President Joe Biden will reportedly announce during his televised State of the Union speech on Thursday that he is deploying the U.S. military to Gaza to help build infrastructure for the Palestinians.
Former U.S. Ambassador to Israel David M. Friedman called the announcement
"a cheap political trick".
"Remember that billions of dollars of aid has come into Gaza over the past 15 years and almost all of it was used to build terror tunnels and rocket launchers. How will that be prevented this time? Won't a port just accelerate and exacerbate this risk?" he posted on X. "And even with a port, the humanitarian aid has to be loaded onto trucks to get to their destination-- yes, the same trucks that Hamas is commandeering and preventing from going to the right people!"
President Joe Biden will reportedly announce during his televised State of >>the Union speech on Thursday that he is deploying the U.S. military to Gaza >>to help build infrastructure for the Palestinians.
He wants to build a pier/port for Gaza in the Mediterranean. But swears
this won't require any U.S. military involvement in the Israel/Gaza war.
How exactly will this work, Joe? We're going to have several dozens
ships and other machinery right there on the shore building the pier and >presumably several Navy ships there to protect them, so what happens
when Hamas inevitably starts lobbing missiles at all of them?
When you're forced to return fire and break your promise that this >pier-building wouldn't result in us involved in the war, are you going
to then pretend this wasn't a foreseeable development?
Former U.S. Ambassador to Israel David M. Friedman called the announcement >>"a cheap political trick".
It's a political trick, all right, but there won't be anything cheap
about it, either in materiel or lives.
. . .
On 3/8/24 2:55 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <usevpt$1m3o8$3@dont-email.me>,
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
President Joe Biden will reportedly announce during his televised State of >> the Union speech on Thursday that he is deploying the U.S. military to
Gaza to help build infrastructure for the Palestinians.
He wants to build a pier/port for Gaza in the Mediterranean. But swears this won't require any U.S. military involvement in the Israel/Gaza war.
How exactly will this work, Joe? We're going to have several dozens
ships and other machinery right there on the shore building the pier and presumably several Navy ships there to protect them, so what happens
when Hamas inevitably starts lobbing missiles at all of them?
When you're forced to return fire and break your promise that this pier-building wouldn't result in us involved in the war, are you going
to then pretend this wasn't a foreseeable development?
Former U.S. Ambassador to Israel David M. Friedman called the announcement >> "a cheap political trick".
It's a political trick, all right, but there won't be anything cheap
about it, either in materiel or lives.
"Remember that billions of dollars of aid has come into Gaza over the past >> 15 years and almost all of it was used to build terror tunnels and rocket >> launchers. How will that be prevented this time? Won't a port just
accelerate and exacerbate this risk?" he posted on X. "And even with a
port, the humanitarian aid has to be loaded onto trucks to get to their
destination-- yes, the same trucks that Hamas is commandeering and
preventing from going to the right people!"
Exactly. We're going to spend billions building this port for Gaza (a
city that essentially doesn't even exist anymore, FYI) and when it's finally open, any aid that's offloaded there will just be hijacked by
Hamas after it leaves the port.
Which will then lead Biden to say, "Well, I know I promised no American boots on the ground but we didn't foresee the problems with the aid
after it leaves the port, so now we need to send in tanks, APCs, and
troops to protect the aid until it gets to the people." And whammo, just like that we're in a shooting war in Gaza.
If only Biden put this much effort into securing the southern border
here in America...
YOU guys crafted the bill, then YOU guys shot your own bill down and now
want to pretend Biden is responsible for it.
People aren't as stupid as you want them to be.
Pretend all you like, we had a solution to the border problem.
In article <usevpt$1m3o8$3@dont-email.me>,
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
President Joe Biden will reportedly announce during his televised State of >> the Union speech on Thursday that he is deploying the U.S. military to Gaza >> to help build infrastructure for the Palestinians.
He wants to build a pier/port for Gaza in the Mediterranean. But swears
this won't require any U.S. military involvement in the Israel/Gaza war.
How exactly will this work, Joe? We're going to have several dozens
ships and other machinery right there on the shore building the pier and presumably several Navy ships there to protect them, so what happens
when Hamas inevitably starts lobbing missiles at all of them?
When you're forced to return fire and break your promise that this pier-building wouldn't result in us involved in the war, are you going
to then pretend this wasn't a foreseeable development?
Former U.S. Ambassador to Israel David M. Friedman called the announcement >> "a cheap political trick".
It's a political trick, all right, but there won't be anything cheap
about it, either in materiel or lives.
"Remember that billions of dollars of aid has come into Gaza over the past 15
years and almost all of it was used to build terror tunnels and rocket
launchers. How will that be prevented this time? Won't a port just accelerate
and exacerbate this risk?" he posted on X. "And even with a port, the
humanitarian aid has to be loaded onto trucks to get to their destination-- >> yes, the same trucks that Hamas is commandeering and preventing from going to
the right people!"
Exactly. We're going to spend billions building this port for Gaza (a
city that essentially doesn't even exist anymore, FYI) and when it's
finally open, any aid that's offloaded there will just be hijacked by
Hamas after it leaves the port.
