Thread: It’s time for Congress to fund the Mollie Tibbetts border wall

Originally Posted by jtdc

Are you a (MOD Edit) who believes that we can give free healthcare to everybody because government has unlimited money?

I see you are back to your old nonsense.




JWK

Originally Posted by jtdc;1612794[B

]Sorry, but the military knows what they want, but not what they need[/B]. That is why they want F35s regardless of the cost. When you aren't paying for your supplies you want the absolute best money can buy. Congress is supposed to mind the wallet.

The budget, that Congress passed and the President signed, financed them. So it all comes from Congress, per the Constitution!

About those F35's--- it was Congress and Trump who wanted those ---the military often wants to cut cost, but Congress will not let them because it might shut down a cash cow in their district. Yeah, Congress is suppose to mind the wallett, but instead they do a bang up job of wasting the money.

----------------------------
One of the biggest boosts in funding is for aircraft. In all, the Pentagon would get 143 additional planes, bringing the total of aircraft procurement spending to $44 billion, a 27 percent increase over the White House budget request. The big winner is Lockheed Martin, which manufactures the stealth F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
After initially criticizing the cost of the F-35 as the most expensive weapons program in the history of the Pentagon, Trump at a separate event on Thursday praised the jet as “that beautiful F-35. It’s stealth, you cannot see it. Is that correct? It better be correct.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...=.6c8da6c7369b

Originally Posted by jtdc

That's an extrapolation of the troops on the DMZ, which is only 160 miles long, expanded to 2000 miles.

It doesn't take the Border Patrol as many as the military would use. But we know they are not as effective as full military control.

Like what? The difference in manpower and cost in a controlled border between two countries and a militarized border between enemies.

I don't disagree! It is about the cost of having a wall versus armed personnel as a virtual fence. The wall is more cost efficient!

So you approve of the US having 23,458 of our military on the DMZ, but not even one guarding our own Southern Border.

We are not arguing the cost of the Wall verses armed personnell---I clearly said give the military what they need, if they need a Wall, give them a Wall. If the Wall will allow less troops, after it is built then that is great. Why are you against our military protecting our own country?

Out military built the Alaska Highway in LESS THAN 10 MONTHS due to fear of Japanese invasion.

If they were authorized to build that...they CAN build the damn WALL.

Now get them down there to do it!

Set up an account we can make donations to pay for supplies!

We already PAY our military paychecks!

We already PAY our reservists paychecks!

WE HAVE THOUSANDS OF AMERICANS WHO WILL GET DOWN AND HELP BUILD IT WITH NO PAY!

GET IT DONE AND THROW THESE ILLEGAL ALIENS OUT!

NO ASYLUM AT OUR BORDER!

Originally Posted by johnwk

(MOD Edit) Stop making stuff up!

What did I make up?

Originally Posted by johnwk

I see you are back to your old nonsense.

I see that as usual, when you can present an argument, you resort to put downs, then cry (MOD Edit) when someone puts you down for your ignorance!

Originally Posted by stoptheinvaders

About those F35's--- it was Congress and Trump who wanted those

What planet are you on? The F-35 has be around long before President Trump. He got Lockheed-Martin to renegotiate the price of the F-35. Likewise he got Boeing to reduce the price of the replacement Air Force Ones.

YOU ARE WRONG! The military wanted the F-35 and Congress has given them a blank check, until President Trump put a stop to that.

Originally Posted by stoptheinvaders

the military often wants to cut cost

The military only wants to cut costs when their budget is cut.

Originally Posted by stoptheinvaders

but Congress will not let them because it might shut down a cash cow in their district.

Yes, they compete to get large projects to their individual states.

Originally Posted by stoptheinvaders

Yeah, Congress is suppose to mind the wallett, but instead they do a bang up job of wasting the money.

And they don't limit that waste to only the military!

Originally Posted by stoptheinvaders

After initially criticizing the cost of the F-35 as the most expensive weapons program in the history of the Pentagon, Trump at a separate event on Thursday praised the jet as “that beautiful F-35. It’s stealth, you cannot see it. Is that correct? It better be correct.”

YOUR SPIN! This is not a reversal. When he said it was too expensive, he didn't say it wasn't a good plane. And that he praises it does not mean he has reversed his position on the cost.

Another example of your stealth opposition to President Trump!

Originally Posted by stoptheinvaders

So you approve of the US having 23,458 of our military on the DMZ, but not even one guarding our own Southern Border.

Get someone to explain things to you. I have repeatedly said I am for a wall! I am for putting troops on the border until the wall is built. And as I wrote "The difference in manpower and cost in a controlled border between two countries and a militarized border between enemies."

Originally Posted by stoptheinvaders

We are not arguing the cost of the Wall verses armed personnell---I clearly said give the military what they need, if they need a Wall, give them a Wall.

THE BORDER PATROL WANTS A WALL. Why is your obsession that only the military should make the decision of troops over a wall? IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE THE BORDER PATROL THAT IS IN CHARGE OF PROTECTING THE BORDER!

Originally Posted by stoptheinvaders

If the Wall will allow less troops, after it is built then that is great. Why are you against our military protecting our own country?

(MOD Edit) Where have I said I am against the military protecting our country? You seem to want the military to be our solution to everything.

Originally Posted by jtdc

What did I make up?

I see that as usual, when you can present an argument, you resort to put downs, then cry (MOD Edit) when someone puts you down (MOD Edit)

You are the one who suggested ". . . llegal aliens are the only ones committing rape, homicide, assaults . . . "
Stop making crap up.

JWK

Originally Posted by johnwk

You are the one who suggested ". . . llegal aliens are the only ones committing rape, homicide, assaults . . . "
Stop making crap up.

JWK

(MOD Edit)

If you were intelligent enough to read the whole paragraph you lifted that quote from, you would have noticed that "I'm for the wall, but looking at the post on this forum, " preceded what you chose to respond to here. I clearly said the posts on this forum would indicate that.

Are you that devoid of intelligent argument that you have to make up lies about what I say in order to have something to argue against?

Originally Posted by jtdc

NO!

I know it is a feel good idea, but a wall would not have prevented Mollie Tibbets' murder. If someone can get into the country and stay, because whether it is a sanctuary law allowing them to be free from deportation or a catch and release law which also lets then be free from deportation, a wall is merely an impedance.

Instead we need a Mollie Tibbets law that mandates that illegal aliens are incarcerated until deported!

So you are not for a wall, and you are not for the military on the border to try and prevent them from entering, but you are for locking them up.

Yes, the ones who get in need to be locked up, but why are you against preventing them from entering?

You are concerned about the cost of a wall or the military, but don't you want to prevent the cost of locking millions up, by impeding their entrance?