Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Acosta mocked for border reporting: 'Exactly walls work!'

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Acosta mocked for border reporting: 'Exactly walls work!'

    Obviously Acosta didn't think this one out, nothing like proving that walls work.


    "CNN Chief White House correspondent Jim Acosta was mocked on social media after his report from a steel wall from the border "didn't show anything resembling a national emergency" in the area of the border that the president will be visiting Thursday in McAllen, Texas.

    "I found some steel slats down on the border," wrote Acosta on Twitter. "But I don’t see anything resembling a national emergency situation.. at least not in the McAllen, Texas, area of the border where Trump will be today."

    https://thehill.com/homenews/media/4...tly-walls-work

  • #2
    Here's what Border security is saying, go to the 2:30 mark in the video:

    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tru...wn-talks-stall

    Comment


    • #3
      If "walls don't work", then why have millions of Americans fenced off their property? Why arer farms, ranches, and factories surrounded by chain link fence or barbed wire? Why are prisons behind walls and wire that would make a WWI soldier green with envy? Why are American homes fenced in? Why is the White House behind a heavily guard, solid steel fence?

      Walls work, but laws must be enforced.
      Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
        Walls work, but laws must be enforced.
        Yes, walls do work and Acosta provided proof of this today.

        Comment


        • #5
          Too bad they didn't stick with walls are immoral, that could have lead to some interesting requirements. Since they like to legislate morality we could have seen walls around properties outlawed in sanctuary cities. It would be very educational for the Hollywood hypocrites, Tech Gurus and politicians if they had borderless yards. After all they are oppressing minorities because as their activist buddies like to say nobody should own the land (mother earth).
          We hunt the hunters

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
            Too bad they didn't stick with walls are immoral, that could have lead to some interesting requirements. Since they like to legislate morality we could have seen walls around properties outlawed in sanctuary cities. It would be very educational for the Hollywood hypocrites, Tech Gurus and politicians if they had borderless yards. After all they are oppressing minorities because as their activist buddies like to say nobody should own the land (mother earth).
            Oh no, not at all. Instead, walls would have legal, moral requirements to be built. No, I am not insane enough to figure how that'd work out, but I'm sure the brain trust of the Left could make something up that satisfies them...

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

              Oh no, not at all. Instead, walls would have legal, moral requirements to be built. No, I am not insane enough to figure how that'd work out, but I'm sure the brain trust of the Left could make something up that satisfies them...
              I really would like to see the leftists engaged in the current moral panic over immigration start housing immigrants in their homes and taking care of them. I know from sad experience that helping people is not as easy as it sounds. The left is really good at providing life without meaning. The first thing you have to do to really help someone is to help them find meaning. For most people that means finding a way to be a responsible members of a society not by assigning responsibility to someone else through activist culture. Finding meaning is certainly something a lot of Hollywood stars, leftist journalist, tech executives, academics and millennials seem to have failed miserably at. Sex, drugs, and fame is seldom enough to find meaning in. If your activism is little more than virtue signaling that is just a dolphime hit with little long term meaning attached to it. If you are trying to help people you need to live where they live.
              We hunt the hunters

              Comment


              • #8
                Meaning usually involves one of three things:

                Family
                Work or a vocation
                Religion

                The Left tends to eschew all three.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                  Meaning usually involves one of three things:

                  Family
                  Work or a vocation
                  Religion

                  The Left tends to eschew all three.
                  And people say that blaming Marx is a conspiracy theory :-) I admit that the problem is much more complex than just ideology but you have to start some where. Since the same pattern of social disintegration is a historical norm following a certain level of luxury it is hard to put the blame squarely on Marx. Marx just provided the modern justification for rejecting responsibility and thus meaning. I know that the left would argue that they are fighting for people being responsible for each other but as it turns out they always turn not to putting their hands to work building something but putting them in someone else's pockets. That is of course a gross generalization the cult of social justice has many decent people who do try and help the poor the problem is they just are not very good at managing anything more complex than say community activism.
                  We hunt the hunters

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Nichols View Post

                    Yes, walls do work and Acosta provided proof of this today.
                    Just wanted to say that you are right and I wasn't ignoring your point. The problem is Acosta isn't interesting anymore to even mock. The guy is an attention *****.
                    We hunt the hunters

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post

                      And people say that blaming Marx is a conspiracy theory :-) I admit that the problem is much more complex than just ideology but you have to start some where. Since the same pattern of social disintegration is a historical norm following a certain level of luxury it is hard to put the blame squarely on Marx. Marx just provided the modern justification for rejecting responsibility and thus meaning. I know that the left would argue that they are fighting for people being responsible for each other but as it turns out they always turn not to putting their hands to work building something but putting them in someone else's pockets. That is of course a gross generalization the cult of social justice has many decent people who do try and help the poor the problem is they just are not very good at managing anything more complex than say community activism.
                      It works, at least it seems to, something like this:

                      As society moves to the Left you get an increasing social-welfare state and paternalistic government. That's pretty much a provable fact.