Which will then lead Biden to say, "Well, I know I promised no American
boots on the ground but we didn't foresee the problems with the aid
after it leaves the port, so now we need to send in tanks, APCs, and
troops to protect the aid until it gets to the people. And whammo, just
like that we're in a shooting war in Gaza.
If only Biden put this much effort into securing the southern border
here in America...
In article <usgdhn$2079n$1@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 3/8/24 2:55 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <usevpt$1m3o8$3@dont-email.me>,
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
President Joe Biden will reportedly announce during his televised State of >>>> the Union speech on Thursday that he is deploying the U.S. military to >>>> Gaza to help build infrastructure for the Palestinians.
He wants to build a pier/port for Gaza in the Mediterranean. But swears
this won't require any U.S. military involvement in the Israel/Gaza war. >>>
How exactly will this work, Joe? We're going to have several dozens
ships and other machinery right there on the shore building the pier and >>> presumably several Navy ships there to protect them, so what happens
when Hamas inevitably starts lobbing missiles at all of them?
When you're forced to return fire and break your promise that this
pier-building wouldn't result in us involved in the war, are you going
to then pretend this wasn't a foreseeable development?
Former U.S. Ambassador to Israel David M. Friedman called the announcement >>>> "a cheap political trick".
It's a political trick, all right, but there won't be anything cheap
about it, either in materiel or lives.
"Remember that billions of dollars of aid has come into Gaza over the past >>>> 15 years and almost all of it was used to build terror tunnels and rocket >>>> launchers. How will that be prevented this time? Won't a port just
accelerate and exacerbate this risk?" he posted on X. "And even with a >>>> port, the humanitarian aid has to be loaded onto trucks to get to their >>>> destination-- yes, the same trucks that Hamas is commandeering and
preventing from going to the right people!"
Exactly. We're going to spend billions building this port for Gaza (a
city that essentially doesn't even exist anymore, FYI) and when it's
finally open, any aid that's offloaded there will just be hijacked by
Hamas after it leaves the port.
Which will then lead Biden to say, "Well, I know I promised no American
boots on the ground but we didn't foresee the problems with the aid
after it leaves the port, so now we need to send in tanks, APCs, and
troops to protect the aid until it gets to the people." And whammo, just >>> like that we're in a shooting war in Gaza.
If only Biden put this much effort into securing the southern border
here in America...
YOU guys crafted the bill, then YOU guys shot your own bill down and now
want to pretend Biden is responsible for it.
Biden is responsible for the entire border mess for the last three years since he took office.
everything from cutting holes in barriers so that illegal could have
easier entry into the country, to ordering the Border Patrol to refrain
from stopping illegals entering the country.
Pretending three years later that he has nothing to do with the raging
chaos that resulted from his EOs, and it's all the fault of Republicans
whose RINO members crafted a bill that makes the problem worse, is
idiotic. But it's a brilliant trick if you can find someone stupid
enough to fall for it.
People aren't as stupid as you want them to be.
No kidding. That's why we see right through this 'bipartisan border
bill'.
Pretend all you like, we had a solution to the border problem.
Allowing up to 8500 illegals per day to continue to flow unvetted into
the country isn't a solution to the border problem under any definition
of 'solution' in the English-speaking world, other than, I suppose, it
would be legalized under this bill so I guess you could claim they can't
be illegals if their entry was legalized and that would give a victory
in the language war.
On 3/8/24 10:08 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <usgdhn$2079n$1@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 3/8/24 2:55 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <usevpt$1m3o8$3@dont-email.me>,
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
President Joe Biden will reportedly announce during his televised State >>>> of
the Union speech on Thursday that he is deploying the U.S. military to >>>> Gaza to help build infrastructure for the Palestinians.
He wants to build a pier/port for Gaza in the Mediterranean. But swears >>> this won't require any U.S. military involvement in the Israel/Gaza war. >>>
How exactly will this work, Joe? We're going to have several dozens
ships and other machinery right there on the shore building the pier and >>> presumably several Navy ships there to protect them, so what happens
when Hamas inevitably starts lobbing missiles at all of them?
When you're forced to return fire and break your promise that this
pier-building wouldn't result in us involved in the war, are you going >>> to then pretend this wasn't a foreseeable development?
Former U.S. Ambassador to Israel David M. Friedman called the
announcement
"a cheap political trick".
It's a political trick, all right, but there won't be anything cheap
about it, either in materiel or lives.
"Remember that billions of dollars of aid has come into Gaza over the >>>> past
15 years and almost all of it was used to build terror tunnels and
rocket
launchers. How will that be prevented this time? Won't a port just
accelerate and exacerbate this risk?" he posted on X. "And even with a >>>> port, the humanitarian aid has to be loaded onto trucks to get to their >>>> destination-- yes, the same trucks that Hamas is commandeering and
preventing from going to the right people!"
Exactly. We're going to spend billions building this port for Gaza (a
city that essentially doesn't even exist anymore, FYI) and when it's
finally open, any aid that's offloaded there will just be hijacked by
Hamas after it leaves the port.
Which will then lead Biden to say, "Well, I know I promised no American >>> boots on the ground but we didn't foresee the problems with the aid
after it leaves the port, so now we need to send in tanks, APCs, and
troops to protect the aid until it gets to the people." And whammo, just >>> like that we're in a shooting war in Gaza.
