Armed left wing militia

[pensacolatiger 313]

10 hours ago, AUDub said:

Among mainstream democrats, things like strategically places barriers and increased manpower aren't deal-breakers. Sure, you'll have your run of the mill idiots that want to abolish CBP (Bernie comes to mind) but by and large "open borders" is a fringe position and treated as such.

As recently as 2019 Pelosi even publicly supported what I said above. But that's a far different beast than a pants on head stupid boondoggle like a wall. 

You’re right, sending 20x as much to Ukraine to support a globalist wet dream is much more intelligent than $5B to secure your southern border

[AUDub 11,204]

1 minute ago, pensacolatiger said:

Lol - you’re describing the shift of political view in the south assuming the same racist views are here as they were during CRA.

In many ways they still are. I mean go look at that thread about the teacher at Wallace State. Dumb bint is literally calling for the return of Sundown Towns and "you know, the nazis had a few good points here and there."

1 minute ago, pensacolatiger said:

 Just own the past, the democrat party contained the nastiest examples of racist politicians

I won't deny that at all. Some of these old southern dems kind of hung around in the party, Wallace being a prime example, though he did say he regretted his prior support of segregation, and Byrd being another, though he flipped the switch and was a staunch progressive that apologized for his prior views at every turn.

Guys like Manchin are your last vestiges of the old Conservative wing.

Most of them flipped their affiliation to stay in power though. Take Thurmond, for example, the guy that set the record for filibusters protesting the CRA, and guys like Helms, who you just know had the skins of little boys in his attic lol.

And the electorate really did. These people didn't just stop being pro-segregation when the Republican Party seized the south. 

[AUDub 11,204]

9 minutes ago, pensacolatiger said:

You’re right, sending 20x as much to Ukraine to support a globalist wet dream is much more intelligent than $5B to secure your southern border

The border wall as Trump envisioned it would cost WAAAAAAY more than 5b. 

[pensacolatiger 313]

14 minutes ago, AUDub said:

In many ways they still are. I mean go look at that thread about the teacher at Wallace State. Dumb bint is literally calling for the return of Sundown Towns and "you know, the nazis had a few good points here and there."

 

And there you have it, the ole southern white people are always going to be racist. That’s the thread the socialist clowns cling too in connecting the Republican Party with racists.

 

I’ve lived in 5 southern states and never met a white supremacist in my life.  Your view of southern Americans is really, really sad.  I hope you don’t spread your dismal view to those close to you

[pensacolatiger 313]

45 minutes ago, AUDub said:

The border wall as Trump envisioned it would cost WAAAAAAY more than 5b. 

Yeah?  What study did you pull that from?

[AUDub 11,204]

37 minutes ago, pensacolatiger said:

And there you have it, the ole southern white people are always going to be racist. That’s the thread the socialist clowns cling too in connecting the Republican Party with racists.

I’ve lived in 5 southern states and never met a white supremacist in my life.  Your view of southern Americans is really, really sad.  I hope you don’t spread your dismal view to those close to you

Born and raised in good ol' Bombingham. 

[AUDub 11,204]

11 minutes ago, pensacolatiger said:

Yeah?  What study did you pull that from?

Trump. He spent about 16b on the bit of it he did get built alone. 

Given that, DHS said 25b short term, and that's not including long term costs like maintenance, and is probably still a hell of an underestimate. 

[pensacolatiger 313]

4 minutes ago, AUDub said:

Trump. He spent about 16b on the bit of it he did get built alone. 

Given that, DHS said 25b short term, and that's not including long term costs like maintenance, and is probably still a hell of an underestimate. 

Ah - you’re counting the materials laying around after it got halted.  Yes, it did go over budget.  If you haven’t been to an open section of the country, I’d recommend you go.  It might be eye opening for you.  I used to do a lot of business at facilities across the border and you’d be amazed at the resources we have to put together to patrol open sections.  CBP trucks every mile, traversing back and forth just trying to stem the tide.  And forget farming near the border, it’s damn near impossible.  See it first hand to comprehend the clusterfrick it is and the risk we are taking.

[AUDub 11,204]

6 minutes ago, pensacolatiger said:

Ah - you’re counting the materials laying around after it got halted.  Yes, it did go over budget.  If you haven’t been to an open section of the country, I’d recommend you go.  It might be eye opening for you.  I used to do a lot of business at facilities across the border and you’d be amazed at the resources we have to put together to patrol open sections.  CBP trucks every mile, traversing back and forth just trying to stem the tide.  And forget farming near the border, it’s damn near impossible.  See it first hand to comprehend the clusterfrick it is and the risk we are taking.

