Posted on 09/23/2011 6:54:44 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
No, you are making several unfounded assumptions all in one post. Ron Paul while he is an interesting gadfly, his reasoning is faulty and I don’t want him near the presidency.
I just see us running out of money to fight the never ending war on drugs that has only led to militarized police forces while never coming close to eradicating drugs. Why would the police want drugs eradicated? If they managed to eradicate drugs, then they would stop getting cool toys to further invade the peoples privacy.
If you decrease the supply of an item in the market place the price goes up. The seller that has the item for sale can name their price. Government tries to stomp on this when it applies to gasoline, but the drug seller would have no one to put a cap on their asking price if the supply had dramatically been reduced. The drug sellers costs may have gone up, but the government has squashed the low level competition. It takes a government to create a monopoly. We can’t even keep drugs out of our prisons now. Don’t ask me how with fences, armed guards and 24/7 security everywhere it doesn’t seem possible.
What groups would find it to their advantage? Russian mafia? Chinese gangs? Not saying they’re not already doing the trade, but I know they would appreciate the government clearing out the low level players.
I don’t support open borders, just the silliness of trying to build a fence. Will your fence surround the entire lower 48 states? Say we build the wall from the southern tip of Texas to the coast of California. Is that the only way the Mexicans can get into the USA?
We can reduce the flow much cheaper with electronic surveillance and people ready to respond when we see someone coming across. It is the damned Federal government’s job to do this.
You have a screw loose. For the police, trying to fight the drug trade is one of the most dangerous things they do, especially those undercover. The idea that the police want the the illicit sale of drugs to continue along with the many lives that are destroyed is just some tin foil hat nonsense not worthy of being addressed on this site.
If you decrease the supply of an item in the market place the price goes up. The seller that has the item for sale can name their price.
You don't seem to understand how the marketplace works. Demand is what drives supply, not the other way around. Do you really think the drug lords want to restrict their supply so they can raise prices? You want to expand your customer base (volume) so you can make more money. And there is plenty of competition out there in terms of supply.
I don’t support open borders, just the silliness of trying to build a fence. Will your fence surround the entire lower 48 states? Say we build the wall from the southern tip of Texas to the coast of California. Is that the only way the Mexicans can get into the USA?
How dumb are you? You create some silly strawman and then proceed to ridicule it. Where did I ever state that we should build a fence along the entire US border? Using your logic, I guess the choice is between building no physical barriers at all or building a fence on every square inch of our border. How stupid must one be to come to that conclusion.
Resort to ridicule and start calling people names? Lost the argument.
In order to have productive discourse, you need at least two informed, sane parties. You fail on both counts.
Newsmax
Cain Upsets Perry in Florida Republican Straw Poll
Saturday, September 24, 2011 06:41 PM
ORLANDO, Fla. - Former pizza executive Herman Cain surprised rival Rick Perry with an upset victory Saturday in a nonbinding Republican presidential straw poll in Florida, dealing a disappointing loss to the Texas governor two days after a shaky debate performance.
herman cain florida straw pollPerry, leading in the polls for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012, had needed a victory in the key test of strength in a crucial state to salve the wounds left over from a debate with his rivals Thursday in which he struggled.
Herman Cain lost my respect when he chose Romney as his hypothetical VP on Thursday night. His win in Florida is no big deal, Ron Paul and Huckabee had the straw polls this time, 2007.
A candidate can afford to annoy his base when his base has no place else to go. Conservatives may toy with the Gingrich or Cain candidacies just as they toyed with the Bachmann candidacy for a time. But when push comes to shove and the choice is Romney or Perry, Perry will win.
This isn't what I want to happen. But it will happen. Perry won't be very good. With luck he may be good enough.
One of them also has to understand economics. I don’t have time to teach economics, my schedule is full.
LOL. God help us if you are teaching economics. Obama appears to be one of your students.
Its too early to know whats going to happen. Last cycle this time Guliani and Huckabee were leading. Look how that turned out. There is no handwriting on the wall this early. Its a wide open race at this point.
When Governor Perry made that “heartless” remark he was in the passion of the moment. He was frustrated that with all the effort his state has done to battle the continuous invasion of illegals across the border. He was feeling the criticism after all that he has done and the more tan $400 million spent defending that border. I can understand that he felt the criticism was heartless when it did not give credit for the courageous job his state has done to stem the tide. But, after that remark, he got it from his wife. She told him it was wrong. And Governor Perry realized how wrong he was. He realized that it was through ignorance that people blame him for not controlling the border. He realized that he needed to do a better job educating people that it was the Obama Regime that was failing in the job to secure the border.
I find that the in-state tuition for illegals was a symptom of the Obama Regimes failure to secure the border. Obama was the cause and the tuition thing was the result. That tuition thing was what the people of Texas wanted and Governor Perry helped get it done.
Then you are on board with Governor Perry. He wants policy that does the same thing you want. He wants sanctuary cities abolished, no driver’s licenses for illegals and voter I.D. required to vote. Perry vetoed a bill that would have allowed the use of a matricula consular, which is an ID card used by the Mexican government, to get a driver’s license in Texas. Without a driver’s license, an illegal can’t do anything in Texas.
Perry supported Arizona when the Obama Administration sued to overturn Arizona law that wanted to check immigration status for law breakers.
The Texas Legislature determined the payment of in-state college tuition is available to all students who have lived in Texas for at least three years and graduated from a public high school. If you meet those requirements, you pay in-state tuition, whether you relocated from Oklahoma, Idaho, Canada or Mexico. The only difference is that Texas residents who aren’t documented must be on the path to pursue U.S. citizenship to be allowed to pay in-state tuition. There were a number of reasons the bill received widespread support among conservatives. Importantly, it has never had a cost to Texas taxpayers. In fact, our institutions of higher learning would actually lose tens of millions of dollars in lost tuition payments if the law were repealed.
The in-state tuition bill has not cost the Texas tax payer one dime of state money. In fact, Texas institutions of higher learning would actually lose tens of millions of dollars in lost tuition payments if the law were repealed. This money is coming from the students and their families; not the Texas tax payer.
You argue that the people of Texas opposed the in-state tuition bill. Not so. The bill received wide spread support among conservatives throughout Texas. I do not know where you are coming from, but you are misrepresenting the facts about the public support that bill had and the bi-partisan support it got in its passage.
Even if the bill were repealed now, the Texas instituitons of higher learning would lose tens of millions of lost revenue from those children of illegals paying the in-state tuition. Those are dollars that don’t cost the Texas taxpayer one dime that are going into the state colleges.
I stopped reading your post when you asked, “Why give rights to those who broke our laws?” Think about it. Some of these kids were not even born yet when their parents crossed our border. Does that make them law breakers?
I wish half the Perry nay-sayers would read your post and get their immigration thing about Governor Perry straightened out. There is so much misinformation about Perry that is used to justify their irrational hatred of him.
1. YOU don’t know what you are talking about if you say the people of Texas supported instate tuition for illegals!
2. Institutions of higher learning get FAR more money than they can EFFECTIVELY spend as it is so cutting them off from SOME of the money they get from illegals would just be too darned bad in my book!
3. Those dollars ARE costing Texas Taxpayers big time even if the costs are not direct.
There is only one issue here and that is right and wrong! You are on the WRONG side!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.