See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

1. #1
   On January 28th, 2009 at 5:13 pm, chapoutier said:

   Interesting thought…how many here would support the stimulus if a portion of it was going to fund construction of the border fence?

2. #2
   On January 28th, 2009 at 5:14 pm, Paul Revere said:

   Yeah, good luck with that!

3. #3
   On January 28th, 2009 at 5:15 pm, sonofdy said:

   Interesting thought…how many here would support the stimulus if a portion of it was going to fund construction of the border fence?

   Spend 1 trillion to get something that should have been done anyway???

   Not buying it.

4. #4
   On January 28th, 2009 at 5:16 pm, chapoutier said:

   Spend 1 trillion to get something that should have been done anyway???

   I never said it would cost the whole amount, and if everyone else is getting their pet projects in, why not you guys?

5. #5
   On January 28th, 2009 at 5:16 pm, hunter said:

   On January 28th, 2009 at 5:13 pm, chapoutier said:
   Interesting thought…how many here would support the stimulus if a portion of it was going to fund construction of the border fence?

   None. It should not take bankrupting our country to protect it’s borders. this is just common sense and throwing $50 million into $900 billion is not going to sway any sensible person to support the stimulus.

6. #6
   On January 28th, 2009 at 5:17 pm, Defector01 said:

   Maybe you should’ve tried this stunt back when teh republicans actually had power and could’ve made this happen, you know, two bleepin years ago???

7. #7
   On January 28th, 2009 at 5:18 pm, chapoutier said:

   It should not take bankrupting our country to protect it’s borders. this is just common sense and throwing $50 million into $900 billion is not going to sway any sensible person to support the stimulus.

   Okay fine, but if its going to pass anyway (it is)…why not fight for your little piece of it?

8. #8
   On January 28th, 2009 at 5:19 pm, hunter said:

   I never said it would cost the whole amount, and if everyone else is getting their pet projects in, why not you guys?

   Because we understand the difference between spending money on sensible and needed projects and handing out money that has no possible way of helping turn around the economy.

9. #9
   On January 28th, 2009 at 5:21 pm, PatriotRider said:

   Bullets are cheaper.

10. #10
    On January 28th, 2009 at 5:21 pm, sonofdy said:

    I never said it would cost the whole amount, and if everyone else is getting their pet projects in, why not you guys?

    You don’t fix a problem by making it worse.

11. #11
    On January 28th, 2009 at 5:21 pm, chapoutier said:

    Because we understand the difference between spending money on sensible and needed projects and handing out money that has no possible way of helping turn around the economy.

    Missing the point. That money is going to be spent, one way or the other. You can whine about it and see it spent on STD testing, or you can accept it and see if you can convince them to put it toward a project you presumably find worthy.

12. #12
    On January 28th, 2009 at 5:22 pm, RTater said:

    It wouldn’t be economic stimulus. It wouldn’t belong in an appropriation that claims to be for that purpose any more than say, re-sodding the capitol mall.

13. #13
    On January 28th, 2009 at 5:22 pm, sonofdy said:

    In other words, the first thing you do to get out of a hole is to STOP DIGGING.

14. #14
    On January 28th, 2009 at 5:23 pm, BlameAmericaLast said:

    I would not call national security [building a secure border fence] a “pet project”.

    That’s like calling the military a “nice to have” not a “need to have”.

15. #15
    On January 28th, 2009 at 5:23 pm, sonofdy said:

    Missing the point. That money is going to be spent, one way or the other. You can whine about it and see it spent on STD testing, or you can accept it and see if you can convince them to put it toward a project you presumably find worthy.

    Sort of like telling a rape victim “just relax and enjoy it”?

16. #16
    On January 28th, 2009 at 5:24 pm, chapoutier said:

    It wouldn’t belong in an appropriation that claims to be for that purpose any more than say, re-sodding the capitol mall.

    Okay, then ATV trail construction it is.