A wall won't do much to stop it.

Strategically placed barriers in high traffic areas are a boon, but you hit a certain point where you’re simply erecting a barrier for erecting a barrier’s sake, where its effect will be negligible at best. A barrier in the middle of nowhere isn’t that much better than no barrier at all, both in efficient use of resources and security it actually provides.  

[Didba 5,282]

18 hours ago, pensacolatiger said:

I’m old enough that 15 years ago is pretty recent to me, politically speaking.  Hell, that’s just a few presidents ago.

 

there are turds on both sides, but I can’t stomach the party that fought for slavery and had the poster child for combatting CRA, advertising themselves as the anti-racists.  It’s just not historically accurate.  And honestly the way they allied themselves with BLM then disappeared from them like a fart in the wind after the election, it just seems very unauthentic to me

Well at least we have come to a conclusion as to why I didn’t know about the 2006 border fence legislation.

For the future, you may want to think before assuming that everyone knows about an event that happened 15 years ago even though it seems recent to your subjective perspective.  
 

we will just have to agree to disagree on the party switch stuff. Although, the history books, and academic journals are on my side for that issue. You have yet to cite any source supporting your views, whereas I have cited several .gov and .edu sources. 

[pensacolatiger 313]

22 minutes ago, AUDub said:

A wall won't do much to stop it.

Strategically placed barriers in high traffic areas are a boon, but you hit a certain point where you’re simply erecting a barrier for erecting a barrier’s sake, where its effect will be negligible at best. A barrier in the middle of nowhere isn’t that much better than no barrier at all, both in efficient use of resources and security it actually provides.  

Have to disagree - the amount of cbp needed w/ no obstacle is nuts.  Complete waste of resources.  A wall tall enough that climbing is not an option reduces head count needed drastically.  FY23 CBP budget is 17.5B.  The wall pays for it’s self in no time.

[Didba 5,282]

13 hours ago, AUDub said:

Maintaining slavery and opposition to the CRA of 1964 were conservative positions.

The democrats were the conservative party for a long time. When FDR came along the party as a whole became for more liberal and the conservative democrats were reduced to a wing, the so called dixiecrats that included Wallace. For a long time they voted democrat (the "solid south") for reasons extending back to the Civil War.

When the CRA passed they basically became politically homeless. There was a schism where the conservative democrats split and tried to form their own party, the AIP, with the basis for their existence being opposition to desegregation and the like. When Wallace won much of the south in 68 it was on the AIP ticket.

Going back a bit, in 64 the unthinkable happened and a republican took the south. Barry Goldwater, who voted no on practically everything including civil rights, took the deep south and his home state of Arizona, but nowhere else.

People noticed this, and that became the basis for Nixon's southern strategy. It didn't work so well in 68 due to Wallace and the AIP, though Nixon did win. In 72 the strategy paid off. Southern conservatives threw their weight behind the republicans. The deep south has been republican since.

There were a lot of party flips indicative of that. Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms etc. 

thank you. 

[Didba 5,282]

12 hours ago, autigeremt said:

Actually the GOP is all about immigration and cheap labor 😂

News to me! Nice joke, I chuckled at that one 😂

Edited September 30, 2022 by Didba

[pensacolatiger 313]

2 minutes ago, Didba said:

Well at least we have come to a conclusion as to why I didn’t know about the 2006 border fence legislation.

For the future, you may want to think before assuming that everyone knows about an event that happened 15 years ago even though it seems recent to your subjective perspective.  
 

we will just have to agree to disagree on the party switch stuff. Although, the history books, and academic journals are on my side for that issue. You have yet to cite any source supporting your views, whereas I have cited several .gov and .edu sources. 

Is that a passive aggressive concession to one of my points?  I’m picking on you now

[Didba 5,282]

2 hours ago, pensacolatiger said:

Lol - you’re describing the shift of political view in the south assuming the same racist views are here as they were during CRA.  

That is the whole point we are trying to get across, the parties now and back then are the same in name only.
 

If you took the current Republican platform/party and transported it back to 1860, they would join the Democratic Party in existence in 1860. 
 

If you took the current Democratic platform/party and transported it back to 1860, they would join the Republican Party in existence in 1860. 
 

Conversely, Lincoln would be a democrat today and Jefferson Davis would be a Republican. 
 

I am not denying that the people that pushed for slavery were labeled the Democratic Party back in 1860.
 

what I have been expounding upon this whole time is that to label the modern democratic party as the same Democratic Party that supported slavery in 1860 is disingenuous. 

