Reply
Fri 13 May, 2005 06:27 am
You can't make this stuff up.
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050513-122032-5055r.htm
"Border Patrol told to stand down in Arizona
By Jerry Seper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
U.S. Border Patrol agents have been ordered not to arrest illegal aliens along the section of the Arizona border where protesters patrolled last month because an increase in apprehensions there would prove the effectiveness of Minuteman volunteers, The Washington Times has learned"
Re: Boarder Patrol told NOT to Patrol Boarder
woiyo wrote:You can't make this stuff up.
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050513-122032-5055r.htm
"Border Patrol told to stand down in Arizona
By Jerry Seper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
U.S. Border Patrol agents have been ordered not to arrest illegal aliens along the section of the Arizona border where protesters patrolled last month because an increase in apprehensions there would prove the effectiveness of Minuteman volunteers, The Washington Times has learned"
You're right. It's about time all this political crap stopped. Doesn't anyone at all deserve the job he occupies? A pre-requisite would be placing the good of the country first.
Whoever "dreamed up" this policy should be arrested and charged with aiding and abeting.
This could backfire.
Imagine you live in AZ in a boarder town. What might your reaction be to your govt failing to protect your property? Do you think you might take that responsibility into your own hands and start shooting??
Where is the logic in this policy?
Quote:
More than a dozen agents, all of whom asked not to be identified for fear of retribution, said orders relayed by Border Patrol supervisors at the Naco, Ariz., station made it clear that arrests were "not to go up" along the 23-mile section of border that the volunteers monitored to protest illegal immigration.
I don't know, but from this side of the fence this paragraph seems awefully suspicious.
There are two sides that are playing the political game here. It isn't hard for me to believe the anti-immigrant zealots would use propaganda.
Let these cowards come forward if they want to allege a government conspiracy.
At least the Swift boat morons had the balls to make their propangda motivated claims publically.
What is a "boarder patrol?" Is that someone who monitors the activities of those who lease housing from us? It becomes rather difficult to assume that a member here has come to a reasonable conclusion about evidence presented when that individual consistently makes such an error, even though it is glaringly obvious in comparison to the the cut and paste job. If you cannot read that piece and get the spelling of the word correct after having posted the correct spelling from the article repeatedly, i for one, find it difficult to assume that the text of the article has sunk in with you.
Setanta wrote:What is a "boarder patrol?" Is that someone who monitors the activities of those who lease housing from us? It becomes rather difficult to assume that a member here has come to a reasonable conclusion about evidence presented when that individual consistently makes such an error, even though it is glaringly obvious in comparison to the the cut and paste job. If you cannot read that piece and get the spelling of the word correct after having posted the correct spelling from the article repeatedly, i for one, find it difficult to assume that the text of the article has sunk in with you.
My sincerest apologies for having "fat fingers".
Yet, apparently, you have no opinion on the content of the article and are more concerned with putting forth your "snotty" little commentary.
I have an opinion, certainly. "Fat fingers" have nothing to do with it. On a standard "qwerty" keyboard, the "a" key is at least two keys away from any of the keys needed to type the word "border" correctly. Given that you could read the article (or at least a portion of it which you believe supports the thesis you had in mind before you read it), and cannot absorb the correct spelling of the word border, i cannot but think you apply the same faulty comprehension to the contents of the article.
In fact, i consider that American politicians, for whatever their public pronouncements on the subject may be, are in the majority unlikely to do anything about illegal immigration because of the advantages the illegals give to sectors of the economy which i suspect heavily contribute to their political campaigns. Had you presented reasonable evidence that the Border Patrol had been surreptiously made to stand down, i would have been inclined to consider it reasonable.
But just as you displayed insufficient attention to have learned the correct spelling of "border," so, as Ebrown has pointed out, you displayed insufficient attention to have noticed that the allegation has been denied. Maybe the higher authority which denies is lying, trying to cover it up. But you've presented no evidence to that effect.
If we go with your "fat fingers" excuse, and assume you were paying attention when you read the article, then it would be natural to assume that you disingenuously ignored the denial by Mr. Aguilar. Either way, poor reading comprehension or willfully ignoring that denial, you make your own case suspect.
Fingers are not the only part of one's anatomy where fatness could effect ones ability with spelling or logic....
"surreptiously"
What word are you trying to "type"??
Can you allege that my misspelling of surreptitiously makes my position suspect?
You continued to write "boarder" even after the word had repeatedly appeared in this thread correctly spelled, from your cut and paste job. When that is combined with your lack of reference to Mr. Aguilar's denial of the charge, one might be very reasonable in considering either that you lack reading comprehension, or that you are attempting to use this article to forward your rant and are willfully ignoring that denial.
I consider it bad form to take notice of spelling errors online, and in four out of five cases, i ignore it. However, when you post a screed such as this, and repeatedly misspell the word, and either ignore or did not absorb the denial of the charges by Mr. Aguilar, it grates on one's mind. So, once again, if repeated exposure to the correct spelling of the word border does not induce you to stop typing boarder, which have done repeatedly--it is reasonable to conclude that your comprehension of the article is equally suspect.
Either you didn't understand that the allegation has been denied, or you intended, in posting only a section of the article, to leave out that passage, which would be so embarrassing to your thesis.
My opinion of this controversy is such that i might have been inclined to agree with you. But you did such a ham-handed job here, that it is irritating to someone who is trying to understand the situation in all of its ramifications and come to a reasonable conclusion.
You haven't made your case, and you've provided more than ample material for those who disagree with you to shoot down your argument.
Edited to remove the double post which resulted when i lost my connection to this site.
Now that you are repeating yourself from your hysterical rant, you may be comforted to know that the only point of the article and my reason for posting it is to show how inept are Gov't is when it comes to immigration and HomeLand Security in general.