    And for clarification, I am not talking about adding to the cost of the bill, just making sure some Republican projects find their way into it.

17. #17
    On January 28th, 2009 at 5:25 pm, chapoutier said:

    Sort of like telling a rape victim “just relax and enjoy it”?

    Well, except what I said wasn’t totally tasteless.

18. #18
    On January 28th, 2009 at 5:26 pm, hunter said:

    I’m not missing the point. I do not agree with spending any of this money and just because it is going to be spent does not mean that I should try to convince my representatives to “get ours”. I will however keep pushing them to enact legislation to correct the border problems.

19. #19
    On January 28th, 2009 at 5:26 pm, PatriotRider said:

    Hey! I’m stealing from the company so why don’t you do it too! It’ll make me feel better!

    That’s why we don’t go for the carrot, Chappie. It’s a bad idea whoever get the money. It’s bad policy and it will hurt the economy.

20. #20
    On January 28th, 2009 at 5:26 pm, jsr said:

    Interesting thought…how many here would support the stimulus if a portion of it was going to fund construction of the border fence?

    I’m suprised the Dems didn’t throw it in as a ruse to lure some Republican votes. In the end, the funds wouldn’t be released as a never ending flood of lawsuits, environmental studies, technical problems and such would assure not so much as one mile would be built. After five years the money could be redirected to caring for anchor babies because, as everybody knows, healthy children are a requirement for a healthy economy.

21. #21
    On January 28th, 2009 at 5:27 pm, Ed Mahmoud abu al-Kahoul said:

    She may be running for Governor.

    IIRC, she helped sneak through border fence defunding in the last Congress.

    Cornyn isn’t perfect, but my other Senator is a classic Country Club Republican.

22. #22
    On January 28th, 2009 at 5:27 pm, chapoutier said:

    All right….

    I think you all are being silly. But I will drop it.

23. #23
    On January 28th, 2009 at 5:28 pm, Ed Mahmoud abu al-Kahoul said:

    Hutchison is not to be trusted on border security…

24. #24
    On January 28th, 2009 at 5:29 pm, PatriotRider said:

    Let’s just let the DemocRats take full responsibilty for this one and we’ll make sure it gets mentioned in 2010 and 2012.

25. #25
    On January 28th, 2009 at 5:33 pm, Flyoverman said:

    The Democrats have decided that over time it is more cost effective to abort potential border crossers now in the womb than to deny them entry later.

26. #26
    On January 28th, 2009 at 5:34 pm, rfjjulie said:

    I agree with you PatriotRider #9.

27. #27
    On January 28th, 2009 at 5:36 pm, zorro said:

    I fear the fence funding may be too little. If Mexico collapses and the drug dealers, Venezuela and Russia step in, we will be in a world of poo poo.

28. #28
    On January 28th, 2009 at 5:38 pm, Weary Citizen said:

    HA!!! This is the same woman who was “for cloture on the amnesty vote before she was against it”. Let me clue you in on her, she is a tepid conservative at best on immigration. She is running for the Texas Governor next election so she is simply posturing. If she was leaving politics altogether and this was her last cycle, I gurantee you she would vote in favor of any amensty offered up.

29. #29
    On January 28th, 2009 at 5:42 pm, cngerms said:

    I don’t see this bill remaining alive for long as Congress (Dems & Repubs, alike) will see it as potentially offending the Hispanic vote. They’ll pass the buck and leave it up to folks like David Spade to contribute another $100,000 for police rifle upgrades.

30. #30
    On January 28th, 2009 at 5:43 pm, FamilyMan said:

    Muy poco dinero para la importante labor.

31. #31
    On January 28th, 2009 at 5:44 pm, Weary Citizen said:

    On January 28th, 2009 at 5:27 pm, Ed Mahmoud abu al-Kahoul said:

    She has confirmed she is leaving the senate and running for governor. Perry for all his warts on illegal immigration, has at least made half hearted efforts to control it. Therefore, he will get my vote.

