Conservative Philosophy on Border Security

Conservative Philosophy on Border Security (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

joether -> Conservative Philosophy on Border Security (7/9/2014 9:50:40 AM)
I have a question about the understanding of the conservative philosophy as it relates to border security.... Often I hear many a conservative wish, desire, demand, and yes, even threaten the nation to be a "limited government". And while not one conservative has yet to fully explain what that would mean to myself. I'm confronted by another concept from the same philosophy: tighter border security. I do not see how these two concepts, 'Tighter Border Security' and 'Limited Government' could operate together. Since 'Tighter Border Security' would mean more people being paid with government funds (local, state, and/or federal). And that those of 'Limited Government' want less people in government (i.e. less people being paid government money). Could some of the conservatives on here, whom have been raging against the President for tighter border security, while at the same time, demanding limited government, explain how this apparent contradiction can possibly operate in a sane fashion?

subrob1967 -> RE: Conservative Philosophy on Border Security (7/9/2014 10:24:31 AM)
quote: CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: Alright, here's what I've been on for years. You start with a fence. It's very simple. People say, 'Oh, fences don't work. You make a ladder.' Well, then you build two fences, triple strand fences. San Diego did that in the mid 90's and within a decade, the illegal immigration rate at that point was reduced by 90% and people ended up going through other places like Arizona. Heres your answer Joey

subrob1967 -> RE: Conservative Philosophy on Border Security (7/9/2014 10:27:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 quote: CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: Alright, here's what I've been on for years. You start with a fence. It's very simple. People say, 'Oh, fences don't work. You make a ladder.' Well, then you build two fences, triple strand fences. San Diego did that in the mid 90's and within a decade, the illegal immigration rate at that point was reduced by 90% and people ended up going through other places like Arizona. Heres your answer Joey Not to mention we could always move funds and personnel from any of the many duplicate federal agencies to border security which wouldn't increase the size of government one iota... But you progressive can't stand thought of a limited government, and fight the idea every step of the way.

Arturas -> RE: Conservative Philosophy on Border Security (7/9/2014 10:56:22 AM)
quote: I do not see how these two concepts, 'Tighter Border Security' and 'Limited Government' could operate together. Since 'Tighter Border Security' would mean more people being paid with government funds (local, state, and/or federal). And that those of 'Limited Government' want less people in government (i.e. less people being paid government money). Limited Government means limited to the Constitutional purpose for forming this nation. The Government is allowed and required to perform these functions with none more important than the other. 1) Establish justice. (the law, the courts, enforcement) 2) Insure Domestic Tranquility. (peace within) 3) Common Defense. (militia, armed forces) 4) Promote the general welfare (transportation, commerce) 5) Secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. James Madison wrote about the General Welfare clause, saying that giving Congress the ability to tax and spend without focus on their Constitutional limits will basically allow them to makes exceptions without limit. So, this means that General Welfare is not welfare for the poor. Nor is it health benefits for those who cannot pay for them by forcing others (remember the blessing of liberty?) to pay for them in taxes or forced premiums. So, Conservatives are for making the government do what it is supposed to do and nothing else because doing anything else always takes the blessings of liberty away from some to do something else for another group. This is Obamacare. With Obamacare, one must pay a premium for health insurance if you are a citizen. You are forced. Forced is not a blessing of liberty, it is the opposite. It is treason. So, provide for the common defense by taking money away from those things the Government does that it is not Constitutionally allowed to do. Limit Government to those things it was originally supposed to do. Such as protect our borders. btw. Duh.

Arturas -> RE: Conservative Philosophy on Border Security (7/9/2014 11:00:17 AM)
This is why you hear in the press about the Speaker of the House suing the President and others calling for his impeachment. It is because he has violated his oath of office by not enforcing the laws of these United States and not fulfilling his primary duty as Chief Executive and Commander and Chief of the Armed Forced to protect our borders. Just that simple.

Musicmystery -> RE: Conservative Philosophy on Border Security (7/9/2014 11:20:13 AM)
Washington and Colorado are breaking federal law by legalizing pot. Should the justice department crack down? It's the law of the land . . .

