05-14-2019 01:57:15 PM -0400
05-09-2019 05:01:30 PM -0400
05-09-2019 01:41:48 PM -0400
04-18-2019 10:46:35 AM -0400
04-18-2019 10:18:40 AM -0400
It looks like you've previously blocked notifications. If you'd like to receive them, please update your browser permissions.
Desktop Notifications are  | 
Get instant alerts on your desktop.
Turn on desktop notifications?
Remind me later.


If the Dems Want to Lose the Wall Fight, All They Have to Do Is Keep Talking

Less than two weeks in, 2019 is already exponentially dumber than 2018. Now we're debating whether a flat vertical surface can ever serve as an effective barrier between two points. I'm a #BuildTheWall skeptic, but the Dems are really starting to bring me around to the other side. The more they talk, and the more I pay them the courtesy of taking their arguments against a border wall seriously, the more I wonder why anybody would bother to take their arguments seriously. But let's give it a go.

Hey, did you know that walls are bad because the idea is so old? Um, hello, it's [current year] and we have power tools now!

That's right: Saws cut through steel. This would've been good to know before we started this debate. Why even bother building something if it can be destroyed with the proper motivation and equipment? Nice try, Trump!

Democrats support border security, which is why they don't want to put up solid steel barriers that you have to saw through to get in. That would actually make Americans less safe, because words have no meaning.

"Walls are 1st Century technology." I'm pretty sure people were building defensive walls for thousands of years before that? But forget it, Ted's rolling.

Why does it matter how old the technology is? Knives predate recorded history, and you're not going to fend off an armed attacker by scoffing, "What, that old thing?"

Ancient technology has stuck around this long because... drum roll please... it actually works! A wall is a barrier. Yeah, any barrier can be breached, but first the invader has to breach it. It's a deterrent. That's the point.

Here's another one: Even if you build a wall out of some impenetrable substance, like the metal in Wolverine's claws or the bones in Ted Lieu's skull, how is that going to stop anybody from going under it?

Wouldn't it take a lot longer to tunnel under a wall than to walk across the ground where a wall could be built? Wouldn't that discourage people, and slow down the ones determined to do it anyway? Shouldn't Nancy Pelosi's aides stop briefing her on these things by pointing to old Superman comic books?

I've also been mulling over some of the other arguments against a wall. Did you know that there's an HBO show about a magical kingdom full of knights and wizards and stuff? Did you know that the fictional medieval society depicted on that show built a giant defensive wall, but then a dragon tore it down? Whoops!

Did you know that the Soviets built a wall in Germany to keep people in, which proves that walls are bad?

And did you know that Trump once said this?

The Game of Thrones wall, the Berlin Wall, the metaphorical wall that Trump once mentioned in a commencement address... What's next, Paul Wall?

The Toothopolis wall?

The Wall of Voodoo that was so ineffective, it couldn't even keep out radio signals?

In addition to the logistical arguments and the literally fictional arguments, there's also the moral argument:

Have any of the Dems been challenged on this talking point? What's immoral about a wall? What's immoral about enforcing a border? Every country in the world has borders. That's why they're called countries and not continents.

(Well, except Australia. But their wall is the Pacific Ocean. It doesn't keep everybody out, but it's a hell of a swim.)

It's one thing to argue that a wall will be ineffective, as the Dems are doing so ineptly. But adding a moral argument is even dumber. "Walls don't work! And also, it's immoral to keep people out with a wall. It's bad that walls work!" Doublethink is amazing.

Now, none of this is to say that I think building a wall would be worth the money, manpower, or constant screaming from Rachel Maddow. But back in 2011, she didn't seem to have a problem with this wall:

I forget which particular boondoggle Maddow was trying to sell with this, but she did it by pointing to a huge wall built by the government.

In closing, here's the gift that keeps on giving, Mr. Jim Acosta. He just dunked on Trump so hard that he ended up proving Trump's argument.

"If walls keep out immigrants, why aren't there any immigrants anywhere near this wall?"

Is it possible this man is a deep-cover agent for the GOP?