I'm agreeing with liberals more and more lately

[The Question]

First, a bank doesn't even count and you know that.

You're right, what was I thinking. You wanted a "moving-target" example. Know what that is? It's where you ask for an example of something, and each time an example is provided, you move the target just a little further off until you're asking for something that doesn't exist, at which point you crow, "See? I knew it, there's no such thing!" Whatever.

We're talking about historical walls - e.g. the great wall of china. Second, 'made better' means the problem it was built for was solved in more than just the short term.

You wanna go all the way to the non-existent criteria now, or are you set on dragging us all the way through your "moving target"?

So here's one:

Hadrian's Wall. Go ahead and move the marker a little further, then.

 

[The Question]

No. What it did was begin a phase of isolationism in China...

Which was its purpose. Gosh.

 

[Hambil]

You're right, what was I thinking. You wanted a "moving-target" example. Know what that is? It's where you ask for an example of something, and each time an example is provided, you move the target just a little further off until you're asking for something that doesn't exist, at which point you crow, "See? I knew it, there's no such thing!" Whatever.



You wanna go all the way to the non-existent criteria now, or are you set on dragging us all the way through your "moving target"?

So here's one:

Hadrian's Wall. Go ahead and move the marker a little further, then.

You're hopless. Go ahead and claim some sort of victory. I'm not going down this road of pointlessness with you again.

 

[The Question]

I'm not going down this road of pointlessness with you again.

Well, that's a victory in and of itself then, innit? :sarek:

 

[Hambil]

The Roman Empire is gone, and the English are still around. China is still recovering from their isolationism. You think too small TQ, as usual.

 

[Blindgroping]

Hmmmm....

I think we need a Dysan Sphere around the Solar system.

 

[The Question]

But the Roman empire collapsed, it wasn't overrun. Just because something fell apart for the Romans doesn't mean it was the Wall that failed. And that wall, by the way, was built on the border of Scotland. If the wall had failed, it wouldn't be. It would be running through the middle of Scotland, and there would be no Britain.

 

[Blindgroping]

The Roman Empire is gone, and the English are still around. China is still recovering from their isolationism. You think too small TQ, as usual.

I ask, then what was your intent and purpose with the challenge?

 

[The Question]

It was a challenge he thought couldn't be met, obviously, or he wouldn't have offered it.

 

[Blindgroping]

No, there was a point he was actually after, but the arguing got in the way.

 

[Hambil]

I was making a point that historically walls don't solve problems. However, TQ as usually gets so caught up in the details he can't see the larger concepts. So he argues about minutiae and the thread gets bogged down and the original discussion goes nowhere.

 

[Blindgroping]

So, what was your larger concept?

 

[Hambil]

Building and maintaining a wall will:
1) Cost money we don't have.
2) Be minimally effective since most of our southern border is water.
3) Set back relations and trade with Mexico.
4) Set a tone of isolationism in the country that gives a false sense of security, when we are already slowly losing are technical lead in the world.

It doesn't solve the problem because the problem isn't illegal immigration. Illegal immigration is a symptom of economic dispare.

 

[The Question]

It seems to me that his larger point was that walls as fortifications have never historically worked, or "made things better".

Well, the fact is that they have worked. They do work, and they will work. And they have, in fact, made things better (better being a very subjective term). Who says the Chinese didn't think their isolationism was better than the interdependence of Western nations?

 

[Blindgroping]

Then, I say we should take over mexico. It would solve the problem of money syphoning, and border relations.
But that would be more detrimental to us than helpful.
maybe in the longrun (200+yrs) it would work.

 

[The Question]

Building and maintaining a wall will:
1) Cost money we don't have.

Which will be offset by the over $10 billion per annum we'll no longer lose to Mexico.

2) Be minimally effective since most of our southern border is water.

Be extremely effective the water areas require boats, which are easier to spot.

3) Set back relations and trade with Mexico.

Which, considering the attendant loss of the illegal immigration problem, don't benefit us all that much anyway.

4) Set a tone of isolationism in the country that gives a false sense of security, when we are already slowly losing are technical lead in the world.

Fortifying one border prevents only physical infiltration, not legitimate business transactions.

It doesn't solve the problem because the problem isn't illegal immigration. Illegal immigration is a symptom of economic dispare.

Do you mean, "despair" or "disparity"? Economic disparity is the Mexican government's problem, not the American taxpayer's. Illegal immigration is, in fact, a serious problem for Americans.

When an employer pays illegally low wages into an economy, that economy suffers from reduced capital flow. Pure and simple. The only Americans who benefit from illegal labor are businesses who use the difference between what they pay and what they should be paying to pad the bottom line.