32. #32
    On January 28th, 2009 at 5:56 pm, coffee said:

    It’s not better than nothing. She knows it won’t pass. Senator Hutchison doesn’t give a damn about about border security and is only doing this to look like she does during her bid for Governor of TX against Gov. Perry (who also doesn’t give a damn). Both of them are skunks.

33. #33
    On January 28th, 2009 at 6:07 pm, Surveyor said:

    “I fully support and appreciate Senator Hutchison’s legislative initiative,” said Houston Police Department Chief Harold Hurtt.

    I appreciate Senator Hutchison’s leadership role in this endeavor….said Sheriff Omar Lucio, Cameron County

    I applaud the efforts of Senator Hutchison to safeguard our borders,” said Raul Salinas, Mayor of Laredo

    wow…..I guess it’s never too early to get that nose up there huh guys?

34. #34
    On January 28th, 2009 at 6:10 pm, letget said:

    Sorry Kay, I live in S TX and know how you feel about the border. Just like everything else in dc give money down the hole that will make everything ok. I’m not buying it.
    L

35. #35
    On January 28th, 2009 at 6:18 pm, 24Klady said:

    I’ve written so many letters to Kay Bailey and received responses that left me scratching my head. Last year on a border issue I finally said that if she was running for governor she’d be the last one on the planet I’d vote for and would be talking to every single person I could stop on the street to give an earfull. Cornyn is a tad better but he’s in the pocket for visas of every kind and the more millions the merrier.

36. #36
    On January 28th, 2009 at 6:23 pm, meangreenfan said:

    Like other Texas posters have pointed out: KBH is worthless on the border issue. This is all just window dressing.

    Here’s a thought, Senator: If you actually try to enforce the border….you’ll stop narcoterrorists from getting in here, too.

37. #37
    On January 28th, 2009 at 6:27 pm, iamgman said:

    Missing the point. That money is going to be spent, one way or the other. You can whine about it and see it spent on STD testing, or you can accept it and see if you can convince them to put it toward a project you presumably find worthy.

    Because it would be hypocritical to point at this fiasco and say “See, I told you so” if you had any part in it. I’d rather my reps oppose this completely and forego the pork. That way we can use this issue to hammer the Dems with in 2010 and 2012.

38. #38
    On January 28th, 2009 at 6:46 pm, mjsamuelson said:

    This is a stunt on Sen. Hutchison’s part to sweeten the deal for Texans to boot out our current governor in her favor in 2010. While I’m glad she’s done it, I’m highly skeptical of her motives.

39. #39
    On January 28th, 2009 at 6:48 pm, Jeff2161 said:

    Maybe we could use the foreign abortion money on anchor pregnancies…

40. #40
    On January 28th, 2009 at 7:03 pm, tarpon said:

    I sure wish Sean would do another border trip for FNC.

41. #41
    On January 28th, 2009 at 7:08 pm, Azygos said:

    On January 28th, 2009 at 5:29 pm, PatriotRider said:
    Let’s just let the DemocRats take full responsibilty for this one and we’ll make sure it gets mentioned in 2010 and 2012.

    Unless we get the primary system fixed it won’t matter. We’ll get another loser picked by the dems and the MSM.

42. #42
    On January 28th, 2009 at 7:08 pm, Azygos said:

    To be clear I was referring to McCain not Gov Palin who I greatly respect.

43. #43
    On January 28th, 2009 at 7:13 pm, rooster said:

    On January 28th, 2009 at 5:25 pm, chapoutier said:
    I never said it would cost the whole amount, and if everyone else is getting their pet projects in, why not you guys?

    Idiots like you that don’t understand this is not a “You Guys” problem, but an American problem are what is destroying this once great country.
    nuff’ said to the ignorant amongst us on MM’s thread!

44. #44
    On January 28th, 2009 at 7:25 pm, txvet2 said:

    On January 28th, 2009 at 5:13 pm, chapoutier said:

    Interesting thought…how many here would support the stimulus if a portion of it was going to fund construction of the border fence?

