Kansas Crimson

234 miles.
Border completely sealed off.

jfc

cuz people who’ve already walked thousands of miles won’t be bothered to walk a few hundred more

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Mon Jan 07, 2019 6:02 am

jeepinjayhawk wrote: ↑Sun Jan 06, 2019 11:39 pm Too busy paying farmers not to farm and ensure oil companies get plenty of subsidies?

speaking of...just got a mailing yesterday from the dept. of ag

Jan. 15, 2019 signup deadline for Market Facilitation Program payment

Producers of corn, cotton, sorghum, soybean, wheat, diary (sic), hogs, fresh sweet cherries, and shelled almonds may be eligible to sign up for the Market Facilitation Program (MFP). MFP is designed to help producers significantly impacted by actions of foreign governments resulting in the loss of traditional exports...

i giggled

AKA an attempt to buy votes. "Sorry we screwed you. Here's a little something for your troubles. Dont be mad at us but the screwings will continue for the forseeable future."

So Trump.

So $5.5 Billion and it's only for 234 miles of our 1,950 mile southern border?!? Yeah, I get we have many miles of wall that are fine but good lord.

The party of fiscal responsibility indeed.

Has anyone ever said the wall needed to be covering the entire border? My guess is much of the terrain isn't suited for building a wall?

Just feels a little disingenuous for twocoach to sort of complain that the wall won't stretch the entire border when I think he's pretty aware that was never the intention, nor is it needed to stretch the entire border.

Just enough fence for photo ops.

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Mon Jan 07, 2019 2:14 pm Just feels a little disingenuous for twocoach to sort of complain that the wall won't stretch the entire border when I think he's pretty aware that was never the intention, nor is it needed to stretch the entire border.

You genuinely suck at reading. I complained the the huge price tag only covers a small portion of the border. Trump has been spazzing out about how this wall is going to magically end illegal immigratiom as well as drug smuggling over the border.

Do you thing 234 miles of wall magically ends those things? Me neither. So we are back to our point that it is a ton of money for an incomplete solution with a lip service amount thrown to the other more important needs to say "see, we added those things".

Which would be more effective... $5.5 billion on 234 miles of wall and 200 million spent on additional tech and staffing or $2.5 billion spent on additional tech and staffing?

I just cannot believe that this manufactured "emergency" at the border is working.

Jesus, people are dumb.

Meanwhile, I was in Pittsburg, KS this morning for a deposition. On the return trip, approximately 15-20 miles of Highway 69, a federal highway, was blocked off to complete the road construction making the highway 4 lanes from Kansas City to Pittsburg. No workers to be seen. Bet those construction are missing some pay.

twocoach wrote: ↑Mon Jan 07, 2019 2:34 pm

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Mon Jan 07, 2019 2:14 pm Just feels a little disingenuous for twocoach to sort of complain that the wall won't stretch the entire border when I think he's pretty aware that was never the intention, nor is it needed to stretch the entire border.

You genuinely suck at reading. I complained the the huge price tag only covers a small portion of the border. Trump has been spazzing out about how this wall is going to magically end illegal immigratiom as well as drug smuggling over the border.

Do you thing 234 miles of wall magically ends those things? Me neither. So we are back to our point that it is a ton of money for an incomplete solution with a lip service amount thrown to the other more important needs to say "see, we added those things".

"Only covers a small portion of the border"

Correct. The portion where a wall is needed....the part where it's not needed seems pretty irrelevant. So why complain that "the price tag only covers a small portion of the border"?.....maybe I don't suck at reading because that's what you said. Twice.


Statements from Border patrol seem to indicate the wall is needed in those areas.


I agree that the additional staffing and increased funding for tools for them to use are equally as important, maybe more important....but some of you are going to be against anything regardless because it's apparently trumps idea (even though it's really not, this has all been discussed before he even decided he wanted to be president, there were also proposals put forth for this same stuff under Obama iirc).

jeepinjayhawk wrote: ↑Mon Jan 07, 2019 2:38 pm I just cannot believe that this manufactured "emergency" at the border is working.

Jesus, people are dumb.

Yes. I think you've even provided some links that show illegal immigration is down.

Still doesn't mean we should spruce up border security, but put me in the group that doesn't think it's an "emergency", even though I do think it's important.

I imagine that you would.

That it's not an immediate-term "crisis" doesn't mean that it's not a long-term problem.

Why?

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 07, 2019 4:27 pm That it's not an immediate-term "crisis" doesn't mean that it's not a long-term problem.

Still means the wall isn't the answer.

RussianHawk wrote: ↑Mon Jan 07, 2019 4:37 pm

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 07, 2019 4:27 pm That it's not an immediate-term "crisis" doesn't mean that it's not a long-term problem.

Still means the wall isn't the answer.

Not necessarily.

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 07, 2019 4:40 pm

RussianHawk wrote: ↑Mon Jan 07, 2019 4:37 pm

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 07, 2019 4:27 pm That it's not an immediate-term "crisis" doesn't mean that it's not a long-term problem.

Still means the wall isn't the answer.

Not necessarily.

Yeah could help block the rising Rio from flooding southern Texas due to climate change!