If only Biden put this much effort into securing the southern border
here in America...
YOU guys crafted the bill, then YOU guys shot your own bill down and now >> want to pretend Biden is responsible for it.
Biden is responsible for the entire border mess for the last three years since he took office. It wasn't Republicans who signed 94 EOs ordering everything from cutting holes in barriers so that illegal could have
easier entry into the country, to ordering the Border Patrol to refrain from stopping illegals entering the country.
Pretending three years later that he has nothing to do with the raging chaos that resulted from his EOs, and it's all the fault of Republicans whose RINO members crafted a bill that makes the problem worse, is
idiotic. But it's a brilliant trick if you can find someone stupid
enough to fall for it.
People aren't as stupid as you want them to be.
No kidding. That's why we see right through this 'bipartisan border
bill'.
Pretend all you like, we had a solution to the border problem.
Allowing up to 8500 illegals per day to continue to flow unvetted into
the country isn't a solution to the border problem under any definition
of 'solution' in the English-speaking world, other than, I suppose, it would be legalized under this bill so I guess you could claim they can't
be illegals if their entry was legalized and that would give a victory
in the language war.
Again, Republicans put together a fix for the border.
In article <uskdm2$30432$2@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 3/8/24 10:08 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <usgdhn$2079n$1@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>Again, Republicans put together a fix for the border.
wrote:
On 3/8/24 2:55 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <usevpt$1m3o8$3@dont-email.me>,
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
President Joe Biden will reportedly announce during his televised State >>>>>> of
the Union speech on Thursday that he is deploying the U.S. military to >>>>>> Gaza to help build infrastructure for the Palestinians.
He wants to build a pier/port for Gaza in the Mediterranean. But swears >>>>> this won't require any U.S. military involvement in the Israel/Gaza war. >>>>>
How exactly will this work, Joe? We're going to have several dozens
ships and other machinery right there on the shore building the pier and >>>>> presumably several Navy ships there to protect them, so what happens >>>>> when Hamas inevitably starts lobbing missiles at all of them?
When you're forced to return fire and break your promise that this
pier-building wouldn't result in us involved in the war, are you going >>>>> to then pretend this wasn't a foreseeable development?
Former U.S. Ambassador to Israel David M. Friedman called the
announcement
"a cheap political trick".
It's a political trick, all right, but there won't be anything cheap >>>>> about it, either in materiel or lives.
"Remember that billions of dollars of aid has come into Gaza over the >>>>>> past
15 years and almost all of it was used to build terror tunnels and >>>>>> rocket
launchers. How will that be prevented this time? Won't a port just >>>>>> accelerate and exacerbate this risk?" he posted on X. "And even with a >>>>>> port, the humanitarian aid has to be loaded onto trucks to get to their >>>>>> destination-- yes, the same trucks that Hamas is commandeering and >>>>>> preventing from going to the right people!"
Exactly. We're going to spend billions building this port for Gaza (a >>>>> city that essentially doesn't even exist anymore, FYI) and when it's >>>>> finally open, any aid that's offloaded there will just be hijacked by >>>>> Hamas after it leaves the port.
Which will then lead Biden to say, "Well, I know I promised no American >>>>> boots on the ground but we didn't foresee the problems with the aid
after it leaves the port, so now we need to send in tanks, APCs, and >>>>> troops to protect the aid until it gets to the people." And whammo, just >>>>> like that we're in a shooting war in Gaza.
If only Biden put this much effort into securing the southern border >>>>> here in America...
YOU guys crafted the bill, then YOU guys shot your own bill down and now >>>> want to pretend Biden is responsible for it.
Biden is responsible for the entire border mess for the last three years >>> since he took office. It wasn't Republicans who signed 94 EOs ordering
everything from cutting holes in barriers so that illegal could have
easier entry into the country, to ordering the Border Patrol to refrain
from stopping illegals entering the country.
Pretending three years later that he has nothing to do with the raging
chaos that resulted from his EOs, and it's all the fault of Republicans
whose RINO members crafted a bill that makes the problem worse, is
idiotic. But it's a brilliant trick if you can find someone stupid
enough to fall for it.
People aren't as stupid as you want them to be.
No kidding. That's why we see right through this 'bipartisan border
bill'.
Pretend all you like, we had a solution to the border problem.
Allowing up to 8500 illegals per day to continue to flow unvetted into
the country isn't a solution to the border problem under any definition
of 'solution' in the English-speaking world, other than, I suppose, it
would be legalized under this bill so I guess you could claim they can't >>> be illegals if their entry was legalized and that would give a victory
in the language war.
Again, continuing to allow thousands of illegals unrestricted access to
the nation is not a 'fix'. It's just leaving everything broken and
pretending you fixed it.
In article <uskdm2$30432$2@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 3/8/24 10:08 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <usgdhn$2079n$1@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>Again, Republicans put together a fix for the border.
wrote:
On 3/8/24 2:55 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <usevpt$1m3o8$3@dont-email.me>,
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
President Joe Biden will reportedly announce during his televised State >>>>>> of
the Union speech on Thursday that he is deploying the U.S. military to >>>>>> Gaza to help build infrastructure for the Palestinians.