Zonie63 -> RE: Conservative Philosophy on Border Security (7/9/2014 11:23:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether I have a question about the understanding of the conservative philosophy as it relates to border security.... Often I hear many a conservative wish, desire, demand, and yes, even threaten the nation to be a "limited government". And while not one conservative has yet to fully explain what that would mean to myself. I'm confronted by another concept from the same philosophy: tighter border security. I do not see how these two concepts, 'Tighter Border Security' and 'Limited Government' could operate together. Since 'Tighter Border Security' would mean more people being paid with government funds (local, state, and/or federal). And that those of 'Limited Government' want less people in government (i.e. less people being paid government money). Could some of the conservatives on here, whom have been raging against the President for tighter border security, while at the same time, demanding limited government, explain how this apparent contradiction can possibly operate in a sane fashion? Both sides have their pet issues and various causes which sometimes come into conflict with their stated principles. The problem is that they're never really totally honest when they say "limited government." They just want to pick and choose which areas government should be allowed to interfere and which areas they shouldn't be allowed to interfere. I never really thought they were sincere about "limited government." But when it comes to border security, another incongruity which I find striking is that conservatives were very much in support of NAFTA and removing barriers of trade and commerce between the US, Canada, and Mexico. Conservatives were strongly pushing for that with all their political muscle and capital. Mexico is supposedly an ally and friend of the United States as well, a policy which has been strongly supported by liberals and conservatives. But then, the border is such a hostile, crime-ridden place, where so many people feel the need to turn it into some kind of 2000-mile-long armed camp of some sort. So, somebody in Washington has to make up their fucking minds: Does the United States consider Mexico to be a friend or an enemy? If they're a friend, then let's treat them as friends and conduct our border and immigration policies accordingly and humanely. I think that's within the spirit of our stated "good neighbor" policy. But if we want to abandon that policy and consider Mexico to be an enemy, then there will be consequences for that to both nations. I don't blame conservatives entirely for the problems we're facing now, since liberals have had their hand in it as well. But what frustrates me about a lot of conservatives (and some liberals too) is they seem to wantonly deny the cause and effect relationship between events, actions, and consequences. They seem to be satisfied with specious arguments which sound good on the surface, but without much analysis or delving into issues too deeply.

Arturas -> RE: Conservative Philosophy on Border Security (7/9/2014 11:52:08 AM)
quote: So, somebody in Washington has to make up their fucking minds: Does the United States consider Mexico to be a friend or an enemy? If they're a friend, then let's treat them as friends and conduct our border and immigration policies accordingly and humanely. I think that's within the spirit of our stated "good neighbor" policy Who thinks Mexico is a friend? Who thinks there even is a single "Mexico" that we can discuss in a singular manner? I would think the answer is obvious.

Arturas -> RE: Conservative Philosophy on Border Security (7/9/2014 11:55:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Washington and Colorado are breaking federal law by legalizing pot. Should the justice department crack down? It's the law of the land . . . Should we pass laws if they are selectively enforced for any reason, especially politics? Then why have a law to begin with?

Musicmystery -> RE: Conservative Philosophy on Border Security (7/9/2014 11:56:54 AM)
Didn't answer the question. Do you feel the Obama Administration should go after Colorado and Washington and shut down their legalized pot initiatives? Yes or no?

Arturas -> RE: Conservative Philosophy on Border Security (7/9/2014 11:58:38 AM)
Obamacare is one that must be enforced. Until it is properly challenged in court. There is progress on that more than the former.

Musicmystery -> RE: Conservative Philosophy on Border Security (7/9/2014 12:05:24 PM)
So you ARE in favor of selective enforcement.

Arturas -> RE: Conservative Philosophy on Border Security (7/9/2014 12:59:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Washington and Colorado are breaking federal law by legalizing pot. Should the justice department crack down? It's the law of the land . . . Should we pass laws if they are selectively enforced for any reason, especially politics? Then why have a law to begin with? And so, if we, "we" represented by and so are in theory the law making branch of Government, the Congress, enact laws then we should reasonably expect them to be enforced rather than ignored by those whose purpose for being in Government is to provide for our common defense and ... justice. Not health care, just thought I'd throw that in.

