Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
RoofGardener

Worldwide Walls

262 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Setton
1 minute ago, aztek said:

other than the one i linked right under the line you quoted, and cut out from response??   did BP site not support your illusion, same way Mueller report did not?

Here is your full post

6 hours ago, aztek said:

not at all, the southern wall is meant to stop border jumpers from the south,  Canadians or any other overstay are irrelevant, as far as SW goes, cuz they come in legally,  it is entirely different issue.   the wall is to STOP PEOPLE FROM COMING IN ILLEGALLY from the south. and they come in hundreds of thousands a month. (100k were apprehended in march alone, which means much more came thru)   idk how much simpler i can put it. . so it does not reinforce his point, it destroys it.

simple example you have a bad toothache and an internal bleeding but you do not want to do a surgery cuz  it wont fix your tooth problem, yes this is what his argument is.

Where is the link? 

If you're going to lie, at least try to be a little less of an idiot about it. 

  • Haha 2
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, Setton said:

Here is your full post

Where is the link? 

If you're going to lie, at least try to be a little less of an idiot about it. 

wow you are beyond stupid, the link is in the post you quoted, case closed

Edited by aztek
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, aztek said:

wow you are beyond stupid, the link is in the post you quoted, case closed

Here is the post again. There is no link. 

6 hours ago, aztek said:

not at all, the southern wall is meant to stop border jumpers from the south,  Canadians or any other overstay are irrelevant, as far as SW goes, cuz they come in legally,  it is entirely different issue.   the wall is to STOP PEOPLE FROM COMING IN ILLEGALLY from the south. and they come in hundreds of thousands a month. (100k were apprehended in march alone, which means much more came thru)   idk how much simpler i can put it. . so it does not reinforce his point, it destroys it.

simple example you have a bad toothache and an internal bleeding but you do not want to do a surgery cuz  it wont fix your tooth problem, yes this is what his argument is.

If it is there, why not prove how stupid I am and show it? 

Edited by Setton
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek
Posted (edited)

^^^^that is racist

Edited by aztek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, aztek said:

^^^^that is racist

Show the link please. 

Otherwise, just going to keep a note of this exchange so people can easily see you for a liar in future. 

Edited by Setton
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Setton said:

Show the link please. 

Otherwise, just going to keep a note of this exchange so people can easily see you for a liar in future. 

lol, you do not exactly have many fans here, go ahead post whatever you like, i dare you. lol, your word holds so much weight, lamo

and when you are done, go back and find that link i posted few hours earlier, show them all how stupid you are.

sorry 10 hours ago as of now, go fetch

Edited by aztek
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Black Red Devil
11 hours ago, Dark_Grey said:

Until you can guarantee the people coming over the border have no ill intent, are disease free and have no serious criminal background, allowing the free flowing of people is lunacy. @Myles has a perfectly legitimate point about the walls around his workplace - you can scale the illegal immigration problem down to the residential level and the same concepts apply.

Why do you have locks on your front door? 
Why do you surround your property with fencing?
Why do you invest in alarm systems?

Answer those questions and you have justified a border wall. Why is security from criminals is important enough for your home but not for your nation? These are really basic ideas that for some reason are dismissed when we start talking nationally.

Its not the security requirement that's laughable, it's the comparison he made when you scale it up, that is.  You asked me three questions to convince yourself that you're onto something about how good a wall is and how it offers security in ones home/property and only one (fencing) goes close to it.  The other two have nothing to do with a wall. 

Comparing, your front door can be similar to border control checkpoints that most countries have in place and your alarm systems can be similar to drone and satellite surveillance that are probably what most countries will have in the future.  Your fencing example doesn't have to be this 'big beautiful wall' Trump describes when you scale it up to a border, but it can be simple fences, barriers, ditches that don't cost an arm and a leg.

He made a simple comparison to convince himself (and you) that because one works, so should the other without considering all the larger dynamics involved (politics, finances, law, geography...).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Black Red Devil
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Setton said:

Here is the post again. There is no link. 

If it is there, why not prove how stupid I am and show it? 

