Excellent!

Reminds me of the old lawyer joke: What do you call 50 lawyers tied together and weighted down with cement blocks at the bottom of the ocean? A good start.

I feel even better when I see photos of it aafter it's errected.

"A fence will slow people down by a minute or two, but if you don't have the agents to stop them it does no good. We're not talking about some impenetrable barrier," T.J. Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Council, a union representing Border Patrol agents, said Wednesday.

Sens. John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchison, both Texas Republicans, had wanted to amend the fence bill to give local governments more say about where fencing is erected. They lost that battle, but Republican leaders assured them the Homeland Security Department would have flexibility to choose other options instead of fencing, if needed.

Cornyn said he voted for the fence because he wanted to help demonstrate that Congress was serious about border security.

"The choice we were presented was: Are we going to vote to enhance border security, or against it?" Cornyn said. "I think that's how the vote was viewed."

So, the bill signing was just a political show to help repub's in the coming election.

Pissing even more money away there W...
a $1.2 billion down payment on another boondoggle.
So I say again for what?

Just think of how many miles of useless fence we could have built with the missing 9 billion dollars.

May be could do like we do in Iraq, have tanks and hummvee's mounted with 50 cal machine guns blasting away at anyone who is brown skinned.

Where is the fiscal responsibility your so proud of boys? Is fiscal responsibility still one of your values?

How about plain ol' common sense?

You call us Moonbats?

Please.

Great election time photo op. I am sure Halliburton will get the contract to build the fence. It will be over budget and full of holes.

Are Republicans planning on banning on shovel imports into Mexico? Even the Berlin Wall only slowed migration it did not stop it. And the East Germans were being shot at.

Put the President of Walmart in jail if they are caught hiring illegals. That will make a dent in this problem. But they wont, because they are big Republican contributors.

So Raker what do you propose?
I assume you suggest placing the hostesses at Applebees at the border and just welcome illegal aliens into the country and get them utensils and instead of napkins, the forms necessary to have them illegally use border states' welfare resources.

Trust me, just tonight there was confirmation that beefed up border security in San Diego has dramatically reduced illegal crossings there.

But then again, you along with your Democrat buddies are slowly being prevented from letting the dead and dogs vote, so you need to get illegals to vote instead.

You're the pathetic one. You're out to support Democrats who offer only a welcome mat at our borders and then say you wanna get tough on stopping terrorism EXCEPT stopping them from sneaking in through the southern and northern border. Either you're stupid or grossly incompetent AND ill-informed.

Wawilliyo,

You just don't get it do you? Its time we accept our dhimmitude, our entrance into the third world...this is what the dems long for.

Its just not fair that we have more than anyone else. Its time we take from the rich and give to the poor of the world so that we can all suffer equally.

It not, and never has been, about equality of opportunity its all about equality of outcome...leveling the field.

Are you against egalitarianism?? Its for the children. You're not against the children are you????

It's for world peace and the environment...you're not against the environement are you?

The liberal left knows best. Surrender now...resistance is futile.

whewwww. I was just channeling Shipley...or was it another moonbat...No difference.

I had Hannity and Colmes on in the background for a while tonight, and heard two examples of the bizarre statements Libs feel so free to make as if they were making any sense.

Colmes opined, after a bit on the fence near San Diego, that it didn't work at all. Why didn't it work, you ask? Well, says Mr. Intelligence, it doesn't work BECAUSE...drum roll...the illegals just go to a place without a fence.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes, Mr. Smarty Pants Colmes could not figure out that the REASON the illegals went somehwere else to cross is precisely BECAUSE it works! If it didn't work, they would continue to cross at the same place! But no, now they have to cross AT A PLACE THAT DOESN'T HAVE A FENCE!

And he smirks that smug smirk that says he thinks he really scored a home run on that one!

And to the wild-eyed radical Left, he made perfect sense.

(Question: What would they do if there was a fence all along the border? Just curious...)

But then there was the guy who also thought he was making a brilliant point by quoting Reagan's comment to Gorby about tearing down that wall. he didn't merely quote Reagan, doncha know---he DECLAIMED, with great drama and vigor, imitating Reagan as he demanded that they "tear down this wall". Ooooh, I just got goose bumps!

But the dope doesn't seem to know the difference between keeping people in and keeping people out.

