# Building The Wall.



## Vol (Jul 5, 2009)

From DTN.....if you are a Tequila drinker and there is a certain brand that you highly favor, you better stock up. Yep....he's going to build "that wall".

Regards, Mike

https://www.dtnpf.com/agriculture/web/ag/news/article/2017/01/26/border-tax-mexico-countries-raises


----------



## PaMike (Dec 7, 2013)

I say the fed gov works a deal with Texas to put their inmates to work building it...Texas is the kind of state that would be agreeable to that...


----------



## rjmoses (Apr 4, 2010)

I like the idea of the import tax. It really levels the manufacturing playing field.

And puts the cost of their problem on them!

But, then again, what do I know. I'm just an average run-of-the-mill American, not privvy to all the higher level thinking that goes on in Washington. (I got my self laughing out loud on that one!)

Ralph

I like tequila, but I can pass on it as long as I have access to Scotch. Now, if he builds a wall between us and Scotland, I'm going to war!


----------



## deadmoose (Oct 30, 2011)

Vol said:


> From DTN.....if you are a Tequila drinker and there is a certain brand that you highly favor, you better stock up. Yep....he's going to build "that wall".
> 
> Regards, Mike
> 
> https://www.dtnpf.com/agriculture/web/ag/news/article/2017/01/26/border-tax-mexico-countries-raises


The one and only place I agree we need to raise taxes. Import tarrifs.

Make America Great Again!


----------



## mlappin (Jun 25, 2009)

Blueberry 1800 is the shizzle.

Friends that unfortunately lean to the left or is it unfortunate friends that lean to the left? Either way, their answer to the import tariffs is it will just raise cost in the states and we will still pay for the wall. Tends to shut em up though when you start posting actual data from their precious government showing what illegal immigration actually costs, then the cost of the wall gets pretty cheap.


----------



## RockmartGA (Jun 29, 2011)

Tequila I can live without, even though I am partial to a frozen margarita. Besides, as long as I can get my hands on the occasional bottle of Kentucky Bourbon or Tennessee Whiskey, I'm good to go.

(In a pinch, I know a couple of good 'ol boys up in North Ga who make a mighty smooth apple brandy - just don't stand too close to open flames when you pour it )


----------



## Uphayman (Oct 31, 2014)

Did some research.....average yearly deficit of an "illegal household " is $14,000 +. That's what it costs the US taxpayers, for all the freebies the average household receives. It gets really depressing when you start looking into it.

Now we'll go into the crime issue......let's focus only on murder, keep it simple. Not much debate there, as your either dead or alive. Between 2008 and 2014 , I'm using Govt. Accountability Office numbers here, in the 5 states including NY,CA, AR,TX, and Florida, criminal aliens accounted for 5.6 % of the population, but committed 38% of the murders. That's.........are you sitting down?????? 7085 lives lost in those 5 states alone. This doesn't take into account people killed by drunk driving illegals etc.

In an unusual move democrats are proclaiming it fiscally irresponsible. It simply costs to much they say. While they obviously have no value for human life in the womb, they seem to also no value of human lives of the American citizens.

"BUILD THE WALL"


----------



## CowboyRam (Dec 13, 2015)

I don't like Tequila anyway. So build the wall. I am a Coors man, I am good unless they build a wall around Colorado.


----------



## stack em up (Mar 7, 2013)

To hell with building a wall. I'll do it cheaper, electrify the Rio Grande. Only gotta buy a couple toasters.


----------



## swmnhay (Jun 13, 2008)

stack em up said:


> To hell with building a wall. I'll do it cheaper, electrify the Rio Grande. Only gotta buy a couple toasters.


heck they make electrified fish barriers a fish can't cross,should work for people too.


----------



## PaMike (Dec 7, 2013)

stack em up said:


> To hell with building a wall. I'll do it cheaper, electrify the Rio Grande. Only gotta buy a couple toasters.


Who pays that electric bill??


----------



## stack em up (Mar 7, 2013)

Solar powered. Damn, I am just full of good ideas today!!!


----------



## glasswrongsize (Sep 15, 2015)

mlappin said:


> Either way, their answer to the import tariffs is it will just raise cost in the states and we will still pay for the wall. Tends to shut em up though when you start posting actual data from their precious government showing what illegal immigration actually costs, then the cost of the wall gets pretty cheap.


