I asked you back on page 3 to give your analysis of the border bill that Trump killed, what you thought was bad about it and where it fell short and you haven't done so yet. It's almost like you aren't interested in actual conversation about policy.
Border walls are no longer racist
- Thread starter Croatoan
- Start date
- Replies: 261
- Views: 4K
ZenMode
Honored Member
- Messages
- 880
You don't know enough? Really? You can't say that walls, whether they be those that enclose your home, a business, or the border, are effective in physically slowing human movement? Hell, there's research that shows that easily circumvented barriers are effective due to the psychological impact, but you just can't figure out if 10-20 foot walls have any impact on the movement of people from point A to point B?
Not only are you not as reasonable as you claim, you are apparently also dishonest.
I didn't move goalposts. The discussion evolved.
TarHeelGrad
Exceptional Member
- Messages
- 202
I'll take logical fallacies for $1000, Alex.
rodoheel
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,084
Yes, it's a good idea to go back through the thread and see which posts Croatoan *hasn't* responded to because he has no credible response.
- Messages
- 178
If I wanted to discuss the policy particulars, I would’ve poasted about the policy particulars. I didn’t. I poasted:
“…the argument that the border wall and anyone that supported its construction were racist has been made many times on these boards, often by the very same usernames that seem to be the most vociferous of Harris supporters. As someone who has contunuously supported the construction of a wall as a part of efforts to increase control of illegal immigration, I’d be interested in hearing from those who have made that argument in the past. Do they hide behind the “it’s just a compromise” nonsense, have they changed their opinions on the issue, or are they okay with just a little racism in order to pick up a few votes? That’s a fair question to ask after years of being labeled racist, no?”
Do you see the difference?
I don't think the argument is about whether a wall has ever stopped someone at any point in time. I think it's more about if spending billions of dollars on a wall at the border is an effective use of money to solve the unauthorized immigration problem. I am highly skeptical that a wall will do anything to deter the drug smugglers and human traffickers that the right is so worried about from coming across. Do you really think if we built a wall across the entire border it would stop illegal immigration?
That said, since it's apparently an important policy point for you all, Harris and the Democrats included a provision for it in the bi-partisan border bill and you called it dysfunctional. Do you want a wall or not? Do you want immigration reform or not?
Ok. If I grant to you that some people on the old ZZL message board called it racist (not Harris, but message board posters), will you then move on to explain to me why you are against the provisions in the border bill?
heelinhell
Honored Member
- Messages
- 825
Frustrating isn't it ?
It is very difficult to find a MAGA poster who is substantively informed and able to engage in a discussion about issues and policies.
Last edited:
CFordUNC
Inconceivable Member
- Messages
- 3,288
You could have saved yourself a whole lot of keystrokes by simply saying: "I am too much of a coward to have policy discussions with, or answer rebuttals from, people who are much smarter than me."
A wall accomplished little and was a waste of money. Beefed up processing and personnel on the border might help. The great, big, beautiful wall was (and continues to be) a stupid political stunt by unserious politicians who generally don't care if the border is "fixed".
superrific
Inconceivable Member
- Messages
- 3,053
You truly are a piece of work. Yes, walls slow physical movement. That's not the issue. Your claim was that they slow movement so the border patrol can respond. I am confident that the border patrol does not generally respond to wire cutting out in the middle of nowhere. I don't know what the response times are for urban areas, which is why I said I didn't know.
To recap. You said that walls work because they slow down border crossers enough to allow the border patrol to apprehend them. I said that was nonsense, for the obvious reasons. Then you moved the goalposts to highly populated areas. Now you're moving the goalposts again to the issue of whether barriers slow movement.
Why can't you just address your original claim instead of serially retreating and hurling silly accusations in the process?
LOL at the discussion evolved. It didn't evolve. All that happened was that I challenged (and mocked, deservedly) your statement. Then you reformulated it. And again. And now you think the discussion has "evolved" into one about whether walls impair physical movement in some way. That's not evolving. That's you retreating.