You're a liberal provocateur, asking for proof to his claims and arrogantly insisting several times as well.  Your abrasiveness is noted.  Seriously, trying to impede right wing propaganda to freely spread their lies undisturbed, what are you a lefty or something!?  :P

Edited by Black Red Devil
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
13 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

You still aren’t getting it are you?  There might be more that overstay their visa, but that still shows that at least 1/3rd of all illegals are still getting apprehended at the southern border.  As @ouija ouija pointed out, that is just those that have been apprehended.  Many more are not.  So why make the job more difficult than it should be?  If we don’t close the back door and secure it, anything else done is a waste of time and energy.  Close the damn door, then work on the overstays.  This is a big problem.  It’s going to take phases to fix.  Firm up the physical defenses first, then you won’t be playing whack-a-mole later on.  Q.E.D.

 

Yeah dude I do get it and im all for strategically located barriers constructed with congressional blessing and EPA oversight.

Im not for a massive project that waives EPA oversight for the purpose of slapping together a racist vanity project and im certainly against anyone bypassing congress' power of the purse over the issue. The facts simply dont match the panicked rhetoric.

Those are just the broadstrokes of course. You also have the smaller issues like im not a big fan of the government seizing land through eminent domain which is exactly what they will have to do to get the wall they want, the cultures that will be further divided, and the whole ghost of berlin thing.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
8 hours ago, aztek said:

lol, you do not exactly have many fans here, go ahead post whatever you like, i dare you. lol, your word holds so much weight, lamo

and when you are done, go back and find that link i posted few hours earlier, show them all how stupid you are.

sorry 10 hours ago as of now, go fetch

So still nothing. What a surprise. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, Ogbin said:

I agree that all solutions must be looked into thoroughly, especially the ones that sound to good to be true. I also agree with the fact that illegal immigrants and drugs come in in all sorts of ways.. Known fact. My question is to you kind sir is, what is the problem with closing All avenues of entry? The Border needs protecting, all of it. We don't live in an Utopian world just yet. And until we do, it is most wise to protect our country and its citizens, is it not? Yes, beef up our port of entries and improve our vetting procedures, I agree! but how does leaving our borders open for anyone to come through at will and unchecked help solve the problem? it's almost an oxymoronic action is it not? 

So many conversations in this forum it seems like im talking to a person but that person is talking to cut out talking points. This is one of them, actually, this is one of those issues period I think.

Being opposed to a southern border wall, particularly this wall and the methods for its construction, doesnt mean being opposed to border security. We , and based on polling almost all Americans, agree that border security is important. We just disagree on the best methods for America to achieve that. 

 

 

 

Edited by Farmer77
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dumbledore the Awesome
20 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

That's BRILLIANT ! :o

 

That's psycho ology, see. People will obviously assume it's been circled as part of a police investigation. Probably someone was stabbed on that spot. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
11 hours ago, Setton said:

Here is the post again. There is no link. 

If it is there, why not prove how stupid I am and show it? 

How could I possibly refuse such a kind invitation ? 

Here is the link in question. 

https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

It was in the post Aztek made BEFORE the one you quoted :) 

It DOES appear to back Aztek's point. Indeed, if anything Aztek under-stated the size of the problem. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
Posted (edited)

Wall of the Week. 

The Belfast Peace Lines. 

These are a series of walls (some disguised as buildings) between Catholic and Protestant areas in Belfast. They have doors which are opened during the day, but locked closed in the evening. The idea was to separate the two communities in order to prevent intra-community violence. (including riots). 

Did it work ?

Yes.

Indeed, the original walls where erected by the residents themselves. Even today residents in SOME areas have stated a preference for the walls to remain, as they fear renewed attacks if they where to be dismantled. 

Edited by RoofGardener

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
5 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Indeed, the original walls where erected by the residents themselves.

Weird so a wall that people on both sides of wanted worked to keep those people who wanted the wall to separate them separate? Im shocked at that result and how incredibly relevant a parallel it provides to the US :o

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
2 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Weird so a wall that people on both sides of wanted worked to keep those people who wanted the wall to separate them separate? Im shocked at that result and how incredibly relevant a parallel it provides to the US :o

 

You have to remember, @Farmer77, that we ARE talking Ireland here. (albeit Northern Ireland) :P 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
4 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

How could I possibly refuse such a kind invitation ? 

Here is the link in question. 

https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

It was in the post Aztek made BEFORE the one you quoted :) 

It DOES appear to back Aztek's point. Indeed, if anything Aztek under-stated the size of the problem. 

So:

1. Not where he kept claiming it was. 

2. Does not support his claim in the slightest. My query wasn't the number of apprehensions but what proportion of attempts that represents. He claims 100,000 apprehensions must mean many more not apprehended. His link, unsurprisingly, does not support this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
5 minutes ago, Setton said:

So:

1. Not where he kept claiming it was. 

2. Does not support his claim in the slightest. My query wasn't the number of apprehensions but what proportion of attempts that represents. He claims 100,000 apprehensions must mean many more not apprehended. His link, unsurprisingly, does not support this. 

