Oh Hamburgers!

Good point, I'm not familiar with the in-depth plans on what the wall will actually look like so it's hard to say how it's being planned. I agree if it is manned and funded properly as an obstacle it could be a good deterrent. That of course will be even more costly than simply making a big physical wall, and will require a LOT more manpower & money to keep running in tip top shape. However if I had to guess I think it will end up more a lip service thing, building the wall to say he did it, and I'd be surprised if it ends up getting enough funding to be truly effective. Time will tell I suppose. I wasn't accusing your opposition as being about race, quite the opposite - I was setting aside the fringe oppositions (race hate being one of them) and focusing on feelings most people have about the issues. I think we're arguing semantics at this point - I was using 'good' and 'bad' as quick-hand for people from other countries we see as acceptable immigrants, and those who aren't. Same with 'bringing' them, I didn't mean literally, I mean making it easier for the people we want into the country to get in, and making it harder for the people we don't want to get in. I mean, sure physical walls work, but technology has advanced so far that the ability to get around a physical wall is as easy as it's ever been in history. The 'obstacle' idea Steve mentioned is where I see barriers in the future, but that's also going to be much, much more expensive than any physical wall might be, and will require manpower, upkeep, electrical infrastructure etc. And no matter how much we spend on a state-of-the-art barrier some will still find a way in. So this idea that illegals drain the system & should be treated like intruders into our home is something I want to talk about. On some level yes we're going to have people get into the country, not pay for services, be supported by the state, and send money back across the border to family/Mexican businesses/whoever. I think that's something that we'll never be able to completely stop even if our wall is completely effective. The flip side of this is we find ways to allow for more legalized immigration, putting our resources into getting folks registered, so they can be taxed and pay for services they use. And guess what - if we allow more of these people to come in, then instead of a breadwinner working in the US and sending money back to Mexico to their family the entire family can come into America and be American. The money stays here, the family contributes, over time their ties to America strengthen. Instead of a workforce that can undercut minimum wage by being hired illegally regulations ensure companies can't exploit that sort of labor. I'm not saying it's easy - prices will go up for the average consumer who might be used to paying a certain price for produce that is being harvested right now by an illegal work force. It's also going to have large repercussions in local economies in the short term if more people arrive. But I think in the long run it's a much better solution, and personally I think it's something we'll have to face regardless. Building a wall in my opinion only delays the inevitable. The other issue is the notion of draining resources. It's not something that illegals are exclusively responsible for. When you look at the nation's discretionary spending it's incredible to see how much we spend for things like medicare, heathcare, veteran's benefits, housing & community etc. We're talking 20% of discretionary spending! And then of course over half the nation's entire budget is going towards the military, which seems absurd to me when you consider how powerful the military is already. My point is there are already serious issues with our nations spending, when you consider what is 'draining resources'. WE are already draining tons of resources with our nations poor health habits & issues with weight. We're already draining tons of resources having such a large % of our money going towards the military that over $65 billion goes to veteran benefits, more than we spend on things like science, transportation, or food & agriculture. Illegals are an issue, but I think we're making a mountain out of a molehill when there are many more serious issues our country should be talking about. I hope that helps give you some context on where I stand - I believe the wall will be ineffective at worst, extremely expensive at best, and the fact it's been such a focal point of the Trump presidency makes me question why he feels this warrants so much attention when there are so many other things this country needs to attend to that I think should take more of a priority.

Yeah, clearly it's a pretty complicated problem. Setting aside the outlier opinions about immigrants (some will treat immigrants as walking votes, others might dislike them because of skin color) I think most of us can agree that at the end of the day we want the same thing - we want the 'good' immigrants who pay taxes and contribute to the economy to come in, and we want to keep the 'bad' immigrants who draw on our resources or have criminal/dangerous histories. Obviously the million dollar question is how we bring in the good and keep out the bad. My point is I don't see the wall doing a good enough job at keeping out the bad. Shiloh you yourself said the ancient Romans could navigate mountains and rivers - that was my intended point of the comment, that the wall isn't going to be a solid wall covering the entire land barrier between our countries, it was going to rely on natural barriers at many points, which can and will be traversed by those desperate enough to enter the country. You asked if I lock my doors or have security systems in my house - my answer is we do lock our doors but do not pay for a security system. My reason would be one I think applies to the border wall; the locked doors represent a cheap & effective way to protect my house from the majority of people who would try to enter uninvited. If I make a larger investment in a security system it's true it might prevent a fringe group of potential intruders, but at the end of the day if someone wants to break in they'll do it - security system or not. That's how I see the wall - we're investing in the deluxo-premium security package, but to the criminals who have an incentive to find a way into the country (drug trafficking, human trafficking, etc) it's not going to have an enormous impact on their ability to find a way in. We might keep out more poor would-be migrant workers with the wall, but the big fish will figure things out pretty quickly. That's why I think it's better to spend our time $$$ and resources on making it easier for the 'good ones' to get in, instead of trying to keep the 'bad ones' out...but that's a different conversation entirely

