‘Foreign Invasion’ – Will US Military Confront Migrants At Border?

[Swordsmyth]

Only on RPF will people say "You are for open borders unlike Ron Paul" when you don't go along with mass hysteria on the issue, then turn around and say "Ron Paul is too soft" when you post a video where Ron Paul is endorsing the exact position you endorsed. And @angelatc I hope you've watched this video.

He didn't endorse the exact position I do, he wants to let them in if they are willing to stand in a line and wait a few days and he doesn't want the military sent to the border.

[Swordsmyth]

How many times do I have to repeat myself until it sinks into your brain? I'm not against a military response that has rules of engagement which don't include killing unarmed kids. Is that so hard for you to understand? Sheesh...I just said it to you!

Edit: And last count this caravan is over 40 days out. They are having to make multiple stops along the way. A common sense approach would be to send agents into Mexico to process asylum seekers there. If by the time the caravan reaches the Mexico border all of the women and children are siphoned off from it there's no potential propaganda bonanza for whatever happens next.

Great idea, let's just send buses to their home countries with signs that say "free rides to the US" on the side in Spanish.

[jmdrake]

He didn't endorse the exact position I do, he wants to let them in if they are willing to stand in a line and wait a few days and he doesn't want the military sent to the border.

Well....that's an understatement.

[Swordsmyth]

^^^THIS^^^

If this was done, almost everything could be taken care of before the migrants got anywhere close to the US border.

Of course our local collaborators think helping the invaders is a great idea.

[Swordsmyth]

Well....that's an understatement.

Then don't be a lying idiot and say that he did.

Originally Posted by jmdrake

Only on RPF will people say "You are for open borders unlike Ron Paul" when you don't go along with mass hysteria on the issue, then turn around and say "Ron Paul is too soft" when you post a video where Ron Paul is endorsing the exact position you endorsed. And @angelatc I hope you've watched this video.

[jmdrake]

Great idea, let's just send buses to their home countries with signs that say "free rides to the US" on the side in Spanish.

Let's see. Ron Paul said he wants to process them in a line. You don't want to let the horde get to the border. If Ron Paul's processing line happens deep in Mexico territory, why is that a problem for you?

[jmdrake]

Then don't be a lying idiot and say that he did.

Ummm...you are the lying idiot a$$hole. Your claim that "He didn't endorse the exact position I do" is the understatement. I'm not against a military option like Ron is. Yet you called me "open borders." Man up and call Ron "open borders" if that is your position.

[Swordsmyth]

Let's see. Ron Paul said he wants to process them in a line. You don't want to let the horde get to the border. If Ron Paul's processing line happens deep in Mexico territory, why is that a problem for you?

They can come to the border all they want if Mexico allows it but they mustn't cross it and we should be making things as difficult for them as possible not helping them.

[Swordsmyth]

Ummm...you are the lying idiot a$$hole. Your claim that "He didn't endorse the exact position I do" is the understatement. I'm not against a military option like Ron is. Yet you called me "open borders." Man up and call Ron "open borders" if that is your position.

Now I understand, your original statement was unclear.

I will now respond to it with my new understanding.

Originally Posted by jmdrake

Only on RPF will people say "You are for open borders unlike Ron Paul" when you don't go along with mass hysteria on the issue, then turn around and say "Ron Paul is too soft" when you post a video where Ron Paul is endorsing the exact position you endorsed. And @angelatc I hope you've watched this video.

Ron is sliding into an open borders position while still trying to avoid admitting it and if your position is the same as his then so are you.

[thoughtomator]

Ron isn't even relevant any more.

Seeing people who were reliably opposed to his policies all along invoke him here is nauseating.

"Dr. No" voted against almost all government spending. One of the very few things he voted to spend money on was border security.

So people who are opposed to all border security invoking Ron's name aren't fooling anyone. You're invoking Ron because you're out of arguments.

[phill4paul]

I answered it. And I really don't even know why you're on this forum but anyway. You were the one that raised the "Can't I shoot the children" scenario in the first place. The answer is no. A thousand times no. You didn't say "Well can I use water cannons or tear gas or whatever." It was "Shouldn't I have the right to shoot (to kill) trespassers." So quit trying to dishonestly fix it up on the back end.

I've tried to be civil.

First of all I wasn't the one that raised the "Can't I shoot the children" scenario in the first place.

The conversation went like this.

