quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

He did. In fact he made a point of stressing that a concrete wall would be a lot more secure than a fence. His estimate of the required height has fluctuated, but it seems to average out at 35-40 feet, never descending below 30 or rising above 55.
The Beeb's analysis of this is a little less ascerbic than John Oliver's...

(Re: the comment about the taxpayer funding it, a thirty foot wall will cost every tax payer in America $77 o build.)

A couple thousand less per person than Obamacare has cost us so far.

That's just constructing it. How much do you think maintenance on a thousand mile wall that's forty foot high is going to cost per annum afterwards?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

Michelle, it is a shame we find ourselves so opposed on this.

But do understand that I have no love or even like for Trump or his ilk. It is just that Clinton would be poison for this country at this time. And there is no other choice. No write in candidate has ever won the Presidency here.

In my view, Trump is bad but Clinton is worse. I think i am fairly well familiar with the situation. I mean like with Putin, he might say something stupid like "What happened to your hair ?" but Clinton would say "We are putting more missile bases in Europe and Asia, in fact one of them only ten miles from your border and there ain't a fucking thing you can do about it".

Which do you prefer ?

T^T

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

I hope I made a point there. He is not all that sharp but at least he is not a warmonger.

T^T

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444
Does it matter if you are cheering for the beautiful 30 foot high wall or not if he becomes yer next Prez??? I dont think so.

quote:

Again I ask, if it is false evidence and an innocent person(s) are convicted cuz of it, then isnt it the right thing to do to re-examine those cases?? or doesnt that matter to you?? and if you think that a future Prez could decide that shoddy and false evidence is real and honest evidence then this country is no different than Russia.. (especially if ya aint white)..

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods
That does raise a point that's often ignored: trying to stop wetbacks stealing Americans jobs by deporting the illegals* ...
...
*(Obama seems to have the best record for that of any President in recent years, but God forbid any Republican voter should acknowledge that)

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods
How do you feel about this being raised in an election year?
Do you think there might be a connection, or does that sound paranoid?

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods
That does raise a point that's often ignored: trying to stop wetbacks stealing Americans jobs by deporting the illegals* ...
...
*(Obama seems to have the best record for that of any President in recent years, but God forbid any Republican voter should acknowledge that)

I'm not even sure if the President would acknowledge it, unless it would help him.

The White House blames the high number of deportations (which definitely is occurring at a record rate during the Obama Administration) on the GOP in Congress forcing him to deport the illegals.

It's questionable whether you can credit Obama for being the "Deporter-in-Chief." It's also questionable whether you can blame him for the same.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods
That does raise a point that's often ignored: trying to stop wetbacks stealing Americans jobs by deporting the illegals* ...
...
*(Obama seems to have the best record for that of any President in recent years, but God forbid any Republican voter should acknowledge that)

I'm not even sure if the President would acknowledge it, unless it would help him.
The White House blames the high number of deportations (which definitely is occurring at a record rate during the Obama Administration) on the GOP in Congress forcing him to deport the illegals.
It's questionable whether you can credit Obama for being the "Deporter-in-Chief." It's also questionable whether you can blame him for the same.

It's questionable whether you should.
Can is a whole different issue, and one that seems to be defined by which way you vote.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods
This is true, but the party that were making excuses for the previous President's taste for turning a blind eye to the use of illegal labour having a go at Obama over this always struck me as a blatant case of doublethink.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Here's the thing, though. If damning evidence isn't collected 'properly,' it's inadmissible in court, regardless of the accuracy of the evidence. If methods are redefined as to what is and what isn't proper/admissible/etc., how many people who's convictions were sealed (beyond a reasonable shadow of doubt) by evidence gained by that now-questionable method are going to have convictions overturned?

That's what I'm most concerned about. The next thing I'm concerned about, is are all these cases going to have to be retried, and who is going to pay for that?

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Here's the thing, though. If damning evidence isn't collected 'properly,' it's inadmissible in court, regardless of the accuracy of the evidence. If methods are redefined as to what is and what isn't proper/admissible/etc., how many people who's convictions were sealed (beyond a reasonable shadow of doubt) by evidence gained by that now-questionable method are going to have convictions overturned?
That's what I'm most concerned about. The next thing I'm concerned about, is are all these cases going to have to be retried, and who is going to pay for that?

Perhaps if we're not so black & white about this? I personally find the idea of incorrectly incarcerating someone reprehensible and as a taxpayer I'm more than willing to pay to undo my horrific mistake. Does that mean that every case needs to be retried? I don't think so. I think each case relied on various methods to prove guilt. If some of those methods are proven later to be insufficient then my question is whether the rest of the case stands up. More, I'm guessing that the error rate in various tests is not all equal... some will carry more weight than others even after this review.
I don't think retroactively revising "admissible" is very smart. I do think we could look at that now suspect information in context of the whole case and make some decisions about a retrial. Yes, I think there needs to be some gate in front of that process.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

Michelle, it is a shame we find ourselves so opposed on this.

But do understand that I have no love or even like for Trump or his ilk. It is just that Clinton would be poison for this country at this time. And there is no other choice. No write in candidate has ever won the Presidency here.

In my view, Trump is bad but Clinton is worse. I think i am fairly well familiar with the situation. I mean like with Putin, he might say something stupid like "What happened to your hair ?" but Clinton would say "We are putting more missile bases in Europe and Asia, in fact one of them only ten miles from your border and there ain't a fucking thing you can do about it".

Which do you prefer ?

T^T

Termy, is there a reason that you are using my real name? I mean you never have before, except in emails.
I find it quite telling.
I disagree with you. vehemently. But if you want to get personal, go ahead
it just points out a large part your problem. Even without anyone else pointing it out.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

Michelle, it is a shame we find ourselves so opposed on this.

But do understand that I have no love or even like for Trump or his ilk. It is just that Clinton would be poison for this country at this time. And there is no other choice. No write in candidate has ever won the Presidency here.

In my view, Trump is bad but Clinton is worse. I think i am fairly well familiar with the situation. I mean like with Putin, he might say something stupid like "What happened to your hair ?" but Clinton would say "We are putting more missile bases in Europe and Asia, in fact one of them only ten miles from your border and there ain't a fucking thing you can do about it".

Which do you prefer ?

T^T

Termy, is there a reason that you are using my real name? I mean you never have before, except in emails.
I find it quite telling.
I disagree with you. vehemently. But if you want to get personal, go ahead
it just points out a large part your problem. Even without anyone else pointing it out.

If that was a secret I apologize. Seriously.

Like everyone knows mnottertail is Ron.

But it is only a first name. Use mine is you feel like it. And really it is a shame we disagree so much on politics. (damn shame you can't see it my way LOL)

T^T