1) Meh.... 

2) Yeeeeeeessss... umm... whilst his citation does NOT support that, are you seriously proposing that the US Border Guards have a 100% interception rate ? If they even managed to achieve a 50% rate (something I would be sceptical of) then that means that Aztek is - broadly - correct ? :) 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
4 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

1) Meh.... 

2) Yeeeeeeessss... umm... whilst his citation does NOT support that, are you seriously proposing that the US Border Guards have a 100% interception rate ? If they even managed to achieve a 50% rate (something I would be sceptical of) then that means that Aztek is - broadly - correct ? :) 

No, i'm saying we don't know the interception rate. So to say 'much more came through' is an unsupported claim. 

As usual, when challenged aztek would prefer to resort to insults and evasion than produce any evidence. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, Setton said:

No, i'm saying we don't know the interception rate. So to say 'much more came through' is an unsupported claim. 

As usual, when challenged aztek would prefer to resort to insults and evasion than produce any evidence. 

I can't help but think you are being somewhat pedantic there, @Setton ? It's obvious that the Border guards won't have a 100% success rate. So many illegals WILL get past them. :)

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/jan/11/does-border-patrol-catch-90-percent-immigrants-cro/

According to THAT article, the Border Security apprehension rate is anywhere between 90% and 20%. 

Edited by RoofGardener
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
3 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

I can't help but think you are being somewhat pedantic there, @Setton ?

You call it pedantic, I call it precise. But mainly it's about calling out aztek's usual false claims drawn out of a single, tangentially related source (if any). 

Quote

It's obvious that the Border guards won't have a 100% success rate. So many illegals WILL get past them. :)

100% is not required for the claim to be wrong. 

The claim was that 'much more than 100,000 are not apprehended.' Obviously 'much' is open to interpretation but I'd say it should be well, well over double. 

Quote

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/jan/11/does-border-patrol-catch-90-percent-immigrants-cro/

 

According to THAT article, the Border Security apprehension rate is anywhere between 90% and 20%

Ah, a source (!) A novelty in this thread, thank you. 

Taking my below-minimum threshold of only a third apprehended, the apprehension rate would have to be below 33%. So based on that source, with a range of 70% and only 13% meeting the threshold, there is approximately an 18% chance of aztek's claim being accurate. My usual threshold at work, to make a definitive statement, is 95%. Just for comparison.. 

Obviously very loose and subjective calculations but there you go. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
9 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

Yeah dude I do get it and im all for strategically located barriers constructed

How ‘bout a barrier strategically placed along a 2000 mile stretch?  Doesn’t matter how big it is.  The integrity of a cell wall in any organism is obvious.  Without the individual cells, there wouldn’t be an organism.  This wall functions in very much the same way.

 

with congressional blessing and EPA oversight.

Never said otherwise.  How many times have I said that wildlife migration patterns need to be identified and provided for?  How many clips are out there where Prog members of Congress have gone on record stating the need of a wall?  And now they don’t want it?  They are reneging on their duties to America and once they have done that, their blessing amounts for nothing.  This is something that needs to get done with or without them.  They can get onboard and have a say of what the final form of the wall will take.  Or they can continue to try to bring down this President and this nation.

 

Im not for a massive project that waives EPA oversight

No one is suggesting otherwise.

 

for the purpose of slapping together

That’s a dishonest description.  This isn’t a project one just slaps together.

 

a racist vanity project

A nation does not exist without a clear defined border.  In this matter, all citizens are highly racist.  At least those that understand the need of such vanity.

 

and im certainly against anyone bypassing congress' power of the purse over the issue.

No one is.  The House’s power of the purse does not always equate to permission.  The funds that the President wants to divert to the wall have already been allocated by Congress and the President has Constitutional powers to divert those funds.  You have to remember that the Legislative and Executive branches are *co-equal*.  It would be nice if they were on the same page.  However, Trump is President.  So goes the President, so goes the Country.  This is a much better path than Obama was taking us on.

 

The facts simply dont match the panicked rhetoric.

We have an open border that is being abused.  We are being played as a cuckold.  How many more facts are needed?

 

Those are just the broadstrokes of course.

