"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On Mar 9, 6:58 pm, "Joseph Meehan" wrote:
wrote in message

oups.com...

Our ancestors came here LEGALLY. They assimilated by learning
ENGLISH and becoming Americans. These new immigrants just want to
take and epect us to cater to them. Put them in cargo containers
and drop them into the ocean!!!

Are you somehow afraid of someone not speaking English?


Another lame attempt at obfuscation, trying to make it sound that the
notion of having a common language is based on fear. Having a common
language binds a country together and makes it easier for commerce,
industry, education, public safety, and govt to take place.

Since I believe Chinese is the most spoken language in the world, let's
go one better and demand everyone in the world learn Chinese.

Ni how. I am learning it. Our grandchildren will probably know it much
better than I do but I have been given access by my employer to the rosetta
stone online course in mandarin. It is an interesting language but I cannot
post in it because I do not have a 32byte charatcer set :-)). But more of
the Chinese are learning English than we Chinese. Reason: Global Economics.

Are women physically and mentally equipped to be soldiers in combat?
No
they are not. But then neither are men. No one is physically or
mentally equipped for combat.

Ahhhh-ha! that would be the entire point then, wouldn't it?

On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 13:02:39 -0400, "Joseph Meehan"
wrote:

HeyBub wrote:
..

If it involves sending the criminals to Australia, count me in.

Does that mean you want a free one way trip to Australia? :-)

Australia got lucky. Then got founded by criminals. The USA got the
religious nuts.

On Mar 12, 8:45 pm, "Stefan Wolfe" wrote:
"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message


Stefan Wolfe wrote:
"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
. ..
wrote:
On Mar 9, 5:33 am, wrote:
If you know of employers who hire ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS of ANY
NATIONALITY...
...
NOW I KNOW BETTER NOWand SO DO YOU.

FYI

greg

Why do you see so much hate and fear?

Why do we have such disrespect for rule of law?

I don't disrespect the rule of law. I do disrespect may laws and among
them are the hateful fearful immigration laws we have the make people who
are doing what should be legal illegal.

Do you agree that anyone in the world who so wishes should be able to crach
the border? Or should only Mexicans be able to crash the border. If 500, 000
Asians want to come here in one year, should we let them? Or do you onlu
afford that priviledge to Mexicans?



You'll never get a direct answer to that question from Joeseph. I've
asked it too and postulated the same question. He'd prefers to spew
on about how anyone who is in favor of controlled and reasonable
immigration is against ALL immigration because they are hateful.
That's the usual trick of trying to play the race card. Anyone with
any sense knows if immigration was not limited, we'd have 747's
arriving every hour from around the world. Only a very small number
of kooks would think that is a good idea for a variety of reasons.
Take a look at the hospitals in the southwest that have already closed
and many more that are going broke because they have to treat illegals
with no health insurance, who get treated in the ER and never pay a
dime. Who do you think ulimately pays for that? Where are the jobs
for half of Haiti, with no education, going to come from?

And what you have now is bad enough. He also refuses to address the
fact that while MOST illegals crossing the Mexican border are just
hardworking folks, there are serious criminals mixed in. And why
not? If the cops are looking for you for armed robbery in Mexico,
why not just disappear in the USA, where if a cop stops you for a
minor violation, they won't even deport you? And no answer to the
serious and real threat of Al_Qaeda using the open Mexican border to
slip the next team in either. Already, tens of thousands a year of
illegals coming in via that route are from countries other than the
Americas.




How would you feel about a low that said anyone named Wolf could no
longer access the internet nor drive a car?

Most people named Wolf cannot drive a car in China, Japan, India or anyplace
that does not accept a USA drivers license. I have no problem with that, do
you? I'm sort of lost on your comment about the internet.

Many people named Wolf live behind bars...in a zoo! Same with Mr. Bear :-)



Any such law would be unconsitutional and would be quickly struck
down. And the vast majority of Americans would be against such a
law. Of course this has zippo to do with laws that limit
immigration, set quotas and try to set reasonable limits. The vast
majority of Americans are in favor of that too and it doesn't make
them hateful racists. If the pro-uncontrolled immigration folks
think they have a case, why don't they bring a lawsuit?