Dannno, I had a nativist jackass here ask me repeatedly if I would support the right of individual landowners murdering women and children who might cross their land to get into this country. That is nativist in the worst way. The people screaming to end H1B visas are also being nativist. They aren't trying to keep people out because they are "poor" or "ignorant" but as some kind of jobs program. So go suck an egg.

To which I replied...

You don't believe in personal property rights?

You came back with....

I don't believe in murder. And the property you are trying to protect you are only renting anyway. Try not paying your property tax and see what happens.

To which I responded....

Lame.

Which indeed your position was. You seem to think that property rights need to be thrown out because we don't own our property anyway.

Somehow you twisted that into me believing that unarmed 9 year old girls need to be gunned down indiscriminately.

So, go $#@! yourself. Really.

[jmdrake]

I've tried to be civil.

First of all I wasn't the one that raised the "Can't I shoot the children" scenario in the first place.

Byll$#@!. That was the second conversation. I only brought that up to Dannno because, weeks before, you had raised the issue of whether I supported private property owners being able to kill migrants crossing their land without regards to women and children. I said no. Based on that you said I didn't support property rights. Do you want me to bring those quotes up for you?

Edit: And this is you being "civil" you little shyt.

Will you allow citizens to end it? I'm for that. Property owners or their hires? States executing none citizens for trespass? Child sex trafficking is NOT helped by closed borders. In any sense. Prove it.
I can only assume that you are fine with it. Free market and all that.
There is no free market in human trade.
But, I dunno, don't wanna assume or strawman.
You tell me. All roads from the north and south, all ports from the east and west, open, no control. Cool with you?

And then there's this.

No. My argument in a nutshell is.... Can I hunt down and kill these individuals without government interference? Can ranchers on the border shoot individuals for crossing their property uninvited? Can states hunt down and kill these individuals as they cross their borders if the citizens of their states agree on it?
What say you? You seem to think that child sex trafficking is only popular because it's illegal. Well, duh! You don't think it should be?

[phill4paul]

Byll$#@!. That was the second conversation. I only brought that up to Dannno because, weeks before, you had raised the issue of whether I supported private property owners being able to kill migrants crossing their land without regards to women and children. I said no. Based on that you said I didn't support property rights. Do you want me to bring those quotes up for you?

Edit: And this is you being "civil" you little shyt.



And then there's this.

Where in any of that did I state that women and children should be gunned down unequivocally, you duplicitous fu cktard?

[jmdrake]

Where in any of that did I state that women and children should be gunned down unequivocally, you duplicitous fu cktard?

You are the duplicitous one. And here you go.

What exactly do you propose. Answer angelatc's question? Water cannons? Oh, noes. Can you imagine the outrage of an innocent 3yr. old blasted? CS gas? What about a 5 yr. old with asthma?

People already go ape $#@! if they are even detained. So what exactly is your solution when they crash the barriers?

So you are unable to take a simple "Don't purposefully kill unarmed children" as an answer and I'm the bad guy? Okay. If you say so. If in your own twisted universe a rules of engagement that says "Don't purposefully kill children who aren't actively trying to kill you" is too much for your wee little mind to process, then just say so.

[phill4paul]

Enough of you being a dumbass and not reading. I already said rules of engagement where you're not allowed to purposefully kill unarmed kids. And if you don't understand what that means then yes. You are stupid.

You STILL haven't given a $#@!ing cogent answer except "R.O.E." Well, what the $#@! exactly are the R.O.E. that you would find acceptable? Anything up to but not including killing?

And tell me, you like enders answer. Send down some white shirts and process them there for asylum. So tell me brainiac what is happens to them afteer they are processed?

[angelatc]

Well your husbands solution is easily overcome.



OMG! A kid was thrown over our bayonets. Oh whatever will we do? It is the end of 'Meriku! If only we had been able to just shoot the little fvckers!

The hyperbole is fun, but it still doesn't answer the question.

[phill4paul]

You are the duplicitous one. And here you go.



So you are unable to take a simple "Don't purposefully kill unarmed children" as an answer and I'm the bad guy? Okay. If you say so. If in your own twisted universe a rules of engagement that says "Don't purposefully kill children who aren't actively trying to kill you" is too much for your wee little mind to process, then just say so.

No, dip$#@! I asked YOU what is YOUR proposal is. It's right there in black and white. And YOU still can't answer it.

[jmdrake]

You STILL haven't given a $#@!ing cogent answer except "R.O.E." Well, what the $#@! exactly are the R.O.E. that you would find acceptable? Anything up to but not including killing?