He wants to build a pier/port for Gaza in the Mediterranean. But swears >>>>> this won't require any U.S. military involvement in the Israel/Gaza war. >>>>>
How exactly will this work, Joe? We're going to have several dozens
ships and other machinery right there on the shore building the pier and >>>>> presumably several Navy ships there to protect them, so what happens >>>>> when Hamas inevitably starts lobbing missiles at all of them?
When you're forced to return fire and break your promise that this
pier-building wouldn't result in us involved in the war, are you going >>>>> to then pretend this wasn't a foreseeable development?
Former U.S. Ambassador to Israel David M. Friedman called the
announcement
"a cheap political trick".
It's a political trick, all right, but there won't be anything cheap >>>>> about it, either in materiel or lives.
"Remember that billions of dollars of aid has come into Gaza over the >>>>>> past
15 years and almost all of it was used to build terror tunnels and >>>>>> rocket
launchers. How will that be prevented this time? Won't a port just >>>>>> accelerate and exacerbate this risk?" he posted on X. "And even with a >>>>>> port, the humanitarian aid has to be loaded onto trucks to get to their >>>>>> destination-- yes, the same trucks that Hamas is commandeering and >>>>>> preventing from going to the right people!"
Exactly. We're going to spend billions building this port for Gaza (a >>>>> city that essentially doesn't even exist anymore, FYI) and when it's >>>>> finally open, any aid that's offloaded there will just be hijacked by >>>>> Hamas after it leaves the port.
Which will then lead Biden to say, "Well, I know I promised no American >>>>> boots on the ground but we didn't foresee the problems with the aid
after it leaves the port, so now we need to send in tanks, APCs, and >>>>> troops to protect the aid until it gets to the people." And whammo, just >>>>> like that we're in a shooting war in Gaza.
If only Biden put this much effort into securing the southern border >>>>> here in America...
YOU guys crafted the bill, then YOU guys shot your own bill down and now >>>> want to pretend Biden is responsible for it.
Biden is responsible for the entire border mess for the last three years >>> since he took office. It wasn't Republicans who signed 94 EOs ordering
everything from cutting holes in barriers so that illegal could have
easier entry into the country, to ordering the Border Patrol to refrain
from stopping illegals entering the country.
Pretending three years later that he has nothing to do with the raging
chaos that resulted from his EOs, and it's all the fault of Republicans
whose RINO members crafted a bill that makes the problem worse, is
idiotic. But it's a brilliant trick if you can find someone stupid
enough to fall for it.
People aren't as stupid as you want them to be.
No kidding. That's why we see right through this 'bipartisan border
bill'.
Pretend all you like, we had a solution to the border problem.
Allowing up to 8500 illegals per day to continue to flow unvetted into
the country isn't a solution to the border problem under any definition
of 'solution' in the English-speaking world, other than, I suppose, it
would be legalized under this bill so I guess you could claim they can't >>> be illegals if their entry was legalized and that would give a victory
in the language war.
Again, continuing to allow thousands of illegals unrestricted access to
the nation is not a 'fix'. It's just leaving everything broken and
pretending you fixed it.
On 3/10/2024 3:05 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <uskdm2$30432$2@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 3/8/24 10:08 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <usgdhn$2079n$1@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>Again, Republicans put together a fix for the border.
wrote:
On 3/8/24 2:55 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <usevpt$1m3o8$3@dont-email.me>,
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
President Joe Biden will reportedly announce during his televised State
of the Union speech on Thursday that he is deploying the U.S. military >>>>>> to Gaza to help build infrastructure for the Palestinians.
He wants to build a pier/port for Gaza in the Mediterranean. But swears >>>>> this won't require any U.S. military involvement in the Israel/Gaza war.
How exactly will this work, Joe? We're going to have several dozens >>>>> ships and other machinery right there on the shore building the pier >>>>> and presumably several Navy ships there to protect them, so what
happens when Hamas inevitably starts lobbing missiles at all of them? >>>>>
When you're forced to return fire and break your promise that this >>>>> pier-building wouldn't result in us involved in the war, are you going >>>>> to then pretend this wasn't a foreseeable development?
Former U.S. Ambassador to Israel David M. Friedman called the
announcement "a cheap political trick".
It's a political trick, all right, but there won't be anything cheap >>>>> about it, either in materiel or lives.
"Remember that billions of dollars of aid has come into Gaza over the >>>>>> past
15 years and almost all of it was used to build terror tunnels and >>>>>> rocket
launchers. How will that be prevented this time? Won't a port just >>>>>> accelerate and exacerbate this risk?" he posted on X. "And even with a >>>>>> port, the humanitarian aid has to be loaded onto trucks to get to their
destination-- yes, the same trucks that Hamas is commandeering and >>>>>> preventing from going to the right people!"
Exactly. We're going to spend billions building this port for Gaza (a >>>>> city that essentially doesn't even exist anymore, FYI) and when it's >>>>> finally open, any aid that's offloaded there will just be hijacked by >>>>> Hamas after it leaves the port.
Which will then lead Biden to say, "Well, I know I promised no American >>>>> boots on the ground but we didn't foresee the problems with the aid >>>>> after it leaves the port, so now we need to send in tanks, APCs, and >>>>> troops to protect the aid until it gets to the people." And whammo, just
like that we're in a shooting war in Gaza.