Well, that doesn't mean it isn't expensive. I could think of many other things I'd rather that money go towards than something I think is impractical and ineffective. I'm not saying Mexico should dictate what we do as a country, but given the choice between making our neighbors happy or making them mad, I'd like there to be a good reason to make them mad. Since I don't see the wall as being a good/effective solution I would rather not to make them mad, if that makes sense. We agree the US is a sovereign nation and alone has the choice to allow/deny entry. Where we disagree I think is the upsides vs downsides of allowing immigrants to enter the country. Well, first off we're talking about a 400 mile wall compared to the proposed southern border wall which would need to be about 5x as big to cover the entire border...although it sounds like Trump isn't proposing a 2000 mile long wall, more like a 700-900 mile one. But then you have to factor in things like the mountains and rivers that won't have a wall built...and of course there's the whole ocean thing on either side of the wall. The wall might stop some people, but if people are desperate enough to enter the country they'll find a way in, unless we would somehow fully barricade our land & coastal borders (which would be even more absurdly expensive). That's one perspective. Thing is if we allow immigrants to live in our country, take part in our political system, pay taxes to our government, and raise families in America, they become Americans. That's what our country was built on (the whole Statue of Liberty thing). I agree there need to be some restrictions - not just anyone should be allowed in. But I also think our current system is too slow & broken to effectively let the right people in. Maybe some of that money being budgeted for building the wall could be better spent staffing the organizations that vet immigrants requesting legal entry

That's an interesting take on the situation. For me personally, I think the wall is a bad idea because it's a) extremely expensive and b) inflames relations with other countries (Mexico) and c) won't be effective at actually stopping people who do want to get into the country illegally. Basically, I feel it's just a big waste of public money that hurts relationships with neighbors- something I assume none of us want! It also seems like the wrong conclusion is being drawn. Instead of operating with the assumption that "immigrant = democratic vote so they want more immigrants" I think the better question is "why do immigrants tend to vote democrat?".

I'd say a friend is someone that you can count on to (usually) have your best interest in mind when making personal decisions that affect you. Essentially, if they care about your well being alongside their own personal interest I'd consider them to be a friend.

Holy moley my 5.5 year old post has been brought back from the dead! I live again! Society has done lots of bad (as your sources on lead poisoning show) but I don't think anyone would argue that nothing good has come out of society. Just looking out my window at work I see public goods (public transportation, public roads, general peacefulness in a busy city, electrical systems, plumbing). All over the world regardless of religion/non-religion humans are capable of great and terrible things.

I'd be fine with either. I've also heard that doing away with the penny and the nickel would also save a bunch of money, since they cost more to make than they're worth so we lose money every time we make them. If these things save money, I'd be fine with any of those.

If any decisions come out for gun control they need to be thought through. The Colorado incident was a tragedy, but it shouldn't lead ot kneejerk supreme court rulings. I guess all we can do is wait and see. Wait...huh?

People can eat wherever they want. If they use the presidents viewpoints as a reason NOT to frequent a location, they are free to do so. Similarly, if someone decides to shop somewhere based on their viewpoints, they are free to do so. The same with businesses, I can't count how many times I've heard of someone who lost sponsors based off of something they said, or got in trouble with their work based on what they said. Do I agree with these actions? Not always no. However it's not anything new. The CFA prez said he opposes gay marriage, and gay rights activists have now decided not to shop there. In the meantime, other people are now going to CFA more to support the prez. I think any violence directed at the prez is of course wrong, but individual citizens can shop what they want for whatever reasons, even if the reasons are absurd.

It doesn't matter what Jesus claimed or didn't, regardless of whether or not he was the son of God or he wasn't, his teachings & values are sound and following much of what he did I think is very useful to follow, regardless of what religion you have. Call him the messiah or call him a prophet, or call him a delusional madman, I find value in his teachings regardless. I didn't fully trust the pie chart in that document, but looking at the US Federal Budget page it's pretty close: http://www.usfederal...l_budget_detail Obviously the big four are defense, health care,pensions, and welfare, which make up 80% of the budget. I take issue with the piece saying that 75% of the budget can be cut, since it's obviously unrealistic, at least in the short term. If things like healthcare, welfare, and pensions & other non-mandatory spending was simply removed, what do you think would happen? I'd venture there would be very serious consequences. I'm in agreement that excess & unnecessary spending in the budget should be looked at/cut, but it can't all be done in one fell swoop, nor is it always the best idea in the long term. For example, if we increase the amount spent on education & healthcare (hint: preventative care) we could effectively reduce the amount of people dependent on welfare & other social services, which would in the long run be worthwhile. It's an interesting article, but I think it's built on a false premise, and certainly oversimplifies the situation.