Seriously WTF is wrong with you?

And tell me, you like enders answer. Send down some white shirts and process them there for asylum. So tell me brainiac what is happens to them afteer they are processed?

That's Ron Paul's solution, not "Enders". Ender is just quoting Ron Paul. Actually Ender is doing one better than Ron. Ron was for processing them at the border. Ender is for processing them before they get there. I thought you didn't want the horde to get to the border.

[jmdrake]

No, dip$#@! I asked YOU what is YOUR proposal is. It's right there in black and white. And YOU still can't answer it.

My proposal = Ron's proposal + military engagement where you don't purposefully kill little kids.

[phill4paul]

Seriously WTF is wrong with you?



That's Ron Paul's solution, not "Enders". Ender is just quoting Ron Paul. Actually Ender is doing one better than Ron. Ron was for processing them at the border. Ender is for processing them before they get there. I thought you didn't want the horde to get to the border.

What the $#@! is wrong with YOU? Just answer the damned questions.

[jmdrake]

The hyperbole is fun, but it still doesn't answer the question.

About the bayonets? It's a non intelligent question. It wouldn't work if this "horde" is really intent on "invading" no matter what. Sure. Stand there with bayonets if you want.

[jmdrake]

What the $#@! is wrong with YOU? Just answer the damned questions.

I already did. You keep asking the same question that's been answered over and over again like a damned fool.

Here it is again.

My proposal = Ron's proposal + military engagement where you don't purposefully kill little kids.

[jmdrake]

What the $#@! is wrong with YOU? Just answer the damned questions.

One more thing. You were the one who wants permission to hunt down and kill migrants who cross your land. So what are your rules of engagement jackass? What are your limitations? Do you have any?

[Jamesiv1]

Why do all you guys hate America?

[phill4paul]

My proposal = Ron's proposal + military engagement where you don't purposefully kill little kids.

So military engagement which includes all less than lethal methods such as water cannons and CS gas?

Ron's proposal is unacceptable. The end result is that they are admitted anyway. May as well just let them walk on over.

[angelatc]

Ron isn't even relevant any more.

Seeing people who were reliably opposed to his policies all along invoke him here is nauseating.

"Dr. No" voted against almost all government spending. One of the very few things he voted to spend money on was border security.

So people who are opposed to all border security invoking Ron's name aren't fooling anyone. You're invoking Ron because you're out of arguments.

Honestly, even back in 2007 borders was a very divisive issue. The libertarian solution is to cut off all welfare, and open the borders. Most of us support that (with the exception of the resident progs who think millions of people would die in the street) but there's no political support for it, so it isn't a viable solution.

[Ender]

Of course our local collaborators think helping the invaders is a great idea.

And here you are, spreading disinformation and hate, as always.

[jmdrake]

So military engagement which includes all less than lethal methods such as water cannons and CS gas?

As long as the intent is not to kill. Now for your "Can I hunt down and shoot migrants crossing my property" were you really meaning to say using water cannons and CS gas?

Ron's proposal is unacceptable. The end result is that they are admitted anyway. May as well just let them walk on over.

Trump's proposal it to build a wall with a door to let vetted people through anyway. And either proposal, Trump's or Ron's, is designed to keep out the tire burning, gate crashing, military aged men types. So...I guess Trump is open borders too? Who oh who can you trust?

[phill4paul]

One more thing. You were the one who wants permission to hunt down and kill migrants who cross your land. So what are your rules of engagement jackass? What are your limitations? Do you have any?

My rules of engagement are pretty simple. If you come on my property I confront you while armed. If you are armed I confront you at the ready. I don't ask, I tell you to leave. Now, depending on the situation and your actions you might just get shot.

[JacksonsParrot]

Coolidge had the right idea on immigration: no more masses, and we'll only select from able Anglo-Saxons - maybe a kraut or a frog too. Maybe. Well this was great until 1965, when LBJ signed unlimited immigration and nationality into law, and here we are all over again a century later.

If you think of the children --



-- go sell all you have, move to Honduras, and start a work camp. I'm sure the third-worlder communism bred into these moochers will vaporize, before the awesome presence of a white capitalist. Me? I'd rather not invite any more moochers, least of all the women, who only multiply moochers.

As for "rules of engagement", there won't be an engagement, but if there is it will serve an example. No Huns, No Hondurans, No Barbarians. We're full, buh-bye.