If only Biden put this much effort into securing the southern border >>>>> here in America...
YOU guys crafted the bill, then YOU guys shot your own bill down and now >>>> want to pretend Biden is responsible for it.
Biden is responsible for the entire border mess for the last three years >>> since he took office. It wasn't Republicans who signed 94 EOs ordering >>> everything from cutting holes in barriers so that illegal could have
easier entry into the country, to ordering the Border Patrol to refrain >>> from stopping illegals entering the country.
Pretending three years later that he has nothing to do with the raging >>> chaos that resulted from his EOs, and it's all the fault of Republicans >>> whose RINO members crafted a bill that makes the problem worse, is
idiotic. But it's a brilliant trick if you can find someone stupid
enough to fall for it.
People aren't as stupid as you want them to be.
No kidding. That's why we see right through this 'bipartisan border
bill'.
Pretend all you like, we had a solution to the border problem.
Allowing up to 8500 illegals per day to continue to flow unvetted into >>> the country isn't a solution to the border problem under any definition >>> of 'solution' in the English-speaking world, other than, I suppose, it >>> would be legalized under this bill so I guess you could claim they can't >>> be illegals if their entry was legalized and that would give a victory >>> in the language war.
Again, continuing to allow thousands of illegals unrestricted access to
the nation is not a 'fix'. It's just leaving everything broken and pretending you fixed it.
You *DO* understand that, even if the bill had hermetically sealed the
border and deported all current non-legals, it would *STILL* have been
shot down like an escaping doe. Not sure you should be celebrating...
In article <17bb80004f59a21f$3$856620$cd54664@news.newsdemon.com>,
moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
On 3/10/2024 3:05 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <uskdm2$30432$2@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 3/8/24 10:08 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <usgdhn$2079n$1@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote:Again, Republicans put together a fix for the border.
On 3/8/24 2:55 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <usevpt$1m3o8$3@dont-email.me>,
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
President Joe Biden will reportedly announce during his televised State
of the Union speech on Thursday that he is deploying the U.S. military >>>>>>>> to Gaza to help build infrastructure for the Palestinians.
He wants to build a pier/port for Gaza in the Mediterranean. But swears >>>>>>> this won't require any U.S. military involvement in the Israel/Gaza war.
How exactly will this work, Joe? We're going to have several dozens >>>>>>> ships and other machinery right there on the shore building the pier >>>>>>> and presumably several Navy ships there to protect them, so what >>>>>>> happens when Hamas inevitably starts lobbing missiles at all of them? >>>>>>>
When you're forced to return fire and break your promise that this >>>>>>> pier-building wouldn't result in us involved in the war, are you going >>>>>>> to then pretend this wasn't a foreseeable development?
Former U.S. Ambassador to Israel David M. Friedman called the
announcement "a cheap political trick".
It's a political trick, all right, but there won't be anything cheap >>>>>>> about it, either in materiel or lives.
"Remember that billions of dollars of aid has come into Gaza over the >>>>>>>> past
15 years and almost all of it was used to build terror tunnels and >>>>>>>> rocket
launchers. How will that be prevented this time? Won't a port just >>>>>>>> accelerate and exacerbate this risk?" he posted on X. "And even with a >>>>>>>> port, the humanitarian aid has to be loaded onto trucks to get to their
destination-- yes, the same trucks that Hamas is commandeering and >>>>>>>> preventing from going to the right people!"
Exactly. We're going to spend billions building this port for Gaza (a >>>>>>> city that essentially doesn't even exist anymore, FYI) and when it's >>>>>>> finally open, any aid that's offloaded there will just be hijacked by >>>>>>> Hamas after it leaves the port.
Which will then lead Biden to say, "Well, I know I promised no American >>>>>>> boots on the ground but we didn't foresee the problems with the aid >>>>>>> after it leaves the port, so now we need to send in tanks, APCs, and >>>>>>> troops to protect the aid until it gets to the people." And whammo, just
like that we're in a shooting war in Gaza.
If only Biden put this much effort into securing the southern border >>>>>>> here in America...
YOU guys crafted the bill, then YOU guys shot your own bill down and now >>>>>> want to pretend Biden is responsible for it.
Biden is responsible for the entire border mess for the last three years >>>>> since he took office. It wasn't Republicans who signed 94 EOs ordering >>>>> everything from cutting holes in barriers so that illegal could have >>>>> easier entry into the country, to ordering the Border Patrol to refrain >>>>> from stopping illegals entering the country.
Pretending three years later that he has nothing to do with the raging >>>>> chaos that resulted from his EOs, and it's all the fault of Republicans >>>>> whose RINO members crafted a bill that makes the problem worse, is
idiotic. But it's a brilliant trick if you can find someone stupid
enough to fall for it.
People aren't as stupid as you want them to be.
No kidding. That's why we see right through this 'bipartisan border
bill'.
Pretend all you like, we had a solution to the border problem.
Allowing up to 8500 illegals per day to continue to flow unvetted into >>>>> the country isn't a solution to the border problem under any definition >>>>> of 'solution' in the English-speaking world, other than, I suppose, it >>>>> would be legalized under this bill so I guess you could claim they can't >>>>> be illegals if their entry was legalized and that would give a victory >>>>> in the language war.