Why is our reaction always negative?

A natural reaction to disrespect for rule of law.

Sure, that's why we made such nice friendly laws. Right ....

So, if you have a problem with the laws, work to change them, don't just
ignore them.


Very strange rationalization. Folks come in here asking about
putting an addition on their house and asking about permits. Joseph
tells them that they should go down to the building dept, find out how
to do it legally, and get the necessary permits and inspections.
Yet, he thinks it OK for 1Mil+ people, who we know nothing about, to
just walk in this country each year across the border, illegally.
Following that logic, why shouldn't I just do what I want with my
house and property? It's mine, isn't it? Why should anyone else be
allowed to set limits on what I do?







Why don't we remember that this country was founded on the
principle of immigrants being welcome Why can't we remember that
nearly all of us here have ancestors who were immigrants and who
would have been illegal under the current restrictive laws?

I think we all remember that. My grandmother and grandmother came
here, legally, from Ireland.

So did mine, but today it is unlikely that your grandparents nor mine
could come here now.


And most wouldn't even want to immigrate today. The world has changed
a lot in the last 100 to 200 years. Many of the people who would
have come here a hundred years ago from Europe are perfectly happy to
stay there today because there is plenty of freedom and opportunity
there. In fact, the way most of Europe thinks of the US, it
shouldn't be an issue at all.

And if you're in favor of increasing the limits but tightly closing
the open borders and enforcing law, then why not say so, instead of
advocating unlimited illegal immigration because you don't like the
current limits? What if we all just broke every law we didn't like?



My wife came here legally from the
Philippines. But they legal way they immigrated here is so out of
fashion with you guys, these little irritants like 'rule of law'
really bother you. Are you ready to accommodate an extra billion of
the world's population who would live here at the drop of a hat if we
opened the doors?
What would it be like with all those people?

I don't know, but it might be far better than it is now, and certainly
better than it might be.

A matter of opinion over which many will disagree. Unless you would like to
have a diet that consists mostly of rice.

Unbelievably naive to think this country could be better off with
totally unlimited, uncontrolled immigration. A hundred and fifty
years ago, the country was growing rapidly, workers were needed and
all the work was simple and labor intensive. Laborers were needed to
dig ditches, build railroads, and farm all crops by hand. Today's
economy is far different. You;d have plane loads of immigrants, with
no education and no skills arriving daily. What a fine country that
would make.



Take a visit to China and see. See the people as numerous as ants
when you step in a fireant hill. Take in a whiff at the polution.
Find that you cannot drink tap water anywhere in the country. See the
crowded apartments. Learn about the one child law that is a sorry but
necessary solution to theior overpopulation problem. And they have
one of the highest standards of living in Asia (I am not saying that
overpopulation would necessarily end US economic dominance but living
here would not be so nice).

So I take it you think you have some God given right to more of the
earth's resources because ...... I guess because we have the most guns
and bombs???

Maybe. Ever wonder why God gave us the most guns and the most boms? ;-)


We're not talking about resources. We;re talking about illegal,
uncontrolled immigration. But, since you brought up resources,
here's something I find curious. The liberals are always so worried
about the environment. About global warming, our use of energy,
about air pollution, cutting down trees and clearing land in this
country to build more houses. All these things would be better with
LESS people, not more. Yet, the same liberals want uncontrolled
immigration, where we encourage people in third world countries to
have more kids and ship them off the USA.



Why don't we welcome them and insist that our government
eliminate the hateful fearful barriers?

Now you are asking the right questions!

It appears that this solution would be along *legal* lines,
respecting rule of law.

I will repeat, that WAS the right question. Don't stop now. I may not agree
with your proposal but at leat it involves rule of law and I could
participate in the vote.


