Perhaps you are ignorant of the fact that the vast majority cross where walls already exist. To answer your question, nearly all of them would still try. Do you really think a fence is deterrence when the alternative is go home and see your family raped to death before you're decapitated? Would you just say "oops, sorry, didn't mean to trigger you....let me just take my daughter back to the narcos for a life of sex slavery and just die then, so sorry."?

A better immigration policy that makes it easier to get a work visa or asylum at ports of entry instead of making illegal entry easier, simpler, cheaper, and faster would discourage people from taking the easier, but illegal path. We are moving the other direction, which is why illegal immigration is on the rise under Trump after falling steadily for decades.

This doesn't cost America except for fighting it, they make us money with cheap labor, taxation without representation or access to government assistance, and by lowering the per capita crime rates by being far less criminal on average than Americans. You want to deport a group that's well above average in criminality, that would be Republican politicians and or Trump associates...no one will miss a single one.

A $50 billion wall (Trump's never built anything that wasn't at least 100% over budget) that can be evaded with a ladder, shovel, car, truck, saw, torch, boat, plane, and in many many places, absolutely nothing (it's no longer a single solid wall from coast to gulf, it's now a fence in a few more places for your $50 billion.) is not just vastly more expensive, it's also uselessly wasting that money for almost zero return, the few places it might help will just see the migrant paths move a few miles over.

If we had a 40+ ft high, 20 ft deep, 4+ft thick reinforced concrete wall coast to coast that was somehow ladder proof, it still wouldn't stop most illegal immigration or drug trafficking, because the vast majority of both come through ports of entry. The wall is a useless solution to a non existent problem that's been solving itself for decades....side note: what do you think it was like in the good old days when America was "great"? Contrary to Chump's claims, operation wetback (that he wants to reimplement) was a failure....
https://www.cato.org/blog/enforcement-didnt-end-unlawful-immigration-1950s-more-visas-did

Sounds like someone didn't do their homework the first time.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/08/13/oroville-dam-see-before-and-after-video-of-construction-progress/

Also in January, an independent team of experts who reviewed the spillway failure concluded in a report that Department of Water Resources officials were “overconfident and complacent” and gave “inadequate priority for dam safety” for decades at Oroville.

They noted that main concrete spillway at the 770-foot tall dam north of Sacramento, in Butte County, was built in the late 1960s on poor quality rock. The spillway, only seven inches thick in some areas and not adequately anchored, cracked in multiple places in the following years, allowing water to flow underneath. On Feb. 7, 2017, water from powerful winter storms rushed under the massive spillway, which forced up its giant slabs and ripped a huge hole in the structure causing one of the most serious dam emergencies in California history.

Thanks for your reply bcglorf,

To clear up my analogy, I was actually speaking about the power, tolerance and bravery of women and the thick headedness and cowardice of men who are abusers.

Sometimes you need to find a language that can be understood.

I also think reasonable people believe that any action taken against them should be met with equal and opposite reaction.

Somewhere I posted a quote from the movie Tora, Tora, Tora, which I altered to fit the present conversations.

The quote was said to have been made by Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto regarding the 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor.

It's debated if he actually said it but it was something that I remembered and thought it fit well with recent events with the altered quote.

My altered quote is:

I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giantess and fill her with a terrible resolve.


Women (giantess) are coming together, along with men, more than ever before and rightly so.

I never said or implied anything about ridicule or attacks.

Thanks again for your reply and I think we both are on the same side.

A higher-resolution version, if anyone's interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrGw_cOgwa8

Funny to think that before Thick's controversial Blurred Lines video, there was this.

Someone has to do this. Thick skin a must.


Wonder if these screeners can tag and forward to police? Would be a good thing on some issue like child porn.

I like to pretend the writers stuck in a life where they have to write these things slip in stuff like below on purpose:
"...Inject thick savoury sauces deep into meat..."

"You claim to not be a Trumpophile, but it's blatantly obvious that's a lie. Your bias is so thick and blinding perhaps you can't see through it."

sounds to me like you are so deeply invested in the leftist fantasy that you would have a hard time distinguishing truth from a lie...

No, they aren't compelling in the least, they're obvious disingenuous propaganda, lies, and misdirection not worth debunking.....but you asked so here's your comments.....

First....
"catch and release" refers to a practice of releasing an immigrant to the community while he or she awaits hearings in immigration court, as an alternative to holding them in immigration detention.The migrants whom U.S. immigration enforcement agencies have allowed to remain in the community pending immigrant hearings have been those deemed low risk, such as children, families, and those seeking asylum.

There is no "hard-and-fast definition" of the phrase, which is pejorative. Rather, the phrase refers to a "collection of policies, court precedents, executive actions and federal statutes spanning more than 20 years, cobbled together throughout Democratic and Republican administrations."-Wiki

So he starts by lying about what catch and release is and who started the policies.

....Can send the asylum seeker to the interior until they've been adjudicated, which can be forever......
No, it can't be forever, and Trump/Republicans are doing all they can to extend the wait times. Obama did it to unaccompanied minors, he didn't separate families. Another lie. Funding immigration courts would solve it all, end separation and get everyone processed in a reasonable, legal timeframe....perhaps why Trump took that off the table.

Really, a Faux news talking head wants to deride someone's English.....Try Trump, he can't put a rational English sentence together.....ever.

Trump destroyed Daesh? I think Syria and Russia might disagree, as well as Daesh, which is still in existence.