Again, continuing to allow thousands of illegals unrestricted access to
the nation is not a 'fix'. It's just leaving everything broken and
pretending you fixed it.
You *DO* understand that, even if the bill had hermetically sealed the
border and deported all current non-legals, it would *STILL* have been
shot down like an escaping doe. Not sure you should be celebrating...
And if such a bill had been shot down by Republicans, I'd be the first
one bitching about them for doing it.
But in this case, shooting it down was the right move, even if some of
them had dubious motives for doing so.
On 3/10/2024 4:37 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <17bb80004f59a21f$3$856620$cd54664@news.newsdemon.com>,
moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
On 3/10/2024 3:05 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <uskdm2$30432$2@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 3/8/24 10:08 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <usgdhn$2079n$1@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote:
Again, Republicans put together a fix for the border.Pretend all you like, we had a solution to the border problem.
Allowing up to 8500 illegals per day to continue to flow unvetted into >>>>> the country isn't a solution to the border problem under any definition >>>>> of 'solution' in the English-speaking world, other than, I suppose, it >>>>> would be legalized under this bill so I guess you could claim they >>>>> can't be illegals if their entry was legalized and that would give a >>>>> victory in the language war.
Again, continuing to allow thousands of illegals unrestricted access to >>> the nation is not a 'fix'. It's just leaving everything broken and
pretending you fixed it.
You *DO* understand that, even if the bill had hermetically sealed the
border and deported all current non-legals, it would *STILL* have been
shot down like an escaping doe. Not sure you should be celebrating...
And if such a bill had been shot down by Republicans, I'd be the first
one bitching about them for doing it.
But in this case, shooting it down was the right move, even if some of
them had dubious motives for doing so.
(You misspelled "most all".)
You're calling it the "right move" as though any reason other than sheer political pusillanimity underlay it
Trump's a fucking dictator flexing his politburo, and that's hard to see past.
In article <uskdm2$30432$2@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 3/8/24 10:08 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <usgdhn$2079n$1@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>Again, Republicans put together a fix for the border.
wrote:
On 3/8/24 2:55 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <usevpt$1m3o8$3@dont-email.me>,
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
President Joe Biden will reportedly announce during his televised State >>>>>> of
the Union speech on Thursday that he is deploying the U.S. military to >>>>>> Gaza to help build infrastructure for the Palestinians.
He wants to build a pier/port for Gaza in the Mediterranean. But swears >>>>> this won't require any U.S. military involvement in the Israel/Gaza war. >>>>>
How exactly will this work, Joe? We're going to have several dozens
ships and other machinery right there on the shore building the pier and >>>>> presumably several Navy ships there to protect them, so what happens >>>>> when Hamas inevitably starts lobbing missiles at all of them?
When you're forced to return fire and break your promise that this
pier-building wouldn't result in us involved in the war, are you going >>>>> to then pretend this wasn't a foreseeable development?
Former U.S. Ambassador to Israel David M. Friedman called the
announcement
"a cheap political trick".
It's a political trick, all right, but there won't be anything cheap >>>>> about it, either in materiel or lives.
"Remember that billions of dollars of aid has come into Gaza over the >>>>>> past
15 years and almost all of it was used to build terror tunnels and >>>>>> rocket
launchers. How will that be prevented this time? Won't a port just >>>>>> accelerate and exacerbate this risk?" he posted on X. "And even with a >>>>>> port, the humanitarian aid has to be loaded onto trucks to get to their >>>>>> destination-- yes, the same trucks that Hamas is commandeering and >>>>>> preventing from going to the right people!"
Exactly. We're going to spend billions building this port for Gaza (a >>>>> city that essentially doesn't even exist anymore, FYI) and when it's >>>>> finally open, any aid that's offloaded there will just be hijacked by >>>>> Hamas after it leaves the port.
Which will then lead Biden to say, "Well, I know I promised no American >>>>> boots on the ground but we didn't foresee the problems with the aid
after it leaves the port, so now we need to send in tanks, APCs, and >>>>> troops to protect the aid until it gets to the people." And whammo, just >>>>> like that we're in a shooting war in Gaza.
If only Biden put this much effort into securing the southern border >>>>> here in America...
YOU guys crafted the bill, then YOU guys shot your own bill down and now >>>> want to pretend Biden is responsible for it.
Biden is responsible for the entire border mess for the last three years >>> since he took office. It wasn't Republicans who signed 94 EOs ordering
everything from cutting holes in barriers so that illegal could have
easier entry into the country, to ordering the Border Patrol to refrain
from stopping illegals entering the country.
Pretending three years later that he has nothing to do with the raging
chaos that resulted from his EOs, and it's all the fault of Republicans
whose RINO members crafted a bill that makes the problem worse, is
idiotic. But it's a brilliant trick if you can find someone stupid
enough to fall for it.
People aren't as stupid as you want them to be.
No kidding. That's why we see right through this 'bipartisan border
bill'.
Pretend all you like, we had a solution to the border problem.
Allowing up to 8500 illegals per day to continue to flow unvetted into
the country isn't a solution to the border problem under any definition
of 'solution' in the English-speaking world, other than, I suppose, it
would be legalized under this bill so I guess you could claim they can't >>> be illegals if their entry was legalized and that would give a victory
in the language war.