    From this and your succeeding comments, you’re the one, as usual, who doesn’t get the point, which is: We don’t want business as usual with this bill, which is to include various pet projects to buy Republican votes. The Democrats have the votes to pass it, so let them do so with no Republican support and we will argue the merits in the next election. The only reason the Democrats want Republican votes for this massive porker is to give them political cover next election. Border protection can and will pass or not on its own merits.

45. #45
    On January 28th, 2009 at 7:25 pm, JustAThought said:

    On January 28th, 2009 at 5:21 pm, chapoutier said:

    Missing the point. That money is going to be spent, one way or the other. You can whine about it and see it spent on STD testing, or you can accept it and see if you can convince them to put it toward a project you presumably find worthy.

    Chappy: Reading over your post, it appears that you don’t quite understand how the pork trough works in the DC pig pen. It isn’t ATV trails OR a border fence. If we, as conservatives, pushed and shoved our way into a space at the trough and get the funding for the fence, it then becomes our fence PLUS your ATV trails.

    It’s both things, not one or the other.

    Besides, this is just BS political grandstanding to draw on in her upcoming gubernatorial race so she can say “See, I want what you want! Those bums just wouldn’t give it to us.” Don’t fall for it Texas. Get a new set of bums.

46. #46
    On January 28th, 2009 at 7:27 pm, txvet2 said:

    On January 28th, 2009 at 5:25 pm, chapoutier said:

    Sort of like telling a rape victim “just relax and enjoy it”?

    Well, except what I said wasn’t totally tasteless.

    You’d never say anything tasteless, would you? Like for instance calling Bristol Palin and her baby zombies? Nah, not you.

47. #47
    On January 28th, 2009 at 7:37 pm, love2rumba said:

    Chapoutier Said
    

    Interesting thought…how many here would support the stimulus if a portion of it was going to fund construction of the border fence?

    I would not support the overall Stimulus bill. Keynesianism from an economic standpoint creates as many economic dangers as it purports to solve, and a stimulus package is raw Keynesianism.

    Money spent on border enforcement, however, is a necessary government action (it is enforcement of an existing law).

48. #48
    On January 28th, 2009 at 7:37 pm, Bruce said:

    Border security? Are you f’in kidding me?
    Check THIS out – posted on my blog….
    

49. #49
    On January 28th, 2009 at 7:39 pm, Bruce said:

    Damn this editor:(

    
    http://tinyurl.com/b5fcz7

50. #50
    On January 28th, 2009 at 7:41 pm, Trollman said:

    chapoutier said:

    Okay fine, but if its going to pass anyway (it is)…why not fight for your little piece of it?

    It is this thing called “principle.”

    I know, it is an alien concept to most Democrats.

51. #51
    On January 28th, 2009 at 8:40 pm, NestingHawk said:

    Chapoutier,
    I would not support the stimulus bill even with that addition. The bill itself is too expensive and too broad for just one bill, and brings or furthers the federal government into areas where the federal government simply should not be. (Education and health care, for example.)

    Making a bill too broad, or rather, shoving too many things in it, is a threat to government transparency. It’s easier to find things in a grocery store when they haven’t dumped everything into the same aisle, isn’t it? If you write a history book, don’t you write it in some kind of order, give it nice, bold, separate headings, and so forth? If you just mash together random historical facts, it makes neither a good reference nor an easy read. (“Fidel Castro took power in Cuba in 1959. Athens was a Greek city-state. Americans fought World War II on two fronts. The Pope refused to annul Henry VIII’s first marriage.” Would you find much use in a whole book of that?) Laws are similar. It’s not easy for the citizens to find the exact provision that says whether you’re allowed to drive the whatever bird off your property if it’s under “Measure 68 Against Gang Violence.” It’s not any deficiency on the part of the citizens. It’s bad organization on the part of the legislators.