Tell me, you Lefties who think this kind of pap makes sense---do you lock your houses when you leave? Or at night? Or ever?

How about locking people IN?

Do you see the slightest difference between locking your house to keep intruders OUT, and waiting till you have people in your house and then locking the doors to keep them IN?

Because if you don't, I ain't coming to dinner.

The fact that you guys fall back on such useless, stupid, pointless arguments---the fact that you are so desperate, or clueless, that you are willing to make such stupid, useless, pointless arguments---is precisely why I am not too worried about this upcoming election, or any other. Even if we lose a seat here and there, now and then, as long as this is the best you can come up with, I'm very unflustered.

Amazed sometimes, but not what you would call worried....

raker---are you claiming that border control is just for the "brown skinned"? Really? Care to back that up?

What if a bunch of Russians, or Finns, or Serbs tried to sneak across? Would we wave them on in and only stop the "brown skinned" ones behind them?

Or shoot them?

Because we have geniuses like you to inform us that the true goal is not to stop terrorists from strolling across the border, but really just to indulge in some mindless anti-Hispanic racism. And it's not as if there are any Muslims in Bosnia or Serbia, you know, who might be inclined to join their "dark-skinned" brothers in Islam to try to wipe us off the map.

When you lock your car, are you only trying to keep out certain races, creeds, or colors? Or are you just concerned about the security of your property?

When you lock up your house, is that a racist act? If 80% of all the burglaries in your city were committed by Persians, would you be anti-Persian if you checked that dead bolt before heading off to work?

If you went to Rome and made sure to keep your wallet in the inside coat pocket of your jacket to thwart pickpockets,would that make you anti-Italian?

Don't you people ever get tired of just being so damned dumb?

An obvious election-year ploy by the do-nothing
republican congress. Not even fully funded-
they've only authorized enough for 300 miles
of fence.

Wanna stop the illegals? Take away their incentive
penalize the big corps. who are luring these
guys across the border and (gasp!) invest a
few bucks in the Mexican economy.

Just like the 1994 Contract on America, the Constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage and flag burning, the overturning of Roe v. Wade, etc, etc, etc ... This 700-mile wall will never see the light of day even if the Republicans retain control of both houses.

Almiranta,

Don't you see that it doesn't matter what the Republican Congress and the President does, it is wrong.

If we were to build a wall the entire length of the border to prevent people from breaking our laws and ENTERING OUR COUNTRY ILLEGALLY, they would be against it.

If we captured and deported all of those who are IN OUR COUNTRY ILLEGALLY, the would be against it.

If we use intelligence programs, either authorized by Congress or under the Constitution, to detect and apprehend terrorists, they are against it.

If we want our law enforcement and intelligence agencies to have the same tool to fight terrorism as they have to fight organized crime, they are against it.

If we capture terrorists and detain them so they cannot plan and execute attacks against our military, or us here in America, they are against it (of course they don't explain what we should be doing with the terrorists we capture, that's our problem).

If we want to fight all terrorism, not just those who planned and executed the 9/11 attacks, they are against it (never mind that those who executed the attacks are dead and the mastermind has been captured).

If we want voters to show some identification to prove who they are so we can prevent voter fraud, they are against it (I wonder why that is?).

If we want Americans to keep more of the money they earn, instead of giving it to the government to waste, they are against it.

If we want to become more energy independent by drilling for oil in uninhabited areas in Alaska and offshore, they are against it.

If we want to become more energy independant by expanding our use of nuclear energy and wind farms, they are against it.

If we want to prevent doctors from sucking the brains out of babies as they are being born, they are against it.

If we want to define marriage as being between one man and one woman, they are against it (if marriage can be between one man and another man, or one woman and another woman, why can't it be between one man and two, three, or more women, or one woman and two, three, or more men. Why stop at man/man or woman/woman marriages?).

If we want to reform Social Security so that will be solvent in the future, they are against it.

If we want to appoint judges and justices who interpret the Constitution and apply the law, rather than make laws, they are against it.

If we want to appoint individuals to look out for America's best interests, rather than the interests of the rest of the world, they are against it.

If we want to allow the free exercise of religion, as guaranteed by the 1st Amendment to the Consititution, they are against it.

If we want to ensure equal opportunity for all Americans and not give some groups preferential treatment, they are against it.

