A Fatal Trajectory

sodbuster wrote:Well Steph what specifically would you do different to "secure our ports"?

Also am I right in figuring you favor "protecting our borders" by building some sort of wall or fence?

Hell yes the fence along our border with Mexico should be completed.

I would take all of these troops who guard the borders between other countries and bring them home to guard the borders and ports of OUR country, for starters.

Well I only watch Fox for entertainment.

Like listening to Limbaugh.

Even if they said something profound it would go over my head since I would be distracted by the eye candy.

I notice CNN is starting to flash a little flesh too.

But both are more entertainment than news.

Like I said about OC, you guys dont fit the mold exactly.

Would it be more accurate to consider you a Paulista?

Maybe you are so unique I could just consider you a Stephanista?

So what would you do different at the ports?

How about an authentic conservative? Or maybe, a classical conservative? You can call me right wing, ultra conservative or libertarian I don't care just don't go lumping the likes of Sean Hannity and Michelle Malkin in with me.

How about if we take all those vessels out securing the ports of dozens of other nations and have them start patrolling US waters? That might be a nice start here.

Now I like Michelle Malkin because she tells it like it is, ...... just like you Steph.

.

She speaks her mind. The other woman I was talking about earlier is Ann Coulter. I don't care for either of them, although sometimes I find them amusing, like O'Reilly & Limbaugh.

You know, that Bill O'Reilly has done some good things. He also has very pretty blue eyes and reminds me a little of that guy that starred in the Night Stalker series. lol

Bill O'Reilly is as big a blow hard as Sean Hannity. Both like nothing more then hearing themselves speak. I hate to watch either try 'interview' anyone because they don't ask questions, they make long winded statements taking minutes and expect their guest to agree with them in 15 seconds or less.

And neither can engage anyone from the left. They attack, attack, attack and never give those guest a chance to respond. As much as I detest Barney Fwank, his back and forth with O'Reilly was despicable.

Aaron wrote:And neither can engage anyone from the left. They attack, attack, attack and never give those guest a chance to respond. As much as I detest Barney Fwank, his back and forth with O'Reilly was despicable.

Well Aaron, it is now quite clear to me why you literally dislike Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity.

And if you and I were talking face to face ....... you would likewise literally dislike me.

Because I would also attack, attack, attack and not give you a chance to evade the question or comment by trying to throw shit into the conversation in order to evade the question and/or push your personal agenda.

Just like you did in your reply in the "In God We Trust" discussion.

Aaron, if I ask you how much tax money Obama has been spending ....... I sure as hell don't want you telling me how much Bush, Reagan, Lincoln or even George Washington spent.

Aaron, you couldn't get by with that piddling shit when you were in school (or maybe you did because your teachers didn't want to make you feel bad) ....... and neither O'Reilly ... nor myself .... who both once taught school ........ ain't about to let you get by with that piddling shit just because you are now older.

TRC, Sherman and Ziggy attempt to pull the same crap all the time and that is why I have no patience when they attempt to peddel their piddling poop.

.

You're normally not one to post horse shit Sammy but you really laid it on here, big red letters and all.

O'Reilly and Hannity are both blowhards because they're both blowhards, not because they don't allow their guest to get by with anything. Hell, the last time I watched O‘Reilly and he was shooting off at the mouth to hear himself speak, he was interviewing Karl Rove.

Pray tell Sammy ole chap, perhaps you can explain to me in your blathering old man crap (big font-colored words and all) was Karl Rove "trying to throw shit into the conversation" for and just what question was he attempting to evade and what personal agenda was he attempting to push that O’Reilly doesn’t push daily?

As for the "In God We Trust" conversation, it was you (who argues against creationism constantly if I'm not mistaken-and we both know I'm not) who attempted to compare a slogan which was put on money in 1957 in response to communism to the tradition of swearing on the bible and you were wrong. There is no comparison.

As you were WRONG in your very first statement to me. I don't dislike Hannity or O'Reilly. On the contrair, I happen to listen to Hannity pretty much every day and other then when he gets long winded and starts spreading bullshit, he's OK. And I will watch O’Reilly if I get the chance, bullshit and all. Problem is, I just don't get the chance to watch much TV with work and all.

