[earl237]

This tea party movement has gone from bad to worse today, Maine republicans, which are supposed to be moderate and sensible have been taken over by tea party morons and have adopted a ridiculous platform which has many ridiculous resolutions but the dumbest of all was a motion to seal the U.S. border between Maine and New Brunswick (my home province.) I fear that this could make the Republican party unnelectable and destroy it. Thankfully, major newspapers have condemned this nonsense and I hope the resolutions don't pass.

[Wondergirl]

unnelectable

What does this word mean? I've never seen it in print before.

I wouldn't worry about the Tea Party people.

[Fr_Chuck]

Yes, I have no idea why a nation would want to have secure borders. It is a very silly idea??

[Wondergirl]

yes, I have no idea why a nation would want to have secure borders. It is a very silly idea ???

This country was built on immigrants (who killed off the natives). I'm 4th generation German. My ancestors didn't speak that good English even during the 2nd generation that was here, but they farmed and produced and added to the wealth of this country.

Anyone wanting to secure the borders is the child of an immigrant who may or may not have been "illegal."

[Fr_Chuck]

Most immigration was not illegal nor those that came in officially. There are legal immigration methods, thus the issue when people no longer view things as illegal, they are accepting criminal behavior and merely allow for less standards.

Fake ID, driving with no license or insurance. Business hiring illegally. When you can hire yard work for 50 dollars, when legal companies can't do it for less than 100 due to insurance and taxes and workers comp , it hurts the economy by lowering the working standards. And one could go on and on.

[earl237]

As the Washington Post said, the U.S. is not at risk of being invaded by Canada's Maritime provinces.

[paraclete]

yes, I have no idea why a nation would want to have secure borders. It is a very silly idea ???

Of course it is a silly idea, people only use border check points because it is convenient otherwise they come and go as they please. Now if you hadn't killed off the natives you could have used them to enforce the borders but undoubtedly they would have very different borders but it would be as easy to recognise the illegals as it is in Arizona

[Wondergirl]

As the Washington Post said, the U.S. is not at risk of being invaded by Canada's Maritime provinces.

We should be so lucky! Canadians could teach us a few lessons for sure!

[tomder55]

The tea party movement is primarily concerned with fiscal issues. But there has been recent examples where it has been infiltrated by Ronulan type fringes so that bears scrutiny.I don't see how the Republicans can be worse in Maine for adopting the core positions of the tea party movement... certainly not worse than the alternative of your Susan Collins or Olympia Snowe's ;who are Democrat-lite .

Here is the part of the platform of concern :

To Provide for the Common Defense:
a. Discard political correctness, make public the declaration of war (Jihad), made against the US on 23 Feb 1998, and fight the war against the United States by radical Islam to win.
b. Seal the border and protect US citizens along the border and everywhere, as is the prime directive of the Federal Government.

Mission and Platform

It does not single out New Brunswick ,but concerns itself with the infiltration of Jihadists into the US . There have been attempts at that in the past so it is a concern.

The Washington Compost demagogued the line to declare that the platform plank was because they feared invasion from Canada and the Canadian press dutifully picked up on the theme.It in nonsense to suggest that is the intent of the plank.

The only legitimate debate would be a matter of slowing down commercial exchange .That to me is a small price ;an inconvience .

[excon]

Hello:

I love it when righty's go bonkers... "Seal the border"... Bwa, ha ha ha ha... Those words make as much sense as death panels did.

I wonder if it's possible for a righty to actually THINK before he utters sounds. Nahhh.

excon

[tomder55]

I'll say it again . The platform was the construct of the Ron Paul libertarian "retreat to fortress America and pull up the drawbridge " wing .

What makes me laugh is that in 2008 everyone loved the guy . But now that his ideas have been converted into a political movement they are "tea-baggers "and "morons " .

[NeedKarma]

As the Washington Post said, the U.S. is not at risk of being invaded by Canada's Maritime provinces.

Maritimers and Maine/New England have always had very good relations concerning both commerce and tourism. Excellent neighbours. Those tea partiers are an ignorant bunch.

[tomder55]

Canadian investigative reporter Stewart Bell has identified and exposed the infiltration of jihadists into Canada (a nation they think is safe-haven) . If Canada is going to be lax about that then the people of the United States have a reason to be concerned about border security.
Exclusive: Former Somali fighter warns of growing radicalism in Canada

Amazon.com: Cold Terror: How Canada Nurtures and Exports Terrorism Around the World (9780470840566): Stewart Bell, Dr. Rohan Gunaratna: Books

[excon]

If Canada is going to be lax about that then the people of the United States have a reason to be concerned about border security.

Hello again, tom:

Caution. You're using the "border security" words again. They're WONDERFUL words. They make you feel all warm and fuzzy and safe... But, they're words WITHOUT meaning... It's like death panels. It get's you all buzzed, but there ain't no cheese...