                      Now, normally, the three things I listed give meaning to life. You live to have, nurture, and pass on progeny. You immerse yourself in family. You do this for something and someone beyond yourself.
                      Or, you work or have a vocation. That is, you produce or do something that not only generates a benefit for you, but for other people. This could be a wide variety of things, from being a manager who organizes and directs workers to make complex things, to a farmer, to an artist. Your labor generates wealth for you and goods others need. You are doing something beyond yourself.
                      Religion is the same way. You serve a deity or higher set of values and work to encourage others to do the same. You are again, doing something beyond yourself.

                      What the social-welfare state does is strip you of a need to do that. If you choose, and many do, you can live a life of relative ease whiling away the days pleasurably while the state makes sure your needs are met. You never have to grow up. You can be Peter Pan in a world without a Captain Hook.
                      We can see this in Europe today. Employment rates are generally low, and even the employed aren't forced to work long hours. You get lots of vacation and sick time. Better, you can choose not to work and still have a life without depravation.
                      The result is a falling birth rate. Who needs a family when government will substitute? An eschewing of religion. Who needs a higher calling when your life is without any real strife or want? And, low productivity. No need to work hard, and besides, the government often forbids it.

                      This is the result of Marx or Mao. It's what happens when you have Socialism. The problems only really surface when the birth rate is so low that the population shrinks and the money runs out.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post

                        Just wanted to say that you are right and I wasn't ignoring your point. The problem is Acosta isn't interesting anymore to even mock. The guy is an attention *****.
                        Nah, mockery is still good for a few laughs...

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                          It works, at least it seems to, something like this:

                          As society moves to the Left you get an increasing social-welfare state and paternalistic government. That's pretty much a provable fact.

                          Now, normally, the three things I listed give meaning to life. You live to have, nurture, and pass on progeny. You immerse yourself in family. You do this for something and someone beyond yourself.
                          Or, you work or have a vocation. That is, you produce or do something that not only generates a benefit for you, but for other people. This could be a wide variety of things, from being a manager who organizes and directs workers to make complex things, to a farmer, to an artist. Your labor generates wealth for you and goods others need. You are doing something beyond yourself.
                          Religion is the same way. You serve a deity or higher set of values and work to encourage others to do the same. You are again, doing something beyond yourself.

                          What the social-welfare state does is strip you of a need to do that. If you choose, and many do, you can live a life of relative ease whiling away the days pleasurably while the state makes sure your needs are met. You never have to grow up. You can be Peter Pan in a world without a Captain Hook.
                          We can see this in Europe today. Employment rates are generally low, and even the employed aren't forced to work long hours. You get lots of vacation and sick time. Better, you can choose not to work and still have a life without depravation.
                          The result is a falling birth rate. Who needs a family when government will substitute? An eschewing of religion. Who needs a higher calling when your life is without any real strife or want? And, low productivity. No need to work hard, and besides, the government often forbids it.

                          This is the result of Marx or Mao. It's what happens when you have Socialism. The problems only really surface when the birth rate is so low that the population shrinks and the money runs out.
                          But the fallacy in the system remains: in the perfect system run the way you describe, very few would be working and yet the enormous costs of such systems still have to be paid. The perfect socialist state is not self-sustaining.
                          Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

                            But the fallacy in the system remains: in the perfect system run the way you describe, very few would be working and yet the enormous costs of such systems still have to be paid. The perfect socialist state is not self-sustaining.
                            Precisely. What has happened in Europe is they've pulled back from the worst excesses of Socialism that they were pushing in the 50's to 70's but retained a large social-welfare state. If you look at the most virulent cases, like Greece, less than half the population works in any sort of private enterprise. More than half are either government or on some form of welfare. Greece would have already failed except the EU and Germany keep propping them up. Spain, Italy, Portugal, aren't far behind.
                            Venezuela is the latest example of Socialism's failure.

                            Those that do choose to work often do so because they feel a void in their life. In states that downplay, or even outright oppose, religion that's not a choice. For many Leftists, politics and Leftist dogma replace religion, which is why they are so vehement about opposing anything or one that disagrees with them. Family often becomes either irrelevant, or too expensive to opt for, so people don't. On the Left, the extreme are things like the Human Extinction Movement.

                            http://vhemt.org/

                            Yes, it's for real and the organization's founders are serious.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Nichols View Post

                              Yes, walls do work and Acosta provided proof of this today.
                              http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/...124-story.html
                              The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X