I'm done with this discussion. I'm not going to waste my time on people like you.
ZenMode
Honored Member
- Messages
- 880
You are backtracking and continuing to be dishonest. I said nothing about "in the middle of nowhere" and you weren't talking about the middle of nowhere either:
" I have no opinion about walls in high population border areas. I don't know enough (note: reasonable people don't talk about that which they don't know)."
I see no reason to continue this conversation.
- Messages
- 224
This thread is a masterclass in shifting goalposts...
"Ha, now you all have to eat your words about border walls being racist!"
Errrr, no. We never said border walls are racist. We said the call to build border walls was a dog whistle to excite racists to vote. The walls themselves are just an idiotic waste of money. But the reason Trump backed them was to bring out the racist vote.
"Ha, whatever. I'm not even going to discuss that with you because this whole topic, is just a sad attempt by Harris to address a problem at the 11th hour that her admin has been ignoring for 3 years."
Errrr, no. This was a solution raised by a VERY Republican Congressman from a VERY Republican state, who was tired of the problem not being addressed so he worked on a bipartisan proposal.
"Ha, whatever. I'm not even going to discuss that with you because this whole topic, is just a sad attempt by Harris to put forward a toothless proposal that will not have any impact!"
Errrr, no. This was a solution crafted by a VERY Republican Congressman from a VERY Republican state, who was tired of the problem not being addressed so he worked on a bipartisan proposal.
"Ha, whatever. I'm not even going to discuss that with you because you said that only a racist would support a wall, and here Harris is proposing we spend more money on building walls!"
Errrr, no. We never said only a racist would support border walls. We said the call to build border walls was a dog whistle to excite racists to vote. The walls themselves are just an idiotic waste of money. As for the idea that Harris is backing building walls, one could only draw that conclusion if they had zero understanding of how bipartisan legislation works... where each side gives in on things they do not feel are outrightly harmful (but do not back), in order to get the other side to do the same.
"Ha, whatever. I'm not even going to discuss that with you because you said that border walls are never effective. Look at this selectively cut video where it appears a wall might have been useful in a very limited scenario!"
Errrr, no. We never said border walls can never be effective. We said walls overall are an idiotic waste of money, as there are MUCH more effective ways to spend the same money and have a bigger impact.
"Ha, you said it's possible walls could have a marginal impact in certain circumstances. Clearly I've been right all along!"
Oh for ****'s sake, I give up...
"Ha, now you all have to eat your words about border walls being racist!"
Errrr, no. We never said border walls are racist. We said the call to build border walls was a dog whistle to excite racists to vote. The walls themselves are just an idiotic waste of money. But the reason Trump backed them was to bring out the racist vote.
"Ha, whatever. I'm not even going to discuss that with you because this whole topic, is just a sad attempt by Harris to address a problem at the 11th hour that her admin has been ignoring for 3 years."
Errrr, no. This was a solution raised by a VERY Republican Congressman from a VERY Republican state, who was tired of the problem not being addressed so he worked on a bipartisan proposal.
"Ha, whatever. I'm not even going to discuss that with you because this whole topic, is just a sad attempt by Harris to put forward a toothless proposal that will not have any impact!"
Errrr, no. This was a solution crafted by a VERY Republican Congressman from a VERY Republican state, who was tired of the problem not being addressed so he worked on a bipartisan proposal.
"Ha, whatever. I'm not even going to discuss that with you because you said that only a racist would support a wall, and here Harris is proposing we spend more money on building walls!"
Errrr, no. We never said only a racist would support border walls. We said the call to build border walls was a dog whistle to excite racists to vote. The walls themselves are just an idiotic waste of money. As for the idea that Harris is backing building walls, one could only draw that conclusion if they had zero understanding of how bipartisan legislation works... where each side gives in on things they do not feel are outrightly harmful (but do not back), in order to get the other side to do the same.