Musicmystery -> RE: Conservative Philosophy on Border Security (7/9/2014 1:16:15 PM)
So then should the Obama administration enforce federal drug laws and shut down legalized pot in Colorado and Washington? After all, "we" should reasonably expect them to be enforced rather than ignored . . . Isn't that right?

Arturas -> RE: Conservative Philosophy on Border Security (7/9/2014 1:26:35 PM)
Obama, Jan 3, 2008. Hope is the bedrock of this nation; the belief that our destiny will not be written for us, but by us; by all those men and women who are not content to settle for the world as it is; who have courage to remake the world as it should be.” Brave and high sounding words fully compose this quote. I feel like being a part of the "us" he mentions who have courage and hope. We first are led to believe, quite naturally, that he is speaking of some evil part of the world, some foreign country or place that needs our help. Then we realize he was talking about "us", our destiny and not some other country but us, America and that is the world he is discussing, "our world", America. It is clear this is the purpose of him being the President, a product of listening to an America hater from the church pew every Sunday for decades. The purpose is to "Remake the world" with "Hope and change". "Remake the world". He means remake the world, our world, America and one cannot remake anything without tearing it down first. Remake does not mean enhance or change for the better. Remake means to make again. You don't remake a house by repainting it. You tear it down and build another. So, America is to be destroyed and then remade. The Obama philosophy on Border Security fits this agenda. It is to send money and resources down there not to secure our border, provide for the common defense, but to take care of those who violate the border in order to remake America using non-American populations. Those who will eventually vote for Dems because the Dems allowed this to happen. Any wonder you hear talk about suing an sitting President and even impeachment? The judgment to be made is this: is the President a traitor or patriot? Ask yourself this, who destroys America, the patriot or the traitor?

mnottertail -> RE: Conservative Philosophy on Border Security (7/9/2014 1:33:12 PM)
That is the most ignorant diatribe to date.

Arturas -> RE: Conservative Philosophy on Border Security (7/9/2014 1:40:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail That is the most ignorant diatribe to date. Wipe the drivel from your post and tell me how so?

Arturas -> RE: Conservative Philosophy on Border Security (7/9/2014 1:50:50 PM)
our destiny will not be written for us, but by us So, how is our destiny "not written for us, but by us" Well, let's approach it this way with first understanding what he is talking about when he says to oppose that which is written for us (already). In other words, what is written already that controls our destiny? 1) The Constitution. 2) The Constitution. 3) The Constitution. Our destiny (he says) will not be controlled by the Constitution, the law of the land, but by what we want to do. And is that wrong? What if the majority want to open borders, tax the evil rich to allow us free heath care and contraceptives (except for men, of course) and to force religions to do something we want so they cannot be free to act in their faith as the Pilgrims did. What's wrong with ignoring laws that keep us from our destiny, the one a few of us have chosen for this Country?

mnottertail -> RE: Conservative Philosophy on Border Security (7/9/2014 1:52:57 PM)
The drivel is in the asswipe you spew................. like here: "Remake the world". He means remake the world, our world, America and one cannot remake anything without tearing it down first. Remake does not mean enhance or change for the better. Remake means to make again. You don't remake a house by repainting it. You tear it down and build another. Horseshit, a bunch of hyperbole without a bit of fact. Remake doesnt have that sense. You can remake a house by remodel for instance. But in any case the post is shitwork. You must have spent your youth in the pews listening to nutsackers hating America.

Arturas -> RE: Conservative Philosophy on Border Security (7/9/2014 1:55:27 PM)
Our destiny is not hindered by that which is already written. Only his and his party. Our freedom to decide for ourselves is already written and our destiny depends on our freedom and that which is already written, The Constitution. We were already brave and full of hope as a nation when it was written and those who would destroy it for their own destiny are not full of hope for you or I but for themselves.

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875