Off Topic (1 Viewer)

Breaking news! CNN is now in favor of building walls...:unsure:

1592874354619.png
 
Tera said:
What happened to the wall? Still building?
Click to expand...
Yes. I'm not a fan of the border wall. But the fact that one is being built demonstrates that the ability of the US President to have illegal entrants into the US removed is the result of our politicians not supporting effective border control. In theory, this issue was resolved in 1986.

As another quick historical aside. Programs to promote civil rights were passed into law in the 1960s. Yet here we are, were a very vocal tyranical minority is actually promoting racism under the Orwellian style claim of ending racism.

video clip: https://www.cbp.gov/border-security/along-us-borders/border-wall-system



20200616edsuc-a_s878x574.jpg
 
Particularly disturbing was the image of the Democrats who have embellished themselves with African garb. When it comes to images Democrats have no problems with screaming "cultural appropriation" and racism for symbols they don't approve of, yet they will grovel in "cultural appropriation" as a means of pandering for the vote.

The image below ironically came almost immediately after the Democrats condemned Trump for his bible photo-op. Democrats have no shame. They also must believe that the electorate can't link these two events together to discern the utter corruption of the Democrats. It is unfortunate that the electorate does not reject Democrats at the voting booth on the simple basis of disgraceful pandering for the vote.

gv061020dAPR_s878x652.jpg
 
Last edited:
Ah! Now we know what Elon is planning, tunnels to undermine the "wall"..

I wonder, if Elon has been approached by "Hector Salamanca"..
 
I am not about to say that the wall is going to be effective. The problem with static walls throughout history is that they never worked. Hadrian's Wall, the Great Wall of China, the Maginot Line - three big-name cases of static wall defenses that proved porous. They failed for different reasons, perhaps, but they have in common that they didn't keep out those that they were intended to block.

We have the problem that, on a global scale, the USA is an "attractive nuisance." This is the legal language that in the USA relates to having a feature on your property that causes people to attempt to get to it. That phrase is most commonly used when you have a swimming pool in your back yard and suddenly EVERYONE from many streets away is your friend, even people you don't know.

They do their best to get where they weren't actually invited. You have all sorts of bad things happen, such as children drowning in your pool, or strangers diving in and peeing in your pool, plus increased rate of spreading disease due to higher localized population density. A tall fence and warning signs are the preferred method for the local problem. The border wall is a partial defense for the global problem. But it is acknowledged that attractive nuisances can only be partially blocked from abuse by intruders.
 
Static defenses never work. There is always a way to circumvent a static defense.

Static defenses, in terms of illegal entry, are pointless. Once someone gains entry into the US, they can't be deported anyway based on existing laws and the failure of political will.

The solution, as I see it anyway, would to have a proactive program of immediate deportation deportation for any illegal entrant into the US, wherever they may be in the country (US). Regretfully the ability of those managing entrance into the US has been severely curtailed under a variety of excuses to the point that someone who is here illegally essentially can't be deported.

This (inability to act) is now affecting regular law enforcement in a serious way. We are seeing the emergence of de-fund the police efforts, eliminating cash bail requirements, and what appears to be political decisions to prevent the police from actually protecting property and businesses. Moreover, there is the emergence of the "Ferguson effect" where police are increasingly cautious to act under the possibility that they will be unjustly prosecuted for their actions.
 
Last edited:
They are a deterrent at best.

Try climbing Nancy Pelosi's wall. You will be staring down the barrel of the second amendment pretty quickly. Regardless of race color or creed.
 
I think the best way to deal with this is to deny non-citizens any benefits that come with citizenship. Remove the lure and the fish will quit biting.
 
NauticalGent said:
I think the best way to deal with this is to deny non-citizens any benefits that come with citizenship. Remove the lure and the fish will quit biting.
Click to expand...
This should be part of any immigration solution, but as with any solution, there will be loop-holes.

What about a non-citizen woman who gives birth to a baby that is automatically a citizen. Shouldn't she get governmental assistance? (The law needs to be clarified to eliminate the granting of automatic citizenship at birth when the woman is a non-citizen). One of the claims that could be made is that the non-citizen mother is taking care of a US citizen, therefore the mother should receive assistance and be allowed to remain in the US. After all, you can't deport the citizen child.

Somewhat more difficult to incorporate into a solution concerns welfare payments. Here we get into dissecting federal and state laws. If a state wants to give welfare money (collected by the state through taxation) to a non-citizen, there is nothing wrong with that. As a state's right issue, this would also apply to other state actions that are a benefit to non-citizens, such as driver licenses, professional licenses and so on. The federal government, to a degree, is out-of-the-picture. Theoretically, state's could adopt laws and policies that do not allow non-citizens to receive state governmental assistance. The obvious concern; too many states are purposely granting non-citizens equivalent rights to citizens, making citizenship essentially meaningless.

The federal government however is in-the-picture when it gives the states grant monies. The complication with granting state's federal money is that the origin of that money becomes "muddled" (co-mingling). Theoretically, the federal government can mandate that a state can not disperse federal funds to non-citizens. Unfortunately, the will of the politicians at the federal level to impose such restrictions seems absent.
 
Last edited:
The will of politicians at the federal level is to get re-elected. If they think the bleeding heart types will vote for them if they are nice to illegals then they will be nice to illegals.
 
How to shift Two stick 6+4 Spicer Transmission Peterbilt 359

Skip to 6:12 if you just want to see him shift.

 
Interesting. First vid, channel logo is 8V92. I wonder if that means anything to anyone else besides me? That engine probably went out of production around 1996 so the truck in that vid ain't new!
P.S. - the turbo isn't screaming, it's whistling. Could be an intake or boost side leak, or compressor wheel issue, or it's over-boosted, or... Anyway, 3 sticks is just nuts. I did learn how to shift a Fuller RTO915 and RTO913 in case that impresses anyone.
 
You can tell by his relaxed hands and arms his been doing this for a while.

Real truck drivers don't use their windshield wipers, he looks around the drops. 🤣
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

X
When was my Worker's Last Day Off?
Replies
3
Views
178
MarkK
MarkK
J
ms access query by insert a random record which not exist in other table
Replies
8
Views
211
Pat Hartman
P
P
Why we were forced to Jab & Mask
Replies
10
Views
267
Isaac
Isaac
K
Using continuous forms instead of creating controls:)
Replies
3
Views
186
Pat Hartman
P
NauticalGent
The way of the world...
Replies
7
Views
75
Isaac
Isaac

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top Bottom