Again, continuing to allow thousands of illegals unrestricted access to
the nation is not a 'fix'. It's just leaving everything broken and
pretending you fixed it.
On 3/10/24 6:23 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <17bb85b615b2ae7e$55$3602787$2d54864@news.newsdemon.com>,
moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
On 3/10/2024 4:37 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <17bb80004f59a21f$3$856620$cd54664@news.newsdemon.com>,
moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
On 3/10/2024 3:05 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <uskdm2$30432$2@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote:
On 3/8/24 10:08 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <usgdhn$2079n$1@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
And if such a bill had been shot down by Republicans, I'd be the first >>> one bitching about them for doing it.Again, Republicans put together a fix for the border.Pretend all you like, we had a solution to the border problem. >>>>>>>Allowing up to 8500 illegals per day to continue to flow unvetted >>>>>>> into the country isn't a solution to the border problem under any >>>>>>> definition of 'solution' in the English-speaking world, other than, >>>>>>> I suppose, it would be legalized under this bill so I guess you >>>>>>> could claim they can't be illegals if their entry was legalized >>>>>>> and that would give a victory in the language war.
Again, continuing to allow thousands of illegals unrestricted access to >>>>> the nation is not a 'fix'. It's just leaving everything broken and >>>>> pretending you fixed it.
You *DO* understand that, even if the bill had hermetically sealed the >>>> border and deported all current non-legals, it would *STILL* have been >>>> shot down like an escaping doe. Not sure you should be celebrating... >>>
But in this case, shooting it down was the right move, even if some of >>> them had dubious motives for doing so.
(You misspelled "most all".)
You're calling it the "right move" as though any reason other than sheer >> political pusillanimity underlay it
I don't care why they did it, I'm just glad that it was rejected. That
bill was an abomination that would only have legalized the massive
migrant hordes' flow into this country.
Trump's a fucking dictator flexing his politburo, and that's hard to see >> past.
Be that as it may, the nation dodged a bullet by rejecting that abortion masquerading as 'border security'.
I sure as hell wouldn't want them to vote *for* such appalling
legislation to the detriment of America merely to stick a thumb in
Trump's eye.
Then why did the most conservative Republicans craft the bill, and
praise it to high heaven?
On 3/10/24 3:05 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <uskdm2$30432$2@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 3/8/24 10:08 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <usgdhn$2079n$1@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>Again, Republicans put together a fix for the border.
wrote:
On 3/8/24 2:55 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <usevpt$1m3o8$3@dont-email.me>,
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
President Joe Biden will reportedly announce during his televised State
of
the Union speech on Thursday that he is deploying the U.S. military to >>>>>> Gaza to help build infrastructure for the Palestinians.
He wants to build a pier/port for Gaza in the Mediterranean. But swears >>>>> this won't require any U.S. military involvement in the Israel/Gaza war.
How exactly will this work, Joe? We're going to have several dozens >>>>> ships and other machinery right there on the shore building the pier and
presumably several Navy ships there to protect them, so what happens >>>>> when Hamas inevitably starts lobbing missiles at all of them?
When you're forced to return fire and break your promise that this >>>>> pier-building wouldn't result in us involved in the war, are you going >>>>> to then pretend this wasn't a foreseeable development?
Former U.S. Ambassador to Israel David M. Friedman called the
announcement
"a cheap political trick".
It's a political trick, all right, but there won't be anything cheap >>>>> about it, either in materiel or lives.
"Remember that billions of dollars of aid has come into Gaza over the >>>>>> past
15 years and almost all of it was used to build terror tunnels and >>>>>> rocket
launchers. How will that be prevented this time? Won't a port just >>>>>> accelerate and exacerbate this risk?" he posted on X. "And even with a >>>>>> port, the humanitarian aid has to be loaded onto trucks to get to their
destination-- yes, the same trucks that Hamas is commandeering and >>>>>> preventing from going to the right people!"
Exactly. We're going to spend billions building this port for Gaza (a >>>>> city that essentially doesn't even exist anymore, FYI) and when it's >>>>> finally open, any aid that's offloaded there will just be hijacked by >>>>> Hamas after it leaves the port.
Which will then lead Biden to say, "Well, I know I promised no American >>>>> boots on the ground but we didn't foresee the problems with the aid >>>>> after it leaves the port, so now we need to send in tanks, APCs, and >>>>> troops to protect the aid until it gets to the people." And whammo, just
like that we're in a shooting war in Gaza.
If only Biden put this much effort into securing the southern border >>>>> here in America...
YOU guys crafted the bill, then YOU guys shot your own bill down and now >>>> want to pretend Biden is responsible for it.
Biden is responsible for the entire border mess for the last three years >>> since he took office. It wasn't Republicans who signed 94 EOs ordering >>> everything from cutting holes in barriers so that illegal could have
easier entry into the country, to ordering the Border Patrol to refrain >>> from stopping illegals entering the country.
Pretending three years later that he has nothing to do with the raging >>> chaos that resulted from his EOs, and it's all the fault of Republicans >>> whose RINO members crafted a bill that makes the problem worse, is
idiotic. But it's a brilliant trick if you can find someone stupid
enough to fall for it.
People aren't as stupid as you want them to be.