Look. I live here too. I want my country to be safe too... But, I don't want to PRETEND it's safe, when it's not, and you do... Why?? Because securing the border is a MYTH. Those are words WITHOUT meaning... It's like the words "cracking down" when it comes to drugs... The words are MEANINGLESS, to anyone who actually THINKS...

excon

PS> Do I need to explain my post? Or do you grasp that we're NOT going to secure 4,500 MILES of border? Nahhhh - you don't grasp it.

[NeedKarma]

.. then the people of the United States have a reason to be concerned about border security.

The already have. Border control is already more robust. More border patrol vehicles go up and down the border roads and lots of new high-tech devices on the US side.

[tomder55]

Ex ,I have no illusion that tightening up the border will make it 100% secure . That is no excuse for laxity . You use the same flawed argument about the building of a border fence to control illegal immigration or the drug flow . Yes I'm sure there would still be some that make it across . But not nearly as many as before.
It is the opponents of border security that argue that since it won't be 100% effective that we should ignore the problem and stoically wait to get whacked .

NK . I travelled across the border last summer . I noticed the increased security . You would have to ask the Ronulans that took over the Republican platform committee to determine what additional measures they propose.

[excon]

Ex ,I have no illusion that tightening up the border will make it 100% secure . That is no excuse for laxity . You use the same flawed argument about the building of a border fence to control illegal immigration or the drug flow .

Hello again, tom:

Nahhhh. The proper argument to have about terrorists is to STOP the reasons they're terrorizing us. But, as long as you righty's continue to fantasize that the reasons they don't like us is because of our freedoms, they're going to keep on coming...

Any REAL discussion about it, you'd call apologizing, so you won't even HAVE that conversation. That kind of head in the sand notion will KEEP this war going on for a long, long time.

excon

PS> Lets say that we had a law that said you couldn't have safety pins... But, the people didn't lie down. They WANTED their safety pins. Then the government cracked down, and built fences and prisons, and courthouses... But the flow of safety pins did not abate.

Now, if they put ME in charge, I'd just say you guys can have safety pins now. If YOU were in charge, we'd go broke trying to keep safety pins out of our country. Would you examine whether safety pins SHOULD be illegal?? No, you wouldn't.

Of course I realize that you hold drugs to be different than safety pins - but they aren't.

[paraclete]

The proper argument to have about terrorists is to STOP the reasons they're terrorizing us.

Are they terrorising you? That is the question? You had one major incident and a couple of failed attempts and your are terrorised. Now if you had to face the prospect of being bombed everyday as it happens in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan you might have reason to be terrorised.

You have yet to grasp why these people are against you, it is because you interfer and continue it interfere with the politics in their country. Why did Al Qaeda attack you? Because you had troops stationed in Saudi Arabia. Why do Pakistani's attack you? Because you bomb and kill their people. They don't see what you do as liberating them or anyone else. This idea that grew up in your civil war, that a war of liberation is a just war is a fabrication

Any REAL discussion about it, you'd call apologizing, so you won't even HAVE that conversation. That kind of head in the sand notion will KEEP this war going on for a long, long time.

The war will stop when the cost of continuing becomes too great, you have already reached the point of diminishing returns where the costs far outweigh the gains. What will you win in Afghanistan, a friend or an enemy? Did you stop terrorism in Iraq by invading it? No, you gave terrorism an occasion to increase. The excuse; better to fight them there than here, but if you had left them alone they would not have attacked you. You can see the thinking that has to change, that a military solution is the answer

[Wondergirl]

The proper argument to have about terrorists is to STOP the reasons WHY they're terrorizing us.

Are they terrorising you?

excon is correct. We (or someone) has to stop the terrorists from being terrorists, from wanting to destroy -- destroy "us" or anyone else. Minds and hearts have to change. Killing them will never work because no one will be able to kill all of them.

[paraclete]

excon is correct. We (or someone) has to stop the terrorists from being terrorists, from wanting to destroy -- destroy "us" or anyone else. Minds and hearts have to change. Killing them will never work because no one will be able to kill all of them.

I agree that killing them won't work because all you get is more terrorists, so you have to remove the reason why they are militant which is largely because of disadvantage and hopelessness. You may recall the adage about teaching a man to fish; the lesson is we have to empower these people into prosperity and this means not giving them handouts from our surpluses but enabling them to produce for themselves. Do they need doctors then train them, do they need food then enable their own agriculture, do they need industry then establish the most basic industries even if you have to wrest them out of the monopolisation of China. When people are busy producing there is no time for militancy.

It is apparent that the militants exist mainly in places where there is endemic unemployment and disadvantage so instead of bombing them into submission we need to exchange their gun for a plow