See, this is where you never get any rational discussion or response
from Joseph. The laws that control immigration are hateful, fearful
barriers. Everyone who is in favor of controlling immigration is a
racist. Joseph, guess who signed into law what is pretty much the
immigration law and quota system we still have in effect today?
Why, it was Lyndon Johnson. So, I guess he was a hateful racist at
heart, right? LOL

As far as rational discussion, I've mentioned the guest worker
program that Bush proposed 4 years ago. Never heard any response
about that. Nor any specifics about exactly what Joseph does
want. But this is typical. It's bitch, bitch about everything
that's wrong the country, with no specification of what exactly they
propose or how it would work. The only specific proposal I've heard
in all this discussion from Joseph was speculation that the country
would be better off with unlimited, unchecked immigration. Few would
find that credible.

dgk wrote:
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 13:02:39 -0400, "Joseph Meehan"
wrote:

HeyBub wrote:
..

If it involves sending the criminals to Australia, count me in.

Does that mean you want a free one way trip to Australia? :-)

Australia got lucky. Then got founded by criminals. The USA got the
religious nuts.

Yea, personally I'm resentful. :-)

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia 's Muire duit

On Mar 13, 1:02 pm, Terry wrote:
On 13 Mar 2007 06:21:03 -0700, wrote:





On Mar 12, 8:45 pm, "Stefan Wolfe" wrote:
"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message

Stefan Wolfe wrote:
"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
. ..
wrote:
On Mar 9, 5:33 am, wrote:
If you know of employers who hire ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS of ANY
NATIONALITY...
...
NOW I KNOW BETTER NOWand SO DO YOU.

FYI

greg

Why do you see so much hate and fear?

Why do we have such disrespect for rule of law?

I don't disrespect the rule of law. I do disrespect may laws and among
them are the hateful fearful immigration laws we have the make people who
are doing what should be legal illegal.

Do you agree that anyone in the world who so wishes should be able to crach
the border? Or should only Mexicans be able to crash the border. If 500, 000
Asians want to come here in one year, should we let them? Or do you onlu
afford that priviledge to Mexicans?

You'll never get a direct answer to that question from Joeseph. I've
asked it too and postulated the same question. He'd prefers to spew
on about how anyone who is in favor of controlled and reasonable
immigration is against ALL immigration because they are hateful.
That's the usual trick of trying to play the race card. Anyone with
any sense knows if immigration was not limited, we'd have 747's
arriving every hour from around the world. Only a very small number
of kooks would think that is a good idea for a variety of reasons.
Take a look at the hospitals in the southwest that have already closed
and many more that are going broke because they have to treat illegals
with no health insurance, who get treated in the ER and never pay a
dime. Who do you think ulimately pays for that? Where are the jobs
for half of Haiti, with no education, going to come from?

And what you have now is bad enough. He also refuses to address the
fact that while MOST illegals crossing the Mexican border are just
hardworking folks, there are serious criminals mixed in. And why
not? If the cops are looking for you for armed robbery in Mexico,
why not just disappear in the USA, where if a cop stops you for a
minor violation, they won't even deport you? And no answer to the
serious and real threat of Al_Qaeda using the open Mexican border to
slip the next team in either. Already, tens of thousands a year of
illegals coming in via that route are from countries other than the
Americas.

I thought the current estimate was 2 million a year. These people are
also coming ahead of people trying to get here legally.- Hide quoted text -


I thought the total number crossing was estimated at over 1Mil, but
whatever it is, you're right, it's very high. The tens of thousands
number I referred to was for illegals crossing the Mexican border who
are not from the AMERICAS, meaning these people are from Europe,
Middle East, Africa, etc. We tend to think only Mexicans are
crossing. My point was that you also have these people and it;s not a
far stretch to imagine Islamic terrorists deciding to come in via that
route. But apparently those in favor of not enforcing immigration
law aren't concerned at all about that.

wrote in message
oups.com...


I thought the current estimate was 2 million a year. These people are
also coming ahead of people trying to get here legally.- Hide quoted
text -


I thought the total number crossing was estimated at over 1Mil, but
whatever it is, you're right, it's very high. The tens of thousands
number I referred to was for illegals crossing the Mexican border who
are not from the AMERICAS, meaning these people are from Europe,
Middle East, Africa, etc. We tend to think only Mexicans are
crossing. My point was that you also have these people and it;s not a
far stretch to imagine Islamic terrorists deciding to come in via that
route. But apparently those in favor of not enforcing immigration
law aren't concerned at all about that.




