100% agreed. However, if I recall, you are against building a high tech wall to prevent (or at least drastically slow) this invasion. This is an area that I completely agree Bush is failing drastically in, and it should be his highest priorty, as those very few Constitutionally mandated federal responsibilities include protecting the borders of the US.

And how much does all this cost, compared to the cost of -say- occupying Iraq? The measures you listed are indeed akin to the traffic lights and stop signs of the motoring world. They are reasonable, and reasonably priced preventive methods. Would you find a cop on every corner in America a reasonable method of preventing traffic accidents? Or would that be excessive and wasteful?

And right here is a great illustration of where some of the fundemental differences are between various poters on this board - and probably the world over (since we are such a perfect little microcosm ;) )

I happen to agree with JWBear on this because the hate that is taught can and DOES lead to violence. The church or whichever institution is teaching intolerance can deny direct responsability for the actions but they still had a part in getting the radical thinker to that point of insane action.

There is so separation, no black and white, it's all just a continium - a domino effect. That's where I think we have a great deficite in our national intelligence. There is not a whole lot of understanding about cause and effect. Maybe Candide shoule be required reading again.

Um, the problem in Europe is legal immigration. Muslims are not sneaking across borders; they are legally inflitrating Europe with the intention of creating a Muslim continent within four generations. And they may succeed. But not without the complicity of the individual European nations' individual immigraton policies.

Those are what must change. A wall does nothing to stop the legal Muslim tide.



We are facing a similar problem with latino immigration, and I'll admit that I don't know what portion of such immigration is legal or illegal (oops, maybe it's time for me to merge all the Daily Grind threads after all).

But if they are trying to make the U.S. into a latin nation, that's something I've never heard of. Maybe they're just being more surrepticious than the Muslims ... but I somehow doubt that. (Many muslims brag quite openly about taking over Europe ... it would be laugable if it weren't so demonstrably happening.)

I understand you sentiment, but disagree with the premise of your opening statement. Occupation implies control of the government. I do not agree that we are an occupying force.

Be that as it may.....should a nuke explode in LA, would it not be said that we weren't doing enough or spending enough to have prevented it?

Of course it would not be reasonable to have a cop on every corner. It is reasonable, though, to install traffic cameras to prevent red light running (Phoenix has a bunch and they are proving effective). They aren't at every intersection, just the busiest with a history of a problem of red light running.

We aren't monitoring Finland for terrorist activity or trying to depose the leader of Monaco because we have suspicions. That would certainly be excessive. I do not find our middle eastern activities to be excessive.

^ hmm, actually decent points. Must be why you're my favorite right-wing conservative nutjob!


Oh, and gak:
and my edit of her post was just to fix her quote blocks

LOL! I feel special. ISM can't mojo me. LALALALALALALWHEEEEEEE! ;)

Right. But thats changing the subject. I don't think we have a legal immigration problem (though there are problems within the system, the system isn't a problem).

We do face a similar situation with illegal immigration here, though.

This could be the highest praise I could ever expect from you. Though I did get mojo from you once....for mocking GD.:)

You must spread some Mojo around before giving it to Not Afraid again.