Yeah, it's kinda weird that these leftists can't see that high corporate taxes have ran our businesses out of the country, that the costly regulations have raised the prices on stuff, that over regulations make things cost more, that taxing the living hell out of people for dope-smoking welfare rats hurts the economy, etc...It's funny that they couldn't see the harm in taxing the crap out of everything in sight, but a tariff for imports? Now that it's unhandy for their plans for the ruination of this Country, they can see it??!!

Skip A Rope, Mark

PS I reckon I'd better to go pull the lever on the ******* slot machine (the Dillon; a winner every pull!!) a few more times. These thieves ain't gonna give back their thievins without a squabble.


----------



## r82230 (Mar 1, 2016)

Paying for the wall might be simpler than I think. I am going to guess Mexico still gets some sort of 'financial aid' (foreign assistance) from the US (like just about every other country in the world), hope Trump diverts it to pay for the wall.

Just click on year, then Mexico to see some small numbers (small by government standards anyhow).

http://beta.foreignassistance.gov/explore

Larry


----------



## IHCman (Aug 27, 2011)

r82230 said:


> Paying for the wall might be simpler than I think. I am going to guess Mexico still gets some sort of 'financial aid' (foreign assistance) from the US (like just about every other country in the world), hope Trump diverts it to pay for the wall.
> 
> Just click on year, then Mexico to see some small numbers (small by government standards anyhow).
> 
> ...


Wow the financial aid that shows we're paying to other countries is absolutely mind blowing! Why the hell are we giving so many countries money? No wonder our national debt is in the trillions.


----------



## glasswrongsize (Sep 15, 2015)

IHCman said:


> Wow the financial aid that shows we're paying to other countries is absolutely mind blowing! Why the hell are we giving so many countries money? No wonder our national debt is in the trillions.


Not only THAT, but we are/were borrowing the money to do it!!!! How's that for utter self-destructive behavior from our gummint??!!

Skip A Rope, Mark

I think I need to go soak my head.


----------



## Vol (Jul 5, 2009)

IHCman said:


> Wow the financial aid that shows we're paying to other countries is absolutely mind blowing! Why the hell are we giving so many countries money? No wonder our national debt is in the trillions.


Your are dead on IHC.....our ex-muslim president gave Iran 1.7 Billion...our enemy in Terrorism.....and then we have people come on here and gripe about some things that President Trump has enacted. This liberal "outrage" is over....no one wants to hear that on here....plenty of other sites to go moan with the legions of the miserable.

Regards, Mike


----------



## stack em up (Mar 7, 2013)

See, this is why people shouldn't give one shit about politics. Only ever gonna appease half the people.


----------



## somedevildawg (Jun 20, 2011)

stack em up said:


> See, this is why people shouldn't give one shit about politics. Only ever gonna appease half the people.


That's ok, as long as it's the half that work for a living.....


----------



## slowzuki (Mar 8, 2011)

The US could have been ordered to pay up to 10 billion if they hadn't settled outside of the arbitration. It's basically giving back the payments for more tomcats and phoenix missiles that obviously were not delivered post revolution.



Vol said:


> Your are dead on IHC.....our ex-muslim president gave Iran 1.7 Billion...our enemy in Terrorism.....and then we have people come on here and gripe about some things that President Trump has enacted. This liberal "outrage" is over....no one wants to hear that on here....plenty of other sites to go moan with the legions of the miserable.
> 
> Regards, Mike


----------



## stack em up (Mar 7, 2013)

.


----------



## Vol (Jul 5, 2009)

slowzuki said:


> The US could have been ordered to pay up to 10 billion if they hadn't settled outside of the arbitration. It's basically giving back the payments for more tomcats and phoenix missiles that obviously were not delivered post revolution.


It was pretty easy to order the candyass muslim us president to give to the muslim....but I would be interested to see about giving "orders" now and see what happens with terrorist countries.


----------



## luke strawwalker (Jul 31, 2014)

slowzuki said:


> The US could have been ordered to pay up to 10 billion if they hadn't settled outside of the arbitration. It's basically giving back the payments for more tomcats and phoenix missiles that obviously were not delivered post revolution.


Iran wants missiles?? We can give them missiles... up the @ss... LOL

What we should have done instead of making that stupid nuke deal with those ******* terrorists anyway...