    With all this stuff in the bill, how can we keep track of where all the money-our money-goes?

    And like I said, a lot of the stuff being spent on is just ridiculously inappropriate. The federal government should not have its sticky fingers in education, period. That is just much too much power at much too high a level of government. Same with health care. We have repeatedly seen with other countries where socialized health care goes; I don’t want to see that here.

    Any time the government subsidizes an industry, it dilutes the power of my wallet ballot. If I don’t want to spend my money on a car that I would own and drive, why would I want someone else to spend my money paying people to make cars that I would have nothing to do with? Is it appropriate to undermine my budgeting and saving strategies when the economy is bad?

    I’ll take my chances with putting a border fence bill through by itself, not with these destructive and power-grabbing add-ons, not hidden in a bill that could hardly be better designed to hide what our legislators are actually doing, and at a much, much more reasonable financial price.

    I hope you continue asking questions like this, Chapoutier. I think the kind of question you asked is good for stimulating thoughtful discussion, and would hardly wish to discourage any curiosity you may have as to how conservatives think in any case. Besides, why would I turn down an opportunity to practice trumpeting conservative ideas and trying to sell people on them, especially now?

52. #52
    On January 28th, 2009 at 8:49 pm, ajmontana said:

    chapoutier said:
    Interesting thought…how many here would support the stimulus if a portion of it was going to fund construction of the border fence?

    I’ll give you a straight answer.
    “Nay”
    This thing is a disaster.

53. #53
    On January 28th, 2009 at 9:15 pm, Joy said:

    Well, how TIMELY…

    Nothing like proposing something when you know it doesn’t have a chance in Hades of passing. These politicians make me sick.

54. #54
    On January 28th, 2009 at 10:11 pm, JDinTX said:

    She knows this bill will never get anywhere and she is just trying to appease the voters in Texas because she is going to run for governor. Now if we could only get her out of the Senate before she votes for amnesty. I am so sick of her politically correct form letters she sends out on immigration problems.

55. #55
    On January 28th, 2009 at 10:28 pm, chapoutier said:

    Money spent on border enforcement, however, is a necessary government action (it is enforcement of an existing law).

    Well then wouldn’t insisting that a fence be one of the infrastructure projects (again, in lieu of another project, not added on) be magically converting it from a bad use to a good use?

    It is this thing called “principle.”

    That and a buck fifty will get you a cup of coffee…but alas, no fence.

56. #56
    On January 28th, 2009 at 10:55 pm, tiredofit08 said:

    On January 28th, 2009 at 5:13 pm, chapoutier said:

    Interesting thought…how many here would support the stimulus if a portion of it was going to fund construction of the border fence?

    didn’t we already do that and then they took it back….

57. #57
    On January 29th, 2009 at 1:09 am, Jet Jaguar said:

    snore… zzzzz…

58. #58
    On January 29th, 2009 at 2:06 am, love2rumba said:

    Well then wouldn’t insisting that a fence be one of the infrastructure projects (again, in lieu of another project, not added on) be magically converting it from a bad use to a good use?

    Since when was the idea of a well-maintained and securable border fence ever a bad idea, Chapoutier? I’m not reading you on this comment of yours.

59. #59
    On January 29th, 2009 at 7:14 am, chapoutier said:

    love2rumba

    I meant the use of the money being spent in the current version of the stimulus (bad, I guessing you think) versus spending money for the fence (good, I presume you think).

60. #60
    On January 29th, 2009 at 9:31 am, Rorschach said:

    Don’t forget this is the same woman that wanted a “virtual fence” like the cameras we ended up getting that let to a grand total of 3 arrests.

61. #61
    On January 30th, 2009 at 12:25 pm, Virginia Patriot said:

    Disingenuous at best. As someone already pointed out, this lady gutted the fence funding once before. Where have all the good Texans gone?

    We need some Sam Houston’s, instead we have weak-kneed phonies.