How do we decide where to focus our priorities? Number of people killed by
failing to fix a problem? Killed at what rate and during what period?
Measure a day at a time? A week?

On 13 Mar 2007 06:21:03 -0700, wrote:

On Mar 12, 8:45 pm, "Stefan Wolfe" wrote:
"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message


Stefan Wolfe wrote:
"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
. ..
wrote:
On Mar 9, 5:33 am, wrote:
If you know of employers who hire ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS of ANY
NATIONALITY...
...
NOW I KNOW BETTER NOWand SO DO YOU.

FYI

greg

Why do you see so much hate and fear?

Why do we have such disrespect for rule of law?

I don't disrespect the rule of law. I do disrespect may laws and among
them are the hateful fearful immigration laws we have the make people who
are doing what should be legal illegal.

Do you agree that anyone in the world who so wishes should be able to crach
the border? Or should only Mexicans be able to crash the border. If 500, 000
Asians want to come here in one year, should we let them? Or do you onlu
afford that priviledge to Mexicans?



You'll never get a direct answer to that question from Joeseph. I've
asked it too and postulated the same question. He'd prefers to spew
on about how anyone who is in favor of controlled and reasonable
immigration is against ALL immigration because they are hateful.
That's the usual trick of trying to play the race card. Anyone with
any sense knows if immigration was not limited, we'd have 747's
arriving every hour from around the world. Only a very small number
of kooks would think that is a good idea for a variety of reasons.
Take a look at the hospitals in the southwest that have already closed
and many more that are going broke because they have to treat illegals
with no health insurance, who get treated in the ER and never pay a
dime. Who do you think ulimately pays for that? Where are the jobs
for half of Haiti, with no education, going to come from?

And what you have now is bad enough. He also refuses to address the
fact that while MOST illegals crossing the Mexican border are just
hardworking folks, there are serious criminals mixed in. And why
not? If the cops are looking for you for armed robbery in Mexico,
why not just disappear in the USA, where if a cop stops you for a
minor violation, they won't even deport you? And no answer to the
serious and real threat of Al_Qaeda using the open Mexican border to
slip the next team in either. Already, tens of thousands a year of
illegals coming in via that route are from countries other than the
Americas.


I thought the current estimate was 2 million a year. These people are
also coming ahead of people trying to get here legally.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

I thought the current estimate was 2 million a year. These people are
also coming ahead of people trying to get here legally.- Hide quoted
text -

I thought the total number crossing was estimated at over 1Mil, but
whatever it is, you're right, it's very high. The tens of thousands
number I referred to was for illegals crossing the Mexican border who
are not from the AMERICAS, meaning these people are from Europe,
Middle East, Africa, etc. We tend to think only Mexicans are
crossing. My point was that you also have these people and it;s not a
far stretch to imagine Islamic terrorists deciding to come in via that
route. But apparently those in favor of not enforcing immigration
law aren't concerned at all about that.




How do we decide where to focus our priorities? Number of people killed by
failing to fix a problem? Killed at what rate and during what period?
Measure a day at a time? A week?



The raw number of people killed isn't enough. The question is how many of
the "right kind" get killed. As long as the ones getting killed have no
money=political power, they don't matter.

Now if a corporation were to start losing money, that would be a reason for
someone to take action.

In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com...


I thought the current estimate was 2 million a year. These people are
also coming ahead of people trying to get here legally.- Hide quoted
text -


I thought the total number crossing was estimated at over 1Mil, but
whatever it is, you're right, it's very high. The tens of thousands
number I referred to was for illegals crossing the Mexican border who
are not from the AMERICAS, meaning these people are from Europe,
Middle East, Africa, etc. We tend to think only Mexicans are
crossing. My point was that you also have these people and it;s not a
far stretch to imagine Islamic terrorists deciding to come in via that
route. But apparently those in favor of not enforcing immigration
law aren't concerned at all about that.




How do we decide where to focus our priorities? Number of people killed by
failing to fix a problem? Killed at what rate and during what period?
Measure a day at a time? A week?

Focus on enforcing the laws presently on the books. If we do
that, the discussion of deaths is superfluous.. as if it isn't anyway.