No kidding. That's why we see right through this 'bipartisan border
bill'.
Pretend all you like, we had a solution to the border problem.
Allowing up to 8500 illegals per day to continue to flow unvetted into >>> the country isn't a solution to the border problem under any definition >>> of 'solution' in the English-speaking world, other than, I suppose, it >>> would be legalized under this bill so I guess you could claim they can't >>> be illegals if their entry was legalized and that would give a victory >>> in the language war.
Again, continuing to allow thousands of illegals unrestricted access to
the nation is not a 'fix'. It's just leaving everything broken and pretending you fixed it.
You guys wrote the bill.
If you don't think it works, well, that's ON YOU. You wrote the bill.
How many times do you have to be told?
Which will then lead Biden to say, "Well, I know I promised no American
boots on the ground but we didn't foresee the problems with the aid
after it leaves the port, so now we need to send in tanks, APCs, and
troops to protect the aid until it gets to the people. And whammo, just
like that we're in a shooting war in Gaza.
On 3/10/24 4:07 PM, moviePig wrote:
On 3/10/2024 3:05 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <uskdm2$30432$2@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 3/8/24 10:08 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <usgdhn$2079n$1@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote:Again, Republicans put together a fix for the border.
On 3/8/24 2:55 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <usevpt$1m3o8$3@dont-email.me>,
   Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
President Joe Biden will reportedly announce during his
televised State
of
the Union speech on Thursday that he is deploying the U.S.
military to
Gaza to help build infrastructure for the Palestinians.
He wants to build a pier/port for Gaza in the Mediterranean. But >>>>>>> swears
this won't require any U.S. military involvement in the
Israel/Gaza war.
How exactly will this work, Joe? We're going to have several dozens >>>>>>> ships and other machinery right there on the shore building the
pier and
presumably several Navy ships there to protect them, so what happens >>>>>>> when Hamas inevitably starts lobbing missiles at all of them?
When you're forced to return fire and break your promise that this >>>>>>> pier-building wouldn't result in us involved in the war, are you >>>>>>> going
to then pretend this wasn't a foreseeable development?
Former U.S. Ambassador to Israel David M. Friedman called the
announcement
"a cheap political trick".
It's a political trick, all right, but there won't be anything cheap >>>>>>> about it, either in materiel or lives.
"Remember that billions of dollars of aid has come into Gaza
over the
past
15 years and almost all of it was used to build terror tunnels and >>>>>>>> rocket
launchers. How will that be prevented this time? Won't a port just >>>>>>>> accelerate and exacerbate this risk?" he posted on X. "And even >>>>>>>> with a
port, the humanitarian aid has to be loaded onto trucks to get >>>>>>>> to their
destination-- yes, the same trucks that Hamas is commandeering and >>>>>>>> preventing from going to the right people!"
Exactly. We're going to spend billions building this port for
Gaza (a
city that essentially doesn't even exist anymore, FYI) and when it's >>>>>>> finally open, any aid that's offloaded there will just be
hijacked by
Hamas after it leaves the port.
Which will then lead Biden to say, "Well, I know I promised no
American
boots on the ground but we didn't foresee the problems with the aid >>>>>>> after it leaves the port, so now we need to send in tanks, APCs, and >>>>>>> troops to protect the aid until it gets to the people." And
whammo, just
like that we're in a shooting war in Gaza.
If only Biden put this much effort into securing the southern border >>>>>>> here in America...
YOU guys crafted the bill, then YOU guys shot your own bill down
and now
want to pretend Biden is responsible for it.
Biden is responsible for the entire border mess for the last three
years
since he took office. It wasn't Republicans who signed 94 EOs ordering >>>>> everything from cutting holes in barriers so that illegal could have >>>>> easier entry into the country, to ordering the Border Patrol to
refrain
from stopping illegals entering the country.
Pretending three years later that he has nothing to do with the raging >>>>> chaos that resulted from his EOs, and it's all the fault of
Republicans
whose RINO members crafted a bill that makes the problem worse, is
idiotic. But it's a brilliant trick if you can find someone stupid
enough to fall for it.
People aren't as stupid as you want them to be.
No kidding. That's why we see right through this 'bipartisan border
bill'.
Pretend all you like, we had a solution to the border problem.
Allowing up to 8500 illegals per day to continue to flow unvetted into >>>>> the country isn't a solution to the border problem under any
definition
of 'solution' in the English-speaking world, other than, I suppose, it >>>>> would be legalized under this bill so I guess you could claim they
can't
be illegals if their entry was legalized and that would give a victory >>>>> in the language war.
Again, continuing to allow thousands of illegals unrestricted access to
the nation is not a 'fix'. It's just leaving everything broken and
pretending you fixed it.
You *DO* understand that, even if the bill had hermetically sealed the
border and deported all current non-legals, it would *STILL* have been
shot down like an escaping doe. Not sure you should be celebrating...
He knows that pig. I've certainly told him enough times.
Anybody with eyes can see it.
You write a bill. It has everything you've been asking for for decades. Your opponents and the sitting president agree to it.
And... you KILL it dead after your cult leader told you to. Who doesn't understand what happened?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 70:44:21 |
| Calls: | 6,712 |
| Files: | 12,244 |
| Messages: | 5,356,842 |