Berlin Wall turns 50

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It's economically unfeasible, not uneconomically feasible. Otherwise I agree with you.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

No it doesn't. People escaped from the east and they risked being killed to do so. I do not thin you are suggesting a solid wall AND land mines and soldiers to shoot illegals trying to get in...are you?

A solid wall is uneconomically feasible. They could end the economic reason to come here illegally TODAY at -0- cost. Simply apply a HUGE tax penalty to each and every illegal worker that is employed, or, if they do not have the balls needed for that, implement a HUGE tax break for documenting that ALL employyes are legal workers. Either way, if it COSTS a business a huge amount of money to employ/exploit illegals...they won't. If there are no jobs for illegals to make money, they won't come. When it costs a business more to do something than the benefit they receive, they will not do it any longer. Works every time it is tried.

If you are worried about losing revenue by offering business huge tax breaks, consider the cost savings for not having to provide services/education/medical care to the illegals they were exploiting PLUS the fact that you will replace them with legal workers that actually pay tax, you will still be collecting tax on all the money.

That's right. The only wall you need to build and the most effective wall you can build is made of green paper.

[_Simpson_ 250]

Thank you Reagan.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Thank you Reagan.

I thought Bush Senior was President when the wall crumbled. Poor East German workmanship, no doubt.

[_Simpson_ 250]

I thought Bush Senior was President when the wall crumbled. Poor East German workmanship, no doubt.

Your knowledge of US history is impressive.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I thought Bush Senior was President when the wall crumbled. Poor East German workmanship, no doubt.

He was, but Reagan kicked out the corner stone. Study the demise of the Soviet Union and the Communist Bloc carefully if you think it was Bush 41 that "caused" it to fail when it did. It could have been caused to fail at earlier times, Carter had perhaps the BEST opportunity, blew it and actually caused the invasion of Afghanistan by the USSR with his bumbling and lack of backbone.

It's economically unfeasible, not uneconomically feasible. Otherwise I agree with you.

Agree with who? Specifically.

I was using the term presented by Why_Me in a response to his post.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

He was, but Reagan kicked out the corner stone. Study the demise of the Soviet Union and the Communist Bloc carefully if you think it was Bush 41 that "caused" it to fail when it did. It could have been caused to fail at earlier times, Carter had perhaps the BEST opportunity, blew it and actually caused the invasion of Afghanistan by the USSR with his bumbling and lack of backbone.

Agree with who? Specifically.

I was using the term presented by Why_Me in a response to his post.

You Gary, if you need the ego validation. The term is wrong though, Noone says impossibly possible, for example.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

He was, but Reagan kicked out the corner stone. Study the demise of the Soviet Union and the Communist Bloc carefully if you think it was Bush 41 that "caused" it to fail when it did. It could have been caused to fail at earlier times, Carter had perhaps the BEST opportunity, blew it and actually caused the invasion of Afghanistan by the USSR with his bumbling and lack of backbone.

Polish Solidarity, a Polish Pope, and Gorbachev's impotence in Eastern Europe did more than Reagan's speech.

[_Simpson_ 250]

He was, but Reagan kicked out the corner stone. Study the demise of the Soviet Union and the Communist Bloc carefully if you think it was Bush 41 that "caused" it to fail when it did. It could have been caused to fail at earlier times, Carter had perhaps the BEST opportunity, blew it and actually caused the invasion of Afghanistan by the USSR with his bumbling and lack of backbone.

I think Crusty just trying to be divisive, he is not my biggest fan.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I think Crusty just trying to be divisive, he is not my biggest fan.

Don't take things personal.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

You Gary, if you need the ego validation. The term is wrong though, Noone says impossibly possible, for example.

I do. Thanks. And just to be fair, if I ever find a reason to agree with you, I will keep it to myself. Or better yet, try to make sound like MY idea.

Often when responding directly to someone I will use a term they used for literary effect. I know it may sound only impossible possible to you, but it is actually possible, I assure you.

Edited August 15, 2011 by Gary and Alla

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I think Crusty just trying to be divisive, he is not my biggest fan.

I can understand that he may want to be divisive but why do so in a way that makes one's self look less than informed? Though, yes, Bush 41 WAS President when the Berlin wall was torn down.

[_Simpson_ 250]

Polish Solidarity, a Polish Pope, and Gorbachev's impotence in Eastern Europe did more than Reagan's speech.

Being a history buff you of all people would know that it was more than just the speech. He stood up to Gorbachev and called his bluff even though a lot of people warned him not to. Now I know it wasn't all Reagan and my post was primarily directed towards the Reagan haters but he did play a huge part.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I do. Thanks. And just to be fair, if I ever find a reason to agree with you, I will keep it to myself. Or better yet, try to make sound like MY idea.

Often when responding directly to someone I will use a term they used for literary effect. I know it may sound only impossible possible to you, but it is actually possible, I assure you.

Well that's one interpretation, Gary. To me, it's meaningless bullshit.

[_Simpson_ 250]

I can understand that he may want to be divisive but why do so in a way that makes one's self look less than informed? Though, yes, Bush 41 WAS President when the Berlin wall was torn down.

I would assume that he was hoping for me to fire back with something stupid based on his comment so that he could have a "I got you" moment.

@Crusty, I'm not taking it personally.