Later! OL J R


----------



## slowzuki (Mar 8, 2011)

Since that is Irans reason for developing nukes, to protect itself from US aggression so what would an attack prove? It would prove to China and Russia the US can't be trusted and make it easier for them to take antagonizing moves in the name of defending themselves.



luke strawwalker said:


> Iran wants missiles?? We can give them missiles... up the @ss... LOL
> 
> What we should have done instead of making that stupid nuke deal with those ******* terrorists anyway...
> 
> Later! OL J R


----------



## somedevildawg (Jun 20, 2011)

Did they tell you that Slow.....that they wanted missles to defend themselves from us? If you believe that, you're as gullible as the rest of the liberals......You hear that on Al Jazzera or read it in one of your liberal rags....the "true news"


----------



## slowzuki (Mar 8, 2011)

Iran says their nuclear program has two purposes, deterrent for Israel (which would be nonsensical for israel to launch a first nuclear strike on an arab nation, they know the unifying effect that would have) and deterrent for the US.

Unstated they have been engaged in a local power struggle for years to dominate the region. Iraq first but the US helped them out with that, now with the Saudi's. Saudi's are backstopped with arms from the US and UK mainly which fits their narrative of US/West being an enemy since the revolution. They have been pressuring for influence in Iraq the last few years and likely won't completely withdraw following the defeat of ISIS.

Internally Iran has really messed up power structures with one pillar pushing for normalized relations with the West and the other pillar pushing for more craziness and internal self sufficiency. The power structures don't work like most nations and it results in weird and wild swings in actions. Executive works to remove sanctions while the other branches try to cut them off at the knees at every turn.

Al Jazzera, their coverage of Jewish issues is generally garbage pro-palestinian propaganda and their coverage of US issues can be questionable but being in a country in-between Saudi Arabia and Iran they tend to cover many muslim only middle eastern issues in more detail.



somedevildawg said:


> Did they tell you that Slow.....that they wanted missles to defend themselves from us? If you believe that, you're as gullible as the rest of the liberals......You hear that on Al Jazzera or read it in one of your liberal rags....the "true news"


----------



## somedevildawg (Jun 20, 2011)

Whatever "Iran says" ain't the truth.... I understand they are in a power struggle with their neighboring Muslim countries, but when they become "nuclear" those really messed up power structures resulting in weird, wild swings in actions could be a potential problem for the entire globe....and it's probably not a matter of "if" but rather "when"..... And don't think for a minute that Israel doesn't have balls enough to launch a first strike, if it's the very existence of their state that is threatened, all bets are off....


----------



## luke strawwalker (Jul 31, 2014)

Exactly somedevildog... exactly right...

Iran is like those cartoons when I was a kid where Yosemite Sam would end up stuck in the dynamite shack and would light a match to see what was going on-- and blow himself to kingdom come! They're a lit match in a powder magazine. They're too damn unstable to be trusted with the world's most deadly weapon. They've proven time and again that they will interfere anywhere in the world with terrorism or anything else that furthers their goals and aims. Now suddenly we're to believe that they'll settle for "deterrence" with nuclear weapons?? I call bullshit...

They're actively developing ICBM technologies-- not just IRBM's capable of hitting Israel or even Europe, but ICBM's capable of striking the US mainland or anywhere else on the globe. Their own "Muslim brothers" in the Middle East don't trust them-- Saudi Arabia and the other Persian Gulf states have already put out feelers and made their intents not so secret that if Iran gets the bomb, they fully intend to get the bomb for themselves, as a "deterrent" against nuclear blackmail by Iran to protect them and their certainly emboldened meddling in the affairs of the other Persian Gulf states. Iran has made no secret they'd LOVE to unite the Muslim world under one banner-- THEIR banner, or at least they'd have the control over it... and that means overthrowing "pro-western" Muslim states like Saudi Arabia, UAE, etc. They HATE the Saudi royal family with a passion and would love nothing more than to knock off Saudi Arabia... or at least cause a complete overthrow of the Saudi regime, and the Saudis know it. SA has basically said as much that if Iran gets the bomb, they're going to get the bomb themselves. If the US won't give it to them or support them in it, they'll get it elsewhere... and they're not going to be content with 'assurances" that we'll defend them against the Iranians armed with nuclear weapons, either... because they know full well that if it comes down to a choice between Riyadh or New York or Boston or Washington DC, Riyadh will be the one glowing in the dark... or they'll find themselves running for their lives once Iran foments revolution or overthrows them... the US won't risk EVERYTHING to save them, and they know that as well. So do the Israelis, and all the rest of the Middle East.

All Iran getting the bomb will do is start an arms race that will lead to the THE most unstable and psychotic area of the planet having nuclear weapons aimed all over at each other and by extension, everybody else as well...