Couple this type of attitude by BORDER patrol agents with yesterdays DC Airplane "intrusion", a reasonable person would start question how our tax dollars are spent in this regard.
Woiyo - this is an e-mail the FAA sent a few days ago to everybody with a pilot's license:
___________________________________________________________
SPECIAL NOTICE:
A NEW WARNING SIGNAL FOR COMMUNICATING WITH AIRCRAFT IS BEING
DEPLOYED WITHIN THE WASHINGTON DC METROPOLITAN AREA AIR
DEFENSE IDENTIFICATION ZONE (DC ADIZ), INCLUDING THE FLIGHT
RESTRICTED ZONE (FRZ). THE ANTICIPATED OPERATIONAL DATE IS 21
MAY, 2005. THE SIGNAL CONSISTS OF HIGHLY FOCUSED RED AND GREEN
COLORED LIGHTS IN AN ALTERNATING RED/ RED/ GREEN/ SIGNAL
PATTERN. THIS SIGNAL MAY BE DIRECTED AT SPECIFIC AIRCRAFT
SUSPECTED OF MAKING UNAUTHORIZED ENTRY INTO THE ADIZ/FRZ AND
ARE ON A HEADING OR FLIGHT PATH THAT MAY BE INTERPRETED AS A
THREAT OR THAT OPERATE CONTRARY TO THE OPERATING RULES FOR
THE ADIZ/FRZ. THE BEAM IS NOT INJURIOUS TO THE EYES OF
PILOTS/AIRCREWS OR PASSENGERS, REGARDLESS OF ALTITUDE OR
DISTANCE FROM THE SOURCE. IF YOU ARE IN COMMUNICATION WITH AIR
TRAFFIC CONTROL AND THIS SIGNAL IS DIRECTED AT YOUR AIRCRAFT,
WE ADVISE YOU TO IMMEDIATELY COMMUNICATE WITH ATC THAT YOU
ARE BEING ILLUMINATED BY A VISUAL WARNING SIGNAL. IF THIS SIGNAL
IS DIRECTED AT YOU AND YOU ARE NOT COMMUNICATING WITH ATC, WE
ADVISE YOU TO TURN TO A HEADING AWAY FROM THE CENTER OF THE
FRZ/ADIZ AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AND IMMEDIATELY CONTACT ATC ON AN
APPROPRIATE FREQUENCY, OR IF UNSURE OF THE FREQUENCY, CONTACT
ATC ON VHF GUARD 121.5 OR UHF GUARD 243.0. BE ADVISED THAT
FAILURE TO FOLLOW THE RECOMMENDED PROCEDURES OUTLINED
ABOVE MAY RESULT IN INTERCEPTION BY MILITARY AIRCRAFT AND/OR
THE USE OF FORCE. THIS NOTICE APPLIES TO ALL AIRCRAFT OPERATING
WITHIN THE ADIZ, INCLUDING DOD, LAW ENFORCEMENT, AND
AEROMEDICAL OPERATIONS. THIS NOTICE DOES NOT CHANGE
PROCEDURES ESTABLISHED FOR REPORTING UNAUTHORIZED LASER
ILLUMINATION AS PUBLISHED IN ADVISORY CIRCULAR 70-2.
____________________________________________________________
Perhaps the Cessna 152 pilot who drifted near the White House didn't read his e-mail, or didn't understand it - but it's not right to say that nothing is done for airspace safety. The border patrol is another matter...
Lost Norwegian skiers crossing the border.
Talk about hysteria . . . what the hell is that supposed to be à propos of Cjhsa? No one in this thread has denied that illegals cross the border. Get a grip.
You don't seem to get it Woiyo. I suspect that government intentionally keeps the Border Patrol on a short leash, and that this story of yours would have been credible, had you done some additional research to support what now stands as your flimsly evidence, or had you addressed the passage in the text which you supplied in which Mr. Aguilar denies the allegation. As it stands, your partial cut-and-paste job with a link to the article is nothing more than a hack job to support a rant. Ebrown shot it down in a heartbeat by simply quoting the article you supplied in the portion which contains Mr. Aguilar's denial. If you don't do any better than that, you can rant to your heart's content, but you won't convince anyone, because your presentation sucks.
I believe that it may be possible that members of government actively hinder the operations of the Border Patrol--but you have not demonstrated that this is the case.
I believe that it is in the interest of many politicians and members of the business community to have loads of illegals in this country, and that they would therefore like to make enforcement difficult--but you have not demonstrated that this is the case.
Had you presented a plausible case, i'd have been right behind you. As it stands, this is an embarrassingly inept hack job, and not worth the effort for anyone to defend, yourself included.
(Well, it looks like the connection might break down again--if there is a double post of this response, you'll know why. If i lose the connection, i'll come back later and eliminate any duplication.)
This is all a tempest in a teapot.
One thing everyone seems to be forgetting is that the border patrol is part of the executive branch. If you have a problem with their orders talk to the man in charge, President Bush.
Is it your contention cjsh, that Bush has ordered the Border patrol to not pick up illegal aliens?
I must be becoming a legend in parados mind.
cjhsa wrote:I must be becoming a legend in parados mind.
Hardly cjhsa..
Infamous perhaps, for your lack of logic, but a legend? nope.
You contend that the "boarder patrol" (sic) is not patrolling our borders. I pointed out that the border patrol is an arm of the executive branch. Bush is the head of the executive branch.
This leads to one of two conclusions. Bush ordered them to do what you appear to claim they are doing or Bush is completely unaware of it and as such is failing as a "CEO."
There is another possibility. That being, your contention is wrong.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace