and deploying more technology. It isn't just talk, that's what they voted for last year.

Last edited by Ravenman; 01-10-2019 at 02:08 PM.
  #279  
Old 01-10-2019, 02:16 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers Bryan Ekers is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 58,248
You forgot to remove the context, HD.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #280  
Old 01-10-2019, 02:38 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 9,794
Moderating

Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
I could be mean and point out that it's no more a feat than misquoting a wikipedia article in such a way that you cut out a snippet of a sentence so that it looks like it says the exact opposite of what it really says, ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Well gosh, I hope they clicked through and read for context.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
You forgot to remove the context, HD.
Enough. If you want to take shots at another poster, do it in the Pit. Not here.

[/moderating]
  #281  
Old 01-10-2019, 03:08 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I think Congressional Democrats have been unclear about what they're willing to fund. The other day Pelosi was asked about it and here's what she said:



source

ETA: if she's backtracked from that intransigent position and is now offering some number of billions of dollars for physical barriers, I'd be delighted to hear about it.
There was a deal for what the Border Patrol asked for- a extra $1.1 billion for border security, which including fixing, improving and extending the fence already there.

So the Dems are willing to pay for what the experts have asked for - reasonable border security.
  #282  
Old 01-10-2019, 03:39 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 12,040
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
There was a deal for what the Border Patrol asked for- a extra $1.1 billion for border security, which including fixing, improving and extending the fence already there.

So the Dems are willing to pay for what the experts have asked for - reasonable border security.
I hadn't heard of this $1.1B. I'd heard the numbers $1.6B and $1.3B, and neither of those were described as "what the Border Patrol asked for". Do you have a cite for this Border Patrol request?
  #283  
Old 01-10-2019, 03:46 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I hadn't heard of this $1.1B. I'd heard the numbers $1.6B and $1.3B, and neither of those were described as "what the Border Patrol asked for". Do you have a cite for this Border Patrol request?
The numbers bounced around committee to committee, but the important thing is the the Democrats were perfectly willing to spend a extra $1Billion on border security.
  #284  
Old 01-10-2019, 04:28 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 12,040
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
The numbers bounced around committee to committee, but the important thing is the the Democrats were perfectly willing to spend a extra $1Billion on border security.
"The numbers bounced around committee to committee" is not a cite, but setting that aside for a moment, does "border security" include additional steel bollard barriers in your mind?
  #285  
Old 01-10-2019, 04:40 PM
nelliebly nelliebly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Washington
Posts: 998
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
No. Reopening the government would, I imagine, remove any incentive for the Dems to "negotiate" at all.
I see. So you're willing to shut down the government, causing hardship for 800,000 federal workers, any time the President doesn't get his way, as long as his party backs him? Helluva way to run a government.

And I don't want to ever hear another wall supporter bitch about the deficit. You don't get to gripe about the deficit AND demand expensive boondoggles.
  #286  
Old 01-10-2019, 05:04 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 12,040
Quote:
Originally Posted by nelliebly View Post
I see. So ...
More evidence in support of Bone's "so" rule.
  #287  
Old 01-10-2019, 05:27 PM
nelliebly nelliebly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Washington
Posts: 998
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
More evidence in support of Bone's "so" rule.
It's nice Bone gave you a new means of evasion.
  #288  
Old 01-10-2019, 06:20 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 12,040
Quote:
Originally Posted by nelliebly View Post
It's nice Bone gave you a new means of evasion.
Bone didn't do it. You did.
  #289  
Old 01-10-2019, 06:43 PM
steronz steronz is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 4,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I hadn't heard of this $1.1B. I'd heard the numbers $1.6B and $1.3B, and neither of those were described as "what the Border Patrol asked for". Do you have a cite for this Border Patrol request?
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
"The numbers bounced around committee to committee" is not a cite, but setting that aside for a moment, does "border security" include additional steel bollard barriers in your mind?
The number did bounce around a bit in various bills but the $1.6B was from the DHS FY19 budget request.

Quote:
In FY 2019, DHS proposes $1.6 billion to support the construction of 65 miles of new border wall system, as well as an additional $164 million to support efforts to hire 750 new Border Patrol Agents and 153 support personnel. To enhance national security, public safety, and ensure faithful execution of immigration laws, the budget provides $5.1 billion for enforcement and removal operations and includes $571 million for an additional 2,000 ICE law enforcement officers and 1,312 support personnel.
Quote:
As part of the Administration's plan for the border wall, the FY 2019 President’s Budget proposes $1.6 billion to support the construction of 65 miles of border wall system in one of the U.S. Border Patrol’s top priority areas of responsibility, the Rio Grande Valley (RGV) Sector, in southern Texas. These priority investments will have the greatest impact on gaining and maintaining operational control of the border in the RGV Sector.
I challenge you to find mainstream Democratic opposition to that budget proposal.
  #290  
Old 01-10-2019, 06:56 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 12,040
Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
... I challenge you to find mainstream Democratic opposition to that budget proposal.
Thanks for finding that. Do you not consider Nancy's 'I would give him $1' "mainstream Democratic opposition to that budget proposal"?
  #291  
Old 01-10-2019, 06:57 PM
steronz steronz is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 4,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Thanks for finding that. Do you not consider Nancy's 'I would give him $1' "mainstream Democratic opposition to that budget proposal"?
No.
  #292  
Old 01-10-2019, 07:06 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 9,746
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
More evidence in support of Bone's "so" rule.
Right, and here is where you could clarify. If a poster asks you what your position is, and you are very ambiguous and contradictory, and they try to sum up their understanding of it, and ask you if that is it, you can say yes, you can say no, or you could even elaborate on what it actually is.