Does anybody SERIOUSLY think that if Israel were facing an existential threat from Iran with nuclear weapons they wouldn't strike first if they could?? Or that if Iran had the bomb that they wouldn't find some way of using it against "the Great Satan" (US) or the "little Satan" (Israel) if they possibly could?? The US could take being hit by a number of nuclear weapons and still survive as a functional country-- Israel cannot-- a single high-yield nuclear weapon could literally bring their country to an end. Don't think for a moment the Iranians don't know this as well.

The Iranians have been fighting a "proxy war" with Israel for the last 30-40 years, through Hezbollah and the other terrorist organizations that Iran supports or, in many cases, issues their marching orders to. Israel and the US BOTH know this, but we pretend not to and look the other way rather than start a "hot war" with Iran. Iran KNOWS they would be on the short end of the stick in a hot war with the US or Israel because we both have nuclear weapons and they do not... hence they want nukes to "level the playing field" and give them both power to extort what they want under nuclear threat, or the power to instigate a hot war that would give them a first-strike capability sufficient to severely damage the US or virtually annihilate Israel at a single stroke... and of course then they'd take whatever second strike they suffered as "acceptable losses".

The "peaceful nuclear energy" stuff is a load of crap too, because Iran is literally sitting on SUCH an ocean of oil that they'll STILL have more than enough oil to run their country long after the rest of the world has long run out of oil and has switched to something else. Everybody knows that; they do and we do.

Their nuclear program is about one thing-- giving them the 'big gun' that they can then threaten to turn on anybody they want to, anytime they want to, to extort what they want or to strike first if they think they can get what they want that way. What they want is to rule the world, and wholesale destruction of all the infidels who are not "good Muslims" as they see it, IOW, not part of the "Islamic Republic".

Allowing Iran to get the bomb is equivalent of allowing Tojo or Hitler or Mussolini to get the bomb first... does anybody have ANY doubts how THAT would have turned out??

Later! OL J R


----------



## slowzuki (Mar 8, 2011)

I had a long post but deleted down to a few points:

-Israel needs coordinated permission to overfly arab countries to attack Iran including getting their highly vulnerable aerial refuelling planes in place.

-Iran has a distributed and well protected underground nuclear program with fairly advanced air defences that would need a massive and costly attack to penetrate.

-A preemptive nuclear attack would likely have minimal effect on Iran's progress given the design of their sites but it would immediately cause the program to enter full speed with all resources.

-A preemptive strike would complicate the Russian relations with Israel and uncomfortably force a US position that may not be favourable to Israel.

-Much of Iran's public relations advertised aggression towards the US is not backed up by the facts on the ground. The prototypes, models, mockups and CGI they spool over and over on their news contrasts with the fact their biggest strength is a conventional army that is fast becoming experienced in modern warfare using cheap drones to leverage their existing cheap old gear on a large scale. They can't deploy their air force far from home. They have no blue water navy, they are structurally setup to fight a neighbouring state. Their missile development ranges are obviously aimed to antagonize Israel and Saudi Arabia.


----------



## mlappin (Jun 25, 2009)

IHCman said:


> Wow the financial aid that shows we're paying to other countries is absolutely mind blowing! Why the hell are we giving so many countries money? No wonder our national debt is in the trillions.


Why the hell are we giving one single cent to China?


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

mlappin said:


> Why the hell are we giving one single cent to China?


Especially when one realizes they steal billions in intellectual property from us every year.


----------



## somedevildawg (Jun 20, 2011)

And currency manipulation....


----------



## glasswrongsize (Sep 15, 2015)

I don't remember because I was off in Uncle Sam's Yacht Club on the other side of the world and spending money becoming a drunken sailor, but I wonder if the libtards were up in arms about protecting the illegals when it was said @20 years ago?

It's a short watch

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4351026/clinton-1995-immigration-sotu

Skip A Rope, Mark


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

I love showing that video to my dumbacrat friends.


----------



## Palmettokat (Jul 10, 2017)

Realize this post is sort of late but I have had an idea on the wall for years. We build two story federal prison along the border. On the US side we have solid concrete walls with small doors and very small window. Also we have double fencing with dogs or wolves running free between the fences. Guards are on the outside of the second fence. Now on the Mexican side we use 1/4 inch thick particle board for the walls.

The Federal Guards would be guarding both US prisoners and the border and Mexico will guard their side I am convinced.

Oh we could then use the current federal prisons for more important uses:


----------