I've been seeing numbers around the 40% mark of people who have tried marijuana at least once. Of course it's also hard to say who uses on a more frequent basis since it's... you know illegal. However some interesting info about alcohol & marijuana can be found here: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/dcf/duc.cfm When you look at violent crimes and the perceptions of victims, it seems like alcohol is a lot more responsible for violence & things of that sort. I really do think that marijuana has a stigma that it doesn't really warrant - it isn't good for you but I really don't think it destroys someone's life as much as other drugs, or even alcohol.

Think about people like our founding fathers. They clearly weren't perfect in all aspects, they were slave owners & adulturers in some cases. Yet we still base our view of human rights off of their example. Even supposing Jesus was not telling the truth about him being the son of God, he still practiced & taught valuable lessons on how do deal with your fellow man... the former doesn't discredit the latter.

I think you might be surprised. Just like alcohol there are people that become addicted & dependant, but just like alcohol there are plenty of people who smoke pot recreationally & are still able to have successful careers & family life.

It might surprise you and others to learn that the Constitution doesn't provide "freedom of religion" in the context of other religions. When the Constitution was being framed the first ammendment came into being in order to protect the freedoms of Christians from the tyranny of a state church. Many of the founding fathers like John Adams, Samuel Adams, et al. favored a state church. It was Baptists from Virginia aided by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison who fought for the first ammendment, but it was for the protection of Christians. They did not have Buddhists, and Hindus in mind when they were trying to get the first ammendment passed. If we read the Constitution through the lens of the time period in which it was written and in the shoes of those who had affected its final form, the notion of protecting the freedoms of other religions or other moralities apart from the Bible wouldn't enter into the equation at all. The moral system of this country is almost entirely Christian. Our laws are based on Christian values. What other moral systems should have imput?? Should Sharia law with its gender aphartied, honor killings and denigration of women be part of our moral code? Should pedophiles have a say in what our moral culture should look like? Or maybe we should let the value system of Buddhism with its eight step path to nothingness and lack of passion/desire be our guide?? Where would all of the passionate inventers, discoverers and civil rights leaders be under a buddhist form of morality??? Every law we have on the books is designed to keep immoral people from imposing their immorality on us. We legislate against certain moral values all of the time. Christian morality is at the very core of our legal and judicial system. If the founders meant that freedom of religion should be narrowly interpreted as meaning Christian religions, how come article VI paragraph 3 talks about there being no religious tests to be in office? from http://www.house.gov/house/Constitution/Constitution.html Now, regarding freedom of religion (including 1st amendment for context) There don't appear to be any exceptions there when it comes to no laws establishing a religion or prohibiting the excercise of religion & the right to assemble. If they meant Christianity only you would think they would have explicitly mentioned something.. I mean it's not like Christianity was the only religion at the time they made it So I don't buy it that other religions aren't protected. I do agree a lot of our systems morality comes from the bible and christian values, but the US was specifically designed NOT to have a state church or establish a religion, so it's only natural that over time things have been added & fleshed out in our system that takes a hybrid of christian & secular humanism.

And why exactly should we believe a Kenyan lawmaker over state officials in Hawaii Love Songs?

There are a lot of legal things in this world that can ruin your life if you overdo it. You could replace all instances you say "pot" with "alcohol" and you'd have the same problems, yet alcohol is legal (and frankly, a national pastime)

This is getting off topic, but to put it simply lying or being wrong on one thing in your life doesn't invalidate other things in your life. Considering that everyone in the world has likely lied at one point or another in their lives, if lieing would discredit everything someone did we would have nothing to show for anything.

Well just because I'm for legalizing pot doesn't mean I think people should be allowed to willy nilly I also agree there would need to be restrictions when operating machinery, and all that - a 0 tolerance policy just like alcohol. I don't know exactly how it effects you either though as I've never tried it, but I figure it would be best to keep peopel clean at work environments - essentially treat it just like alcohol in that sense.

Chick-fil-A hasn't done this. So please explain to me why the gay community is so up in arms about it. Please xplain to me exactly why, as an organized group, they are so distraught and reactive about someone saying they believe [this], whatever it is. If their is not an agenda, then why the fervor? Can you explain that to me? I dunno, I'm not a part of that community. Probably because they are sensitized to the issue? I have a few friends who are gay that I can pose the question to and get their take.