"Ha, whatever. I'm not even going to discuss that with you because you said that border walls are never effective. Look at this selectively cut video where it appears a wall might have been useful in a very limited scenario!"
Errrr, no. We never said border walls can never be effective. We said walls overall are an idiotic waste of money, as there are MUCH more effective ways to spend the same money and have a bigger impact.
"Ha, you said it's possible walls could have a marginal impact in certain circumstances. Clearly I've been right all along!"
Oh for ****'s sake, I give up...
CFordUNC
Inconceivable Member
- Messages
- 3,288
This thread is a masterclass in shifting goalposts...
"Ha, now you all have to eat your words about border walls being racist!"
Errrr, no. We never said border walls are racist. We said the call to build border walls was a dog whistle to excite racists to vote. The walls themselves are just an idiotic waste of money. But the reason Trump backed them was to bring out the racist vote.
"Ha, whatever. I'm not even going to discuss that with you because this whole topic, is just a sad attempt by Harris to address a problem at the 11th hour that her admin has been ignoring for 3 years."
Errrr, no. This was a solution raised by a VERY Republican Congressman from a VERY Republican state, who was tired of the problem not being addressed so he worked on a bipartisan proposal.
"Ha, whatever. I'm not even going to discuss that with you because this whole topic, is just a sad attempt by Harris to put forward a toothless proposal that will not have any impact!"
Errrr, no. This was a solution crafted by a VERY Republican Congressman from a VERY Republican state, who was tired of the problem not being addressed so he worked on a bipartisan proposal.
"Ha, whatever. I'm not even going to discuss that with you because you said that only a racist would support a wall, and here Harris is proposing we spend more money on building walls!"
Errrr, no. We never said only a racist would support border walls. We said the call to build border walls was a dog whistle to excite racists to vote. The walls themselves are just an idiotic waste of money. As for the idea that Harris is backing building walls, one could only draw that conclusion if they had zero understanding of how bipartisan legislation works... where each side gives in on things they do not feel are outrightly harmful (but do not back), in order to get the other side to do the same.
"Ha, whatever. I'm not even going to discuss that with you because you said that border walls are never effective. Look at this selectively cut video where it appears a wall might have been useful in a very limited scenario!"
Errrr, no. We never said border walls can never be effective. We said walls overall are an idiotic waste of money, as there are MUCH more effective ways to spend the same money and have a bigger impact.
"Ha, you said it's possible walls could have a marginal impact in certain circumstances. Clearly I've been right all along!"
Oh for ****'s sake, I give up...
superrific
Inconceivable Member
- Messages
- 3,053
Of course you did. You wrote, and I quote for the second time, "Walls work. It's not that you can't find a way over/through a wall, but it takes time to get over/through and in that time, border patrol can get there and apprehend them. "
That is a statement of universal scope. You did not say that "walls work in urban environments." You said they work, which means they work everywhere. In addition, you wrote that in response to a comment that "the wall is a boondoggle." We were, of course, referring all along to the Trump border wall, which was the subject of the thread.
When I pointed out that your general statement was ridiculous, you then retreated to this idea of a high population area. That more limited, revised statement is a bit more plausible, and I don't know enough to assess whether it's true or not true. Neither do you.
Why can't you just admit that your first statement about how "walls work" was overbroad, instead of doubling and tripling down on your stupid? Everyone can see right through you. Do you get aroused from self-humiliation? Is that it? You could have said, "I misspoke. I meant to refer only to walls like the one in El Paso." Alas. Stupid is as stupid does.
- Messages
- 420
I think Coatoan is a bank teller named Matt.
SnoopRob
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,308
Huh, I had a different guess...but upon reflection yours might be the right one.
SnoopRob
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,308
Fellow Zizzlers, this man came here with a dishonest and idiotic point to make and your continued efforts to engage in fact-based discussion will not stop him from his mission. Do you not understand that?