Bone's "rule" is less a rule, and more of a dishonest debate tactic, allowing the person invoking the rule to attack the poster and put them on the defensive, allowing the invoker to feign offense at being misunderstood, rather than to actually engage in debate.

What you are doing is evading.

You said specifically that you are against reopening the government, as you feel that that would mean that would remove any incentive for democrats to negotiate.

Taking your feeling for reality (which I disagree, but I can play along for the sake of argument), how would you sum up your position in regards to the president shutting down the government, and putting 800,000 out of a paycheck, as a negotiating position?

Personally, I think that negotiations should be done over the actual facts and ideas. If you can't sell your idea to the public, then you need to work on your idea better. If that doesn't work, then shutting down the government until people are forced to accept your idea in order to prevent catastrophe is not a responsible thing to do. Do you agree?
  #293  
Old 01-10-2019, 07:06 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 12,040
Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
No.
Ok, here is a letter signed by a whole bunch of leftist groups. It says:

Quote:
Now is the time to truly say NO to Trump’s wall: no to $5 billion, no to $2.1 billion, no to $1.6 billion, no to $1.375 billion. And to reject any additional funding for detention beds, ICE and Border Patrol agents, or other harmful enforcement.
Is the ACLU not "mainstream" enough for you? Do all those groups just represent the loony fringe?

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 01-10-2019 at 07:06 PM.
  #294  
Old 01-10-2019, 07:25 PM
tomndebb tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 40,699
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Thanks for finding that. Do you not consider Nancy's 'I would give him $1' "mainstream Democratic opposition to that budget proposal"?
How? She was specifically answering a specific question regarding "Trumps wall." She was not addressing border security, but one temper tantrum demand. How does that become opposition to a legitimate security funding proposal?
  #295  
Old 01-10-2019, 07:30 PM
tomndebb tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 40,699
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Ok, here is a letter signed by a whole bunch of leftist groups. It says:



Is the ACLU not "mainstream" enough for you? Do all those groups just represent the loony fringe?
Why are you shifting the goalposts? You went from "mainstream Democratic opposition" to "a whole bunch of leftist groups." Those are not the same thing. They certainly share many beliefs, but you are ducking and weaving and changing your own position.
  #296  
Old 01-10-2019, 07:30 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 12,040
steronz,

Your silence / sudden absence is disheartening, but here's some more "challenge" material:

CNBC - Democrats dig in against border wall money after White House briefing on government shutdown

Quote:
... Democrats previously offered to put $1.6 billion toward border security — but not a wall as Trump proposes — in the spending plan. The White House then floated $2.5 billion in funding, but Democrats rejected that offer. Trump signaled Wednesday that he would not accept anything other than $5 billion for his proposed wall.

In an interview for NBC's "TODAY" show taped before the briefing, Pelosi unequivocally said Democrats would not approve money for the wall.

"We can go through the back and forth. No. How many more times can we say no? Nothing for the wall," the California Democrat said. ...

Politico - Liberal groups push Dem leaders to take harder line in shutdown talks

Quote:
... Schumer and Pelosi have held firm on their bid not to give any new money to the president beyond current funding levels. The Senate Appropriations Committee had forged a bipartisan deal for $1.6 billion for fencing, but House Democrats panned it after the midterms and Democratic leaders are now united around delivering the president no increase over last year’s fence funding. ...
What do you think? Challenge resolved?

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 01-10-2019 at 07:30 PM.
  #297  
Old 01-10-2019, 07:34 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 12,040
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomndebb View Post
Why are you shifting the goalposts? You went from "mainstream Democratic opposition" to "a whole bunch of leftist groups." Those are not the same thing. They certainly share many beliefs, but you are ducking and weaving and changing your own position.
What do you mean? My position is that the list of undersigned organizations, who describe themselves as " immigrants’ rights, environmental, labor, faith, and progressive
organizations" are in fact "mainstream Democratic" and fit steronz' criteria of:

Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
... I challenge you to find mainstream Democratic opposition to that budget proposal.
What position do you think I've changed?

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 01-10-2019 at 07:35 PM.
  #298  
Old 01-10-2019, 07:35 PM
tomndebb tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 40,699
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
What do you think? Challenge resolved?
Challenge to one stupid, pointless demand for a costly and anti-environment fixture across hundreds of miles driven by an idiot who is simply pouting that he is not getting his way is still not a challenge to legitimate security interests or the budget to address them.
  #299  
Old 01-10-2019, 07:36 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 12,040
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomndebb View Post
Challenge to one stupid, pointless demand for a costly and anti-environment fixture across hundreds of miles driven by an idiot who is simply pouting that he is not getting his way is still not a challenge to legitimate security interests or the budget to address them.
I guess this is you conceding the point?
  #300  
Old 01-10-2019, 07:39 PM
tomndebb tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 40,699
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
What do you mean? My position is that the list of undersigned organizations, who describe themselves as " immigrants’ rights, environmental, labor, faith, and progressive
organizations" are in fact "mainstream Democratic" and fit steronz' criteria of:
Many of them are. Many more of them actually are in conflict with "mainstream Democrats." I would expect a serious effort at discussion would refer to powerful members of the Democratic party as "mainstream Democrats." Sweeping up any Left wing group and trying to pretend that that was what you really meant (but did not say) weakens any claim you have to arguing in good faith.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:07 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017