[Didba 5,282]

12 minutes ago, pensacolatiger said:

Is that a passive aggressive concession to one of my points?  I’m picking on you now

No, that was a kind way of saying that you were wrong about the democrats recently supporting the border wall and that you were erroneous to assume everyone views something that happened 15 years ago as recent. 😉

Edited September 30, 2022 by Didba

[pensacolatiger 313]

1 minute ago, Didba said:

That is the whole point we are trying to get across, the parties now and back then are the same in name only.
 

If you took the current Republican platform/party and transported it back to 1860, they would join the Democratic Party in existence in 1860. 
 

If you took the current Democratic platform/party and transported it back to 1860, they would join the Republican Party in existence in 1860. 
 

Conversely, Lincoln would be a democrat today and Jefferson Davis would be a Republican. 
 

I am not denying that the people that pushed for slavery were labeled the Democratic Party back in 1860.
 

what I have been expounding upon this whole time is that to label the modern democratic party as the same Democratic Party that supported slavery in 1860 is disingenuous. 

And to label republicans as racists is historically inaccurate and requires an assumption that racist white folks are all around you

[Didba 5,282]

1 hour ago, pensacolatiger said:

Yeah?  What study did you pull that from?

https://www.npr.org/2020/01/19/797319968/-11-billion-and-counting-trumps-border-wall-would-be-the-world-s-most-costly

"In a status report last week, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, which is overseeing wall construction, reported that $11 billion has been identified since Trump took office to construct 576 miles of a new "border wall system."

[Didba 5,282]

24 minutes ago, pensacolatiger said:

Have to disagree - the amount of cbp needed w/ no obstacle is nuts.  Complete waste of resources.  A wall tall enough that climbing is not an option reduces head count needed drastically.  FY23 CBP budget is 17.5B.  The wall pays for it’s self in no time.

It's tunneling time!

Seriously, though, the wall isn't as effective as you think from deterring the cartels. I have read some crazy shiz thay can do to continue to move drugs/immigrants into the US.

[AUDub 11,204]

3 minutes ago, Didba said:

It's tunneling time!

Seriously, though, the wall isn't as effective as you think from deterring the cartels. I have read some crazy shiz thay can do to continue to move drugs/immigrants into the US.

Drugs pretty much come through legitimate points of entry, air and sea. They like to transport in bulk. 

In other words, a wall will have little effect on that. 

Edited September 30, 2022 by AUDub

[pensacolatiger 313]

Tons of creative ways, but why not remove the easiest way?  Then you also funnel immigration to all legal points and have more manpower to clear incoming people, sort the criminals out

[homersapien 11,513]

21 hours ago, Leftfield said:

I can't decide if I want to laugh or cry at this post.

He's obviously in over his head and doesn't have a clue about it.  

So you're right, the former is laughable, the latter is just sad.

[homersapien 11,513]

21 hours ago, Didba said:

I am genuinely curious, how old are you, and what was your highest level of education?

Please don't say Auburn University. Please don't say Auburn University. Please don't say Auburn University. Please don't say Auburn University.Please don't say Auburn University. Please don't say Auburn University.Please don't say Auburn University. Please don't say Auburn University.

 

[Didba 5,282]

55 minutes ago, pensacolatiger said:

And to label republicans as racists is historically inaccurate and requires an assumption that racist white folks are all around you

Not really, I have already demonstrated that 25% of the republican party voted against the CRA.

[homersapien 11,513]

3 hours ago, AUDub said:

In many ways they still are. I mean go look at that thread about the teacher at Wallace State. Dumb bint is literally calling for the return of Sundown Towns and "you know, the nazis had a few good points here and there."

I won't deny that at all. Some of these old southern dems kind of hung around in the party, Wallace being a prime example, though he did say he regretted his prior support of segregation, and Byrd being another, though he flipped the switch and was a staunch progressive that apologized for his prior views at every turn.

Guys like Manchin are your last vestiges of the old Conservative wing.

Most of them flipped their affiliation to stay in power though. Take Thurmond, for example, the guy that set the record for filibusters protesting the CRA, and guys like Helms, who you just know had the skins of little boys in his attic lol.

And the electorate really did. These people didn't just stop being pro-segregation when the Republican Party seized the south. 

I admire your efforts Dub, but you are debating someone who has obviously never read a history book in his life.  I've never seen someone so ignorant regarding American history.  (And that's saying a LOT.  )