Yes, the N Korea summit was a loss for us and a win for them. We gave massive concessions and granted them official recognition, and got vague unsecured promises to negotiate in the future in return.


You claim to not be a Trumpophile, but it's blatantly obvious that's a lie. Your bias is so thick and blinding perhaps you can't see through it.

To be fair, I'm not actually sure what the right move would be even with the outside perspective and unlimited time to think about it. Maybe the best thing is to keep it rolling, point it somewhere safe and jump. Maybe stop immediately (assuming the brakes still work) and run the hell away. Also, that's a pretty big, very hot looking, thick-black-smoke belching fire. The driver might already not be in a condition to do anything.

I was taught to:
1) drill or chop holes close to shore first to check thickness
2) Carry a long pole/piece of wood (6 feet plus) so that if you fell, you wouldn't go under the ice (the idea of being swept under ice and not getting back to the hole you fell into...)
3) If going to rescue someone, tie off/get a line around yourself, and spread your body weight out by crawling/using a saucer/pan/kid's plastic sled...and offer them a line, pole, or thrown sleeve of a garment, not your hand.

anyway, looks like it was pond--they just lost some dignity.

Possible, but I don't really think so. I think that the Medical minds of the time thought that physical shock, pressure waves from bombing etc. as you described, were a (or perhaps THE) primary cause of the psychological problems of returning soldiers. So the name "shell shock" came from there, but the symptoms that it was describing were psychological and, I think precisely equal to modern PTSD. Basically, "shell shock" became a polite euphemism for "soldier that got mentally messed up in the war and is having difficulty returning to civilian life".

My grandfather was an Army Air Corps armorer during WWII. He went through basic training, but his primary job was loading ammunition, bombs, external gas tanks, etc. onto P-47 airplanes. He was never in a direct combat situation, as I would describe it. He was never shot at, never in the shockwave radius of explosions, etc. But after the war he was described as having mild "shell shock", manifested by being withdrawn, not wanting to talk about the war, and occasionally prone to angry outbursts over seemingly trivial things. Eventually, he started talking about the war in his mid 80's, and here's a few relevant (perhaps) stories of his:

He joined the European theater a couple days after D-Day. Came to shore on a Normandy beach in the same sort of landing craft seen in Saving Private Ryan, etc. Even though it was days later, there were still LOTS of bodies on the beach, and thick smell of death. Welcome to the war!

His fighter group took over a French farm house adjacent to a dirt landing strip / runway. They put up a barbed wire perimeter with a gate on the road. In one of the only times I heard of him having a firearm and being expected to potentially use it, he pulled guard duty at that gate one evening. His commanding officer gave him orders to shoot anyone that couldn't provide identification on sight. While he was standing guard, a woman in her 20's rolled up on a bicycle, somewhat distraught. She spoke no English, only French. She clearly wanted to get in, and even tried to push past my grandfather. By the letter of his orders, he was "supposed" to shoot her. Instead, he knocked her off her bike when she tried to ride past after getting nowhere verbally and physically restrained her. At gunpoint! When someone that spoke French got there, it turned out that she was the daughter of the family that lived in the farm house. They had no food, and she was coming back to get some potatoes they had left in the larder.

Riding trains was a common way to get air corps support staff up to near the front, and also to get everybody back to transport ships at the end of the war. On one of those journeys later in the war, my grandfather was riding in an open train car with a bunch of his buddies. They were all given meals at the start of the trip. A short while later, the track went through a French town. A bunch of civilians were waiting around the tracks begging for food. I'll never forgot my grandfather describing that scene. It was tough for him to get out, and then all he managed was "they was starvin'!" He later explained that he and his buddies all gave up the food that they had to those people in the first town -- only to have none left to give as they rolled past similar scenes in each town on down the line.

When my mother was growing up, she and her brothers learned that they'd better not leave any food on their plates to go to waste. She has said that the angriest she ever saw her dad was when her brothers got into a food fight one time, and my grandfather went ballistic. They couldn't really figure out what the big deal was, until years later when my grandfather started telling his war stories and suddenly things made more sense.


A lot of guys had a much rougher war than my grandfather. Way more direct combat. Saw stuff much worse -- and had to DO things that were hard to live with. I think the psychological fallout of stuff like that explains the vast majority of "shell shock", without the addition of CTE-like physical head trauma. I'd wager that when the docs said Stewart's father's shell shock was a reaction to aerial bombardment, that was really just a face-saving measure to try to explain away the perceived "weakness" of his condition.

It looks like he's using a router. I think he's roughing it to a uniform thickness. It probably wasn't cut evenly when ran through whatever large saw they cut that wood with. Normally, a very large and very expensive planer would be used.

Ha! Before I went bald, mine was bigger, but no where near as lustrous, thick, or well styled....but it was really my hair.
Chances are good hers isn't really hers, but if it is, damn that must take some serious effort.

38 minutes of "brilliant analysis" later and wind power still requires subsidies and unbalances grids while nuclear power needs only more concentrated investment capital and long term government guarantees.

Building wind turbines is a good investment because they scale well and have political backing including subsidies. Nuclear power is a long term investment in a volatile sector.

Once the whole planet is run by banks and all continents are politically united, connected by a network of thick cables, wind and solar will have a chance to dominate. Right now you need backups for all those windless nights, safety valves for windy Sundays, and new transmission lines to be safe from crazy neighboring countries.