Do you detect a pattern?

What's sad A-10, is that the media refuses to show these contrasts or to report ANYTHING like the truth about EVEN a quarter of the things you point out.

To me, the fact that they want power more than an actual PLAN for government shows their hypocrisy and any reasonable person (and Tom Shipley's proving his new found moral outrage over Foley was actual just Republican hatred as he's a big fan of Jim Webb writing about a father sexually abusing his young son) as the polls show that the unfavorables of most Democrats are right there with most Republicans.

I keep forgetting I'm posting in a cult of Bush site.

Sorry.

I thought y'all was and wanted free thinkin' 'mericans.

A 700-mile fence to protect a 4,000 mile border. Yeah, that ought to do it.

Hmmm,

"A 700-mile fence to protect a 4,000 mile border. Yeah, that ought to do it."

Let's see. The border is actually 1951 miles long, so the left has exagerated it by a factor of 2. About normal for a liberal. You'd think they'd check their facts before posting false comments.

Oh, wait. I forgot. They never check their facts. Liberals are factually challenged.

Anyway, I figure a 700 mile fence is a great start. By the time they start building it, Congress can authorize $$$$ for the other 1251 miles.

Besides with a 700 miles fence, which just so happens to be the length of the border from San Diego to where the Rio Grande forms the border (or that of California, Arizona, and New Mexico), illegals will have to either try to negotiate the fence/wall, sneak across at an official border crossing, or swim the Rio Grande. When we see an army of illegals walking east on the Mexico side of the fence to go around it, we'll know exactly what they're up to. NO GOOD.

But you see, A-10, part of being a Liberal (the most illiberal group on the planet, by the way) is demanding that something is either 100% perfect or it is 100% wrong---at least when talking about anything promoted by the Right.

So if, for example, 5 million people crossed the southern border illegally every year, and our efforts reduced that number to 500,000, our efforts would be a FAILURE!!! Just another example of conservative idiocy, blah blah blah.

It's this insistence on a Utopian outcome that cripples them so. Because if it can't be executed perfectly, the first time, immediately, it's not worth trying at all, and is a FAILURE!!!!

Which, I believe, is why they never try to DO anything. It is far too risky. No, their position is to sit back and watch the courageous and visionary Other Guy try, and then to hamper him, interfere with everything he tries to do, ridicule him, taunt him, mistrepresent what he is attempting, misrepresent what he is accomplishing, redefine words to try to prove the failure of his efforts, and generally be speed bumps.

To a Liberal, success is not allowing something to happen. Without doing anything that can traced back to him, in the process. A Liberal's dream world would be one that is totally static, so no one would ever have to be responsible for anything. And the default position of the Left when faced with a problem or a dilemma is not to find an answer or a solution, but to find someone to blame.

Almiranta,

Excellent analysis of the liberal, alternate universe.

The more I think about it, the more I think that liberalism is in fact a mental illness. At first, when Dr Michael Savage was using the phrase to get both the left and right excited, I passed it off as typical Michael Savage. But when I see liberals deny the facts, deny their bias, and take positions on issues that contradict their stance on related issues, I'm really starting to believe they may be suffering from a type of mental illness.

Its sad how some, otherwise intelligent people, can be so far out of the mainstream of America and yet believe they are speaking for all Americans. They have lied about their beliefs, to themsleves, to their friends, and to their families, for so long, they don't know right from wrong. So sad.

Have any of you moonbats ever been down to the border??? If you had you'd know that there are several popluar crossing points, which happen to be near towns. These are the area that will be fenced.

Big Bend National park will not be fenced. Why? because there is anatural barrier there. No need to put up a fence. Other areas are so desolate that the illegals will have a hard time crossing if they even try.

What is really interesting is that Latin American nations, as well as leftists in the country, are absolutely opposed to it...saying that it won't work. Well if it won't work why are they against it??

Because illegals send about 50 BILLION DOLLARS per year back to their countries of origin. This is money sucked out of our economy, untaxed and remitted to theirs. Last year Mexico got an infusion of over $20 Billion, Brazil got $7 Billion.

Another good start would be to place a remitance tax on these monetary transfers, that are not directly tied to the commerce. Most countries in the world already do this. A tax of 10% would generate $5 Billion per year and help offset the cost of the illegals that are already here.