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com...


I thought the current estimate was 2 million a year. These people are
also coming ahead of people trying to get here legally.- Hide quoted
text -


I thought the total number crossing was estimated at over 1Mil, but
whatever it is, you're right, it's very high. The tens of thousands
number I referred to was for illegals crossing the Mexican border who
are not from the AMERICAS, meaning these people are from Europe,
Middle East, Africa, etc. We tend to think only Mexicans are
crossing. My point was that you also have these people and it;s not a
far stretch to imagine Islamic terrorists deciding to come in via that
route. But apparently those in favor of not enforcing immigration
law aren't concerned at all about that.




How do we decide where to focus our priorities? Number of people killed
by
failing to fix a problem? Killed at what rate and during what period?
Measure a day at a time? A week?

Focus on enforcing the laws presently on the books. If we do
that, the discussion of deaths is superfluous.. as if it isn't anyway.


I was thinking more of policy than laws. President Rove is doing a great job
of using fear (yet again) to focus his sheep on the immigration issue, while
he continues to kill our soldiers in the wrong country. So I'm thinking
"focus on a problem where there MIGHT be trouble" (borders), or "focus on a
problem where there IS trouble" (Iraq). Meanwhile, the Rove's little doggy,
George, hasn't a clue as to where al Qaeda is strongest. It happens to be
where we sent a few soldiers BEFORE Iraq.

On Mar 13, 3:21 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message

...





In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

wrote in message
groups.com...

I thought the current estimate was 2 million a year. These people are
also coming ahead of people trying to get here legally.- Hide quoted
text -

I thought the total number crossing was estimated at over 1Mil, but
whatever it is, you're right, it's very high. The tens of thousands
number I referred to was for illegals crossing the Mexican border who
are not from the AMERICAS, meaning these people are from Europe,
Middle East, Africa, etc. We tend to think only Mexicans are
crossing. My point was that you also have these people and it;s not a
far stretch to imagine Islamic terrorists deciding to come in via that
route. But apparently those in favor of not enforcing immigration
law aren't concerned at all about that.

How do we decide where to focus our priorities? Number of people killed
by
failing to fix a problem? Killed at what rate and during what period?
Measure a day at a time? A week?

Focus on enforcing the laws presently on the books. If we do
that, the discussion of deaths is superfluous.. as if it isn't anyway.

I was thinking more of policy than laws. President Rove is doing a great job
of using fear (yet again) to focus his sheep on the immigration issue, while
he continues to kill our soldiers in the wrong country. So I'm thinking
"focus on a problem where there MIGHT be trouble" (borders),

There is no "might" be trouble. There IS trouble when you have no
control over 1mil+ illegals, who we know nothing about, walking into
the US every year. And don't try to obfuscate the issue of
immigration by dragging in Iraq, which has nothing to do with it. If
Rove is doing such a great job of focusing attention on illegal
immigration, it's funny how there's very little talk of it anywhere in
the last few months. Try watching the news. All they cover is
Iraq, Obama, Hillary and whatever item of the day they can find that
Bush has done that the media thinks is wrong.


or "focus on a
problem where there IS trouble" (Iraq). Meanwhile, the Rove's little doggy,
George, hasn't a clue as to where al Qaeda is strongest. It happens to be
where we sent a few soldiers BEFORE Iraq.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

wrote in message
ups.com...
On Mar 13, 3:21 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message

...





In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

wrote in message
groups.com...

I thought the current estimate was 2 million a year. These people
are
also coming ahead of people trying to get here legally.- Hide
quoted
text -

I thought the total number crossing was estimated at over 1Mil, but
whatever it is, you're right, it's very high. The tens of thousands
number I referred to was for illegals crossing the Mexican border
who
are not from the AMERICAS, meaning these people are from Europe,
Middle East, Africa, etc. We tend to think only Mexicans are
crossing. My point was that you also have these people and it;s not
a
far stretch to imagine Islamic terrorists deciding to come in via
that
route. But apparently those in favor of not enforcing immigration
law aren't concerned at all about that.

How do we decide where to focus our priorities? Number of people
killed
by
failing to fix a problem? Killed at what rate and during what period?
Measure a day at a time? A week?