I'd be ok with legalizing pot, since it's pretty much safer than alcohol, and it could immediately be taxable & stop a lot of the illegal drug trade for it. Other drugs like heroine though... ugh that seems pretty awful. Prostitution is also a tricky one, since that's a dangerous trade for women in its illegal status, but I don't feel like making it legal would really solve many problems.

As long as there was a way to prevent using the audit as political posturing (calling for an audit on someone based on their political views or something) I'm fine with having this go into effect. Of course, I see how it could be abused, so it will need to be reserved for just cause type situations.

Wrong focus. A man simply said what he believed, in response to our President consciously and determinedly pushing a homosexual agenda. The owner or Chick-fil-A didn't tell people to go out and beat gay people up. He didn't say we should round them all up and put them on an island. He didn't say that his franchise wouldn't serve homosexuals. All he did was say what he believed. And from the militant group that champions TOLERANCE, we get a decidedly wrong and disproportionate response. They say "Ban Chick-fil-A because the person who owns it dared to say what he believes." Yeah, that's tolerance alright. The proplem isn't Chick-fil-A. The problem is a militant gay faction that walks around with giant chips on their shoulders daring anyone to try and knock them off. Because they know that what they do is wrong and they don't want to be challenged about it. Chick-fil-A doesn't as you your sexual orientation when you walk in, so what is the furor from the homosexual crowd over? Obviously, it is over someone being bold enough to say a certain behavior is wrong, and refusing to change his mind despite being bullied by a bunch of hypocrites. They don't want to be bullied, and they shouldn't, ever. But as we can plainly see, they have absolutely no problems trying to bully and intimidate other people. I am thankful for their response because it displays their hypocrisy and agenda better than anything else they could do. I agree the boycott is silly, because like I said the president's personal viewpoints have no impact on the service they provide (chicken). But it's also a free country, and people can support who they want for whatever reasons they see fit. For example if I wanted to I could boycott Chick-Fil-A because they don't spell "fillet" correctly, and while that's a silly reason it's also my right. I have a friend who won't go to Arby's because they once refused a coupon of his. It's a goofy boycott but it is what it is. So if this activist group wants to boycott Chick-Fil-A because of their president's views on gay marriage, more power to 'em, just like more power to 'em if you want to eat at Chick-Fil-A because the president has those feelings. Unless Chick-Fil-A actively attacks gays as policy I frankly could care less.

I find a lot of value in Jesus' teachings actually. It is actually, it's quite frustrating. If you have any reason to believe I am doing that please quote specific examples of it and let's talk about it in my thread that I've already posted a few times, and I'd be happy to discuss it. Otherwise, I suggest you look up 'psychological projection'. I think if you listened to his whole speech you would get a different viewpoint, but you're entitled to your opinion.

I think having a 'big government solution' tends to legitimize things, but I also agree with you that big government isn't always the best answer. I like to think that government works best when it builds the exoskeleton/safety net, while private citizens and businesses flesh things out. Obama does rely on government for solutions, yes I don't deny that. The speech was pro government, yes, BUT it wasn't as extreme as people who are using this line are trying to make it out to be. If the discussion was focused on the merits of government vs private sector I'd have no problem with it. However like you said it's campaign/silly season and people are not talking about the speech in a reasonable manner, they are saying "OBAMA DOESN'T THINK YOU WORKED FOR YOUR SMALL BUSINESS" which is just a load of crud. I think that's mainly my point: let's argue the actual issues, not the boiled down mischaracterized versions of what people are making those to be. And I want that for both Obama AND Romney.

I've just shown you how there wasn't spin in the article as you claimed. You're being insulting because you are attacking my character without providing evidence. I've already offered my topic () where you can ask me to defend/explain previous things I've written on these boards, and I've yet to see you post there. I've asked you (many times) to explain what specifically you take issue with regarding my positions, and I very rarely get a response that doesn't contort the language of my text. I am stating that taking the single line of ‘If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen.’" outside of the context of the rest of the speech is dishonest. Similar to what you tend to do with me, taking that single line as a stand alone twists the meaning. When you look at (and listen to) the line in context with the paragraphs around it, you see he is referring to the roads & infrastructure of the country as the "that" that wasn't built by businesses. It's classic "hearing what you want to hear", and taking advantage of the lack of context is dirty politics, regardless of who is doing it. It's not attacking Obama's actual viewpoints, it's giving Obama a viewpoint he doesn't possess and attacking him as if he did possess it. The same; I too follow a lot of the teachings of Jesus in my everyday life.