ChiefsPlanet Mobile
Page 2 of 8
< 12 3456 > Last »
Washington DC and The Holy Land>NBC News: "Just" six terrorists apprehended in 2018 on Southern border...
Taco John 11:31 AM 01-09-2019
The bias just bleeds from their headlines... The media is the propaganda arm of the Democrat Party.

NEW: US Customs and Border Protection encountered just 6 immigrants on US-Mexico border in first half of fiscal year 2018 whose names were on a federal government list of known or suspected terrorists, according to CBP data obtained by @NBCNews. https://t.co/MKIXQdoX26

— NBC News (@NBCNews) January 7, 2019


[Reply]
Donger 12:23 PM 01-09-2019
Originally Posted by Fish:
Clearly we're going to need more walls...
Not at all. I think it's good that these people were stopped by existing measures.
[Reply]
Prison Bitch 12:28 PM 01-09-2019
Originally Posted by NinerDoug:
Did they try to sell Obamacare by asserting it would be the cure for cancer?
I think they sold it as an improvement to the current situation, same as the Wall will be. I do believe they promised it would ďbend the cost curveĒ which it hasnít and I sure way more people, which it hasnít. But - it has done enough things to justify its existence (to enough voters anyway)
[Reply]
NinerDoug 12:47 PM 01-09-2019
Originally Posted by Prison Bitch:
I think they sold it as an improvement to the current situation, same as the Wall will be. I do believe they promised it would ďbend the cost curveĒ which it hasnít and I sure way more people, which it hasnít. But - it has done enough things to justify its existence (to enough voters anyway)
Right. And we do need a physical barrier, in some places. But not to deal with caravans of asylum seekers. And it seems to me that, lately at least, that's how Trump has been trying to sell it.
[Reply]
Lex Luthor 12:48 PM 01-09-2019
Originally Posted by Prison Bitch:
I think
No, you obviously don't.
[Reply]
Lex Luthor 12:51 PM 01-09-2019
Originally Posted by Prison Bitch:
Well, ObummerCare wasnít going to cure cancer. Or change pre-existing conditions. It didnít even promise to cover all the uninsured anyway on top of that.
PB knows he has clearly lost the argument when he pivots to Obama.



[Reply]
Cosmos 12:57 PM 01-09-2019
Originally Posted by Lex Luthor:
PB knows he has clearly lost the argument when he pivots to Obama.


:-)
[Reply]
T-post Tom 01:00 PM 01-09-2019
Just one U.S. death by a terrorist would be too much. But some will argue cost effectiveness. Brookings Institute says that estimates of the total economic damage inflicted by the 9/11 attack range up to $2 trillion. $100 billion just in property damage. Can't measure the cost of nearly 3000 deaths. Estimates on total cost of a border wall vary greatly, but even the highest (most partisan) numbers are miniscule compared to the cost of the 9/11 attacks. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
[Reply]
NinerDoug 01:06 PM 01-09-2019
Originally Posted by T-post Tom:
Just one U.S. death by a terrorist would be too much. But some will argue cost effectiveness. Brookings Institute says that estimates of the total economic damage inflicted by the 9/11 attack range up to $2 trillion. $100 billion just in property damage. Can't measure the cost of nearly 3000 deaths. Estimates on total cost of a border wall vary greatly, but even the highest (most partisan) numbers are miniscule compared to the cost of the 9/11 attacks. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
The wall will not prevent terrorist attacks. If some idiot isn't smart enough to get into the country notwithstanding a wall, how dangerous could he be as a terrorist? The 9/11 terrorists came in on visas. They didn't sneak across the border.
[Reply]
T-post Tom 01:14 PM 01-09-2019
Originally Posted by NinerDoug:
The wall will not prevent terrorist attacks. If some idiot isn't smart enough to get into the country notwithstanding a wall, how dangerous could he be as a terrorist? The 9/11 terrorists came in on visas. They didn't sneak across the border.
Sorry niner, it is totally in the realm of possibility that a terrorist group would attempt to sneak across our southern border as a point of entry. Especially now that the legal points of entry have been tightened up exponentially since the 9/11 attacks. The argument that the 9/11 attackers didn't sneak across the border somehow predicts that future terrorists won't do it, simply doesn't work. Politics aside, facts are facts... Terrorists are going to take the path of least resistance.
[Reply]
Marcellus 01:16 PM 01-09-2019
Originally Posted by Donger:
Well, Trump claimed 4,000, right?
I'm pretty sure Trump was lumping in MS13 and people with violent crime history as "terrorist".

Which seems fair considering liberals and media want to label every single person attempting to cross the border as an asylum seeker.

If we want to ignore the actual definition it can work both ways.
[Reply]
NinerDoug 01:19 PM 01-09-2019
Originally Posted by T-post Tom:
Sorry niner, it is totally in the realm of possibility that a terrorist group would use our southern border as a point of entry. Especially now that the legal points of entry have been tightened up exponentially since the 9/11 attacks. The argument that the 9/11 attackers didn't sneak across the border somehow predicts what methods future terrorists will use simply doesn't work. Politics aside, facts are facts.
It's certainly not outside the realm of possibility, but that is true of almost anything. It's a matter of probabilities, and allocation of resources based upon probabilities.

You need a physical barrier in some places - between Tijuana and San Diego, for example. Otherwise, people can just stroll across and into the country.

But the likelihood that a physical barrier stops a terrorist is so small as to be irrelevant. Wouldn't that money be better spent on actual anti-terrorism activities?
[Reply]
Prison Bitch 01:26 PM 01-09-2019
So 6 terrorists is a low number for libshits.


What would be a high number, a number that clears a threshold into “now we need to act!. Need specifics here.
[Reply]
Discuss Thrower 01:28 PM 01-09-2019
Six Klansmen identified at a 30,000 person Trump rally would be enough to label all Trump supporters Nazis, so..
[Reply]
T-post Tom 01:29 PM 01-09-2019
Originally Posted by NinerDoug:
It's certainly not outside the realm of possibility, but that is true of almost anything. It's a matter of probabilities, and allocation of resources based upon probabilities.

You need a physical barrier in some places - between Tijuana and San Diego, for example. Otherwise, people can just stroll across and into the country.

But the likelihood that a physical barrier stops a terrorist is so small as to be irrelevant. Wouldn't that money be better spent on actual anti-terrorism activities?
Originally Posted by T-post Tom:
Just one U.S. death by a terrorist would be too much. But some will argue cost effectiveness. Brookings Institute says that estimates of the total economic damage inflicted by the 9/11 attack range up to $2 trillion. $100 billion just in property damage. Can't measure the cost of nearly 3000 deaths. Estimates on total cost of a border wall vary greatly, but even the highest (most partisan) numbers are miniscule compared to the cost of the 9/11 attacks. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
The wall would make the border less attractive to terrorists and also slow the flow of drugs and illegal immigrants. "Latin America affords terrorist networks promising avenues: a long, disorderly border; corrupt officials; well organized smuggling rings. Endemic official graft makes it easy to obtain travel documents. Police forces are often inefficient and corrupt."
[Reply]
Prison Bitch 01:30 PM 01-09-2019
Originally Posted by Discuss Thrower:
Six Klansmen identified at a 30,000 person Trump rally would be enough to label all Trump supporters Nazis, so..
Rep^
[Reply]
Page 2 of 8
< 12 3456 > Last »
Up