Focus on enforcing the laws presently on the books. If we do
that, the discussion of deaths is superfluous.. as if it isn't anyway.

I was thinking more of policy than laws. President Rove is doing a great
job
of using fear (yet again) to focus his sheep on the immigration issue,
while
he continues to kill our soldiers in the wrong country. So I'm thinking
"focus on a problem where there MIGHT be trouble" (borders),

There is no "might" be trouble. There IS trouble when you have no
control over 1mil+ illegals, who we know nothing about, walking into
the US every year. And don't try to obfuscate the issue of
immigration by dragging in Iraq, which has nothing to do with it. If
Rove is doing such a great job of focusing attention on illegal
immigration, it's funny how there's very little talk of it anywhere in
the last few months. Try watching the news. All they cover is
Iraq, Obama, Hillary and whatever item of the day they can find that
Bush has done that the media thinks is wrong.


or "focus on a
problem where there IS trouble" (Iraq). Meanwhile, the Rove's little
doggy,
George, hasn't a clue as to where al Qaeda is strongest. It happens to be
where we sent a few soldiers BEFORE Iraq.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -



I read everything. More than you will digest in your entire life. I've read
of maybe 1/2 dozen truly nasty people being detained the the border patrol
in the Southwest.

Meanwhile, our soldiers need to get protective helmet liners FROM A ****ING
CHARITY, instead of from YOUR PRESIDENT, who doesn't even know the soldiers
need these things. Where are our priorities???

On Mar 13, 5:54 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
quoted text -

I read everything. More than you will digest in your entire life. I've read
of maybe 1/2 dozen truly nasty people being detained the the border patrol
in the Southwest.


For someone that claims to read so much, you really know embarassing
little. And it isn't hard to find the truth. Here's testimony
given last year by the Chief of the US Border Patrol to the US Senate,
regarding what's really going on at the border. Since, you have an
obvious comprehension problem, I'll excerpt a few cogent points for
you. Far from your asinine claim of "maybe a 1/2 dozen truly nasty
people" coming across the border, in one year they detained over 6,000
with prior arrests for aggravated assault, another 12,000 with drug
arrests, 500 homicide suspects, and a total of 31,000 with major crime
histories. And those are just the ones that the border patrol was
fortunate enough to catch.

Quite a nice situation isn't it? Read the rest of the testimony,
some of which I provided below, before you further embarass
yourself. And you and the other foolish Joe want to let these
"good folks" walk right on in, while trying to make anyone who wants
to stop this into a xenophobic racist.



http://kyl.senate.gov/legis_center/s...06_Aguilar.pdf
CBP's Border Patrol is the first line of defense in DHS' multi-agency
effort to dismantle the
violent smuggling organizations that threaten the American quality of
life. This line of defense
does come at a price, and our dedicated agents face significant risks.
In fact, 192 Border Patrol
Agents have been assaulted already in FY 2006. These statistics
continue to reflect an upward
trend; in FY 2005, 778 agents were assaulted, more than doubling the
FY 2004 total of 374.

With immediate access to IAFIS nationwide, Border Patrol agents have
identified thousands of egregious offenders in the past year,
including 513 homicide suspects, 648 sex crime suspects, 6439 subjects
previously charged
or convicted of aggravated assault, and 11,844 suspects involved in
dangerous drugs or
trafficking, which otherwise may have gone undetected. With 31,414
major crime hits and
120,268 total IAFIS hits through fiscal year 2005, we have made
significant strides towards
improving national security and greatly enhancing our ability to
secure our Nation's borders