So I do like both of them even if both are blowhards who use their big mouth and intimidating ways in an effort to bully their guest (yes, even those they agree with) around.

They remind me a lot of you.

Terry,

I would suggest securing our ports and borders. What is your solution?

That doesn't solve the problem of how to inspect all of the trillions of metric tons of cargo that comes into this country on a daily basis, which is what Aaron had made reference to.

Like I said, less than 3% of cargos can be inspected with a staff of tens of thousands.

Aaron said we should test. No where did he say how much.

Was Karl Rove "trying to throw shit into the conversation"?

YES, in the conversation I watched.

I didn't see it all. From what I saw, O'Reilly made a long winded statement and Rove pretty much agreed with him.

TerryRC wrote:
This is a beast of our government's own creation. These so-called "free trade" policies are not free trade at all. They provide an unfair advantage in many cases to products manufactured using inferior materials off the sweat of exploited workers.

That doesn't change the fact.

Even in the days of wooden sailing ships, this was a problem. How else did smuggling become and stay such a big business?

Again, securing our ports and borders and adequately patrolling US waters would greatly reduce piracy.

Inspection of goods is another matter. Again, I suggest utilizing US military personell currently deployed to other nations inspecting their goods and their cargo. We're already paying these people. It's time their work actually protects US citizens.

Aaron said we should test. No where did he say how much.

Unless you do it all, how do you fix the problem?

What problem?

What problem?

The one you referred to:

There is nothing in Dr. Paul's position on trade that would prevent the US government from preventing dangerous foreign products reaching consumers. Nowhere have I ever heard him call for a reduction in food or product safety standards. The US government as an obligation to protect the American people from tainted fish and toys with lead. Toys containing lead cannot be sold legally in this nation just as heroine can't be sold legally in this country.

I was ask why I don't support what basically amounts to laissez faire free trade and inspecting incoming goods was one of the reasons I gave as to why I don't support totally uninhibited free trade. Nowhere did I say how anything about a problem or how much we should inspect.

I know we can't inspect everything that comes in country but that's no reason to give up inspections. I think you've either confused the issue or have me confused with someone else.

I was ask why I don't support what basically amounts to laissez faire free trade and inspecting incoming goods was one of the reasons I gave as to why I don't support totally uninhibited free trade. Nowhere did I say how anything about a problem or how much we should inspect.

If you are going to regulate something, and that seems to be what you suggest, then you should be aware of the problems involved.

I was pointing out why this can't readily be done:

The US government as an obligation to protect the American people from tainted fish and toys with lead.

Why can't it be readily done?

Why can't it be readily done?

Because a staff of tens of thousands can barely inspect 3% of incoming cargos.

Are you ready to add a few more 100,000 people to the federal payroll?

You truly have no idea of how much cargo comes into this country on a daily basis.

Just sayin'.

You're right Terry, I have no idea how much stuff comes into this country. After all, I only drove a truck for 10 years and hauled material to ports in 12 different cities and two countries that I can think of right off the top of my head but I'll defer to your infinite wisdom and knowledge on ALL subjects.



And since we can't possibly inspect EVERYTHING that comes in this country, we should take your advice and inspect NOTHING.

That sound like a plan Scooter???

You're right Terry, I have no idea how much stuff comes into this country. After all, I only drove a truck for 10 years and hauled material to ports in 12 different cities and two countries that I can think of right off the top of my head but I'll defer to your infinite wisdom and knowledge on ALL subjects.

Ever have to break cargos apart and inspect them for bugs? Ever take samples back to the lab for chemical testing? Ever count how many shippers on a modern container ship?

Never mind. You have an answer, let's hear it.

The federal government has just required that anyone who has access to a loading dock in a facility that is under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Coast Guard must have real I.D. called the Transportation Workers Identification Card. I've had mine for six months.

And since we can't possibly inspect EVERYTHING that comes in this country, we should take your advice and inspect NOTHING.

That sound like a plan Scooter???

Did I say inspect nothing? Where did I say inspect nothing?

I said we can't inspect everything.

You been taking "put-words-in-Terry's-mouth" lessons from Sammy?

No, I'm taking them from you who implied I said inspect everything. The way I see it, if you've got me inpecting everything, then you're inspecting nothing. That sounds about right to me Scooter.