Because you refuse to get into and/or ignore the details.  The fact is, is that you hate the President.  This has nothing to do with defending this nation.

 

You also have the smaller issues like im not a big fan of the government seizing land through eminent domain which is exactly what they will have to do to get the wall they want,

Any nation must have this right in order to defend itself.  It can be abused, but here, landowners are reimbursed at a fair market value.  Many along the border are very willing to give up land for a wall.  Many want it.  Plus, we’re talking about a small strip of land that amounts to utility easements that run along properties in cities and towns.  After the wall is constructed, ranchers will still be able to use that land for their cattle and utilize the service roads.  Very much in the way that government/ranching cooperate elsewhere.  You’re trying to make a big deal where there isn’t one.

 

the cultures that will be further divided,

This doesn’t separate the cultures.  The only two involved are American and Mexican and they usually have simple border crossings for residents.  That probably won’t change.

 

and the whole ghost of berlin thing.

Except it’s not.  The Berlin wall kept people in and ideas out.  This was a prison.  Our southern border wall is to keep out unwanted and uncontrolled mass migrations; keeping out poverty, disease, and crime.  It doesn’t prevent people from leaving or even from legally coming in.  You seem to have difficulty understanding the difference??

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
10 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

Being opposed to a southern border wall, particularly this wall and the methods for its construction, doesnt mean being opposed to border security.

In other words, because you hate this President so much, you’ll cut off your nose to spite your face.  You fail to see, that here is a man willing to get it done after years of neglect.  We should be harnessing this energy and not playing partisan politics.

 

We , and based on polling almost all Americans, agree that border security is important. We just disagree on the best methods for America to achieve that. 

Most people do not understand what it takes to defend a border.  “Border Security” is some magical phrase that really has no meaning to most.  Most just think of a guy standing around that’ll just happen to catch every one that crosses the border.  You cannot have border security without a wall.  But the Progs and MSM confuse people.  The facts are that the Progs do not want a wall, because it cuts off their voter base.  And the Establishment Republicans don’t want it because it cuts out cheap labor.  Well, that’s not good enough.  If there was no wall, you’d need a body about every 10 yards (argument sake).  That’s almost 344k sets of boots, then you add 3 shifts comes to a little more than a million.  That’s not a very efficient plan.

 

Don’t you think it is pretty amazing that the Border Patrol just happens to catch a large number crossing at night on film?  They must be pretty good at what they do.  Well, another group that is pretty good at what they do is the Coyotes.  They know where the Border Patrol sets up and they make a production to draw the attention of the Border patrol as they move drugs across in a different location.  Without a wall, this tactic is simple to deploy.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ogbin
11 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

Being opposed to a southern border wall,

What is the better solution? Is there a more efficient way of securing the unsecured border area's? What is it that you in mind? And remember, no talking points allowed, only solutions.;)

11 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

particularly this wall and the methods for its construction,

Would you prefer a 3ft. tall white picket fence instead? We could even take the latch off of the gate for easier entry.

11 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

We , and based on polling almost all Americans, agree that border security is important.

How many times is the foundation going to be laid? How about a solution other than the wall that you and so many others say is not the answer, even though it is the most efficient solution at this moment. 

11 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

We just disagree on the best methods for America to achieve that. 

Do we? I would like to find a solution that is effective and Everyone agrees on. But that involves both sides coming together to work for a common goal. I know.. to much to ask for, but it's the only way things will get done most efficiently and effectively. I have yet to hear you tell me what the better alternative is. You do have one, right? If not that's ok. You can continue using talking points to show that accomplishing nothing is what the Left and its sheeple are focused on and set out to do.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
4 hours ago, Setton said:

You call it pedantic, I call it precise. But mainly it's about calling out aztek's usual false claims drawn out of a single, tangentially related source (if any). 

100% is not required for the claim to be wrong. 

The claim was that 'much more than 100,000 are not apprehended.' Obviously 'much' is open to interpretation but I'd say it should be well, well over double. 

Ah, a source (!) A novelty in this thread, thank you. 

Taking my below-minimum threshold of only a third apprehended, the apprehension rate would have to be below 33%. So based on that source, with a range of 70% and only 13% meeting the threshold, there is approximately an 18% chance of aztek's claim being accurate. My usual threshold at work, to make a definitive statement, is 95%. Just for comparison.. 

Obviously very loose and subjective calculations but there you go. 

I am 70% confident that 67% of your statistics are only 35% accurate ! :D 

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.