Recently, the Border Patrol arrested an individual who was wanted for
a 1994 double-homicide
committed in Grant County, CA. The Grant County Prosecutors' Office
charged the individual
after Border Patrol agents turned him over to the local sheriff's
office. Also in February, Border
Patrol Agents in Albuquerque, New Mexico, assisted the Albuquerque
Fugitive Operations Unit
with the arrest of a subject who was wanted in Mexico for a triple
homicide. Information was
shared with the Albuquerque Fugitive Operations Unit. This information
subsequently led to his
arrest and turn over to Border Patrol. This individual was turned over
to Mexican authorities.
These are just two very recent examples of the criminal element
present at the Nation's border.
This important initiative was made possible through the joint efforts
of the US-VISIT Program,
which provided the funding and overall project coordination, and CBP,
which installed the
workstations and conducted training.
The United States continues to experience a rising influx of nationals
other than Mexicans
(OTMs) illegally entering the country. OTM apprehensions totaled
165,175 for FY05, whereas
FY 04's number of OTM apprehensions was 75,389. The 119% increase in
the apprehension of

Meanwhile, YOUR PRESIDENT can't put his foot down and arrange for our
soldiers to have the protective gear they need. They have to get it from a
CHARITY. Otherwise, they are at high risk of coming home with brain injuries
that are more prevalent in this war than any other.

Compare the numbers. A few arrests vs. thousands of at-risk soldiers, all
because YOUR PRESIDENT is busy playing video games, dancing through Latin
America, and playing with himself.

YOUR PRESIDENT, who says "support the troops".


wrote in message
oups.com...
On Mar 13, 5:54 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
quoted text -

I read everything. More than you will digest in your entire life. I've
read
of maybe 1/2 dozen truly nasty people being detained the the border
patrol
in the Southwest.


For someone that claims to read so much, you really know embarassing
little. And it isn't hard to find the truth. Here's testimony
given last year by the Chief of the US Border Patrol to the US Senate,
regarding what's really going on at the border. Since, you have an
obvious comprehension problem, I'll excerpt a few cogent points for
you. Far from your asinine claim of "maybe a 1/2 dozen truly nasty
people" coming across the border, in one year they detained over 6,000
with prior arrests for aggravated assault, another 12,000 with drug
arrests, 500 homicide suspects, and a total of 31,000 with major crime
histories. And those are just the ones that the border patrol was
fortunate enough to catch.

Quite a nice situation isn't it? Read the rest of the testimony,
some of which I provided below, before you further embarass
yourself. And you and the other foolish Joe want to let these
"good folks" walk right on in, while trying to make anyone who wants
to stop this into a xenophobic racist.



http://kyl.senate.gov/legis_center/s...06_Aguilar.pdf
CBP's Border Patrol is the first line of defense in DHS' multi-agency
effort to dismantle the
violent smuggling organizations that threaten the American quality of
life. This line of defense
does come at a price, and our dedicated agents face significant risks.
In fact, 192 Border Patrol
Agents have been assaulted already in FY 2006. These statistics
continue to reflect an upward
trend; in FY 2005, 778 agents were assaulted, more than doubling the
FY 2004 total of 374.

With immediate access to IAFIS nationwide, Border Patrol agents have
identified thousands of egregious offenders in the past year,
including 513 homicide suspects, 648 sex crime suspects, 6439 subjects
previously charged
or convicted of aggravated assault, and 11,844 suspects involved in
dangerous drugs or
trafficking, which otherwise may have gone undetected. With 31,414
major crime hits and
120,268 total IAFIS hits through fiscal year 2005, we have made
significant strides towards
improving national security and greatly enhancing our ability to
secure our Nation's borders

Recently, the Border Patrol arrested an individual who was wanted for
a 1994 double-homicide
committed in Grant County, CA. The Grant County Prosecutors' Office
charged the individual
after Border Patrol agents turned him over to the local sheriff's
office. Also in February, Border
Patrol Agents in Albuquerque, New Mexico, assisted the Albuquerque
Fugitive Operations Unit
with the arrest of a subject who was wanted in Mexico for a triple
homicide. Information was
shared with the Albuquerque Fugitive Operations Unit. This information
subsequently led to his
arrest and turn over to Border Patrol. This individual was turned over
to Mexican authorities.
These are just two very recent examples of the criminal element
present at the Nation's border.
This important initiative was made possible through the joint efforts
of the US-VISIT Program,
which provided the funding and overall project coordination, and CBP,
which installed the
workstations and conducted training.
The United States continues to experience a rising influx of nationals
other than Mexicans
(OTMs) illegally entering the country. OTM apprehensions totaled
165,175 for FY05, whereas