That's just the economic problem. The problem of violent criminals, sexual predators and others entering this country without notice and preying upon Americans is even more serious.

 

[Hambil]

Which will be offset by the over $10 billion per annum we'll no longer lose to Mexico.

We'll have to agree to disagree. Spend money to make money doesn't fly with me right now. Not with the debt we've managed to accumulate.

Be extremely effective the water areas require boats, which are easier to spot.

That's why we solved the drug problem right? Because we can spot all the boats and planes so easily.

Which, considering the attendant loss of the illegal immigration problem, don't benefit us all that much anyway.

Good relations with the countries on your bored is always benificial.

Fortifying one border prevents only physical infiltration, not legitimate business transactions.

I said it sets a tone. It reflects on the attitude of the American people, who will effect policy over time.

Do you mean, "despair"

Yes. These people come here because they are poor, and desperate.

When an employer pays illegally low wages into an economy, that economy suffers from reduced capital flow. Pure and simple. The only Americans who benefit from illegal labor are businesses who use the difference between what they pay and what they should be paying to pad the bottom line.

You don't need a wall to solve any of those problems.

That's just the economic problem. The problem of violent criminals, sexual predators and others entering this country without notice and preying upon Americans is even more serious.

I'd like to see some proof of this.

 

[The Question]

We'll have to agree to disagree. Spend money to make money doesn't fly with me right now. Not with the debt we've managed to accumulate.

Well, I'm not happy about that, either, but the fact is that if $10 billion weren't flying out the window every year at the same time, and if our government hadn't given away another $1.6 trillion to Israel, it wouldn't be as big a deal. Still big, sure, but not as. And the fact is that defending this country is where our priorities should be. That's where the soldiers and the money should be going, not Iraq.

That's why we solved the drug problem right? Because we can spot all the boats and planes so easily.

Part of that drug problem -- a lot of it, in fact, is coming up through that unfortified border. I think you should shot yourself in the foot there, more than a little.

Good relations with the countries on your bored is always benificial.

But maintaining good relations with a country that aggressively violates your sovereignty never is. Ask France.

I said it sets a tone. It reflects on the attitude of the American people, who will effect policy over time.

Well then, that's a tone that needs to be set. The American people have had enough, and both American and Mexican politicians need to hear that.

Yes. These people come here because they are poor, and desperate.

That's why people rob, assault and murder, too. I don't give a damn for either group.

You don't need a wall to solve any of those problems.

You do for the drug and weapons smugglers. They're not here to get cherry-picker jobs.

I'd like to see some proof of this.

Proof of what, that people cross our border illegally, or that Mexico has criminals?

 

[Hambil]

You do for the drug and weapons smugglers. They're not here to get cherry-picker jobs.

Now who's moving the target?

Proof of what, that people cross our border illegally, or that Mexico has criminals?

That illegals are any more likely to commit crimes and/or be sexual predators than anyone else.

 

[Tyrant]

Building and maintaining a wall will:
1) Cost money we don't have.

http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalrelease.html

Based on Census Bureau data, the study estimates that households headed by illegal aliens used $10 billion more in government services than they paid in taxes in 2002.

Not to mention the crime and drugs.

A effective barrier would be far more cost effective.

2) Be minimally effective since most of our southern border is water.

So, America should be overrun and bled dry until it's smoldering rubble like Mexico because the water is not where it should be, yes.

3) Set back relations and trade with Mexico.

Relations? You mean when Mexicans cried out that building a wall is somehow racist (Because we all know how racist walls can be), yet they treat slightly darker-skinned migrants from South America as badly as they treat each other.

There is nothing geopolitically advantageous to be gained from having a good relationship with Mexico. Nada.

4) Set a tone of isolationism in the country that gives a false sense of security, when we are already slowly losing are technical lead in the world.

I saw some vague and inappropriate references to China earlier, but this one just takes the cake, Hambil.

The United States was at its peak when it didn't have such an incredible influx of third world migrants. Forget this 'founded on immigration' nonsense - by the time the USA was becoming a superpower, most of the population was born there.

Americans didn't advance in spite of isolationism, but because of it. Just think what things would look like there if Americans didn't have to participate in the Cold War.

It doesn't solve the problem because the problem isn't illegal immigration. Illegal immigration is a symptom of economic dispare.

This is absolutely true, which is why they should be booted out and forced to fix their shithole of a country without some pot of gold over the Rio Grande to support them, but also without American interventionism to banish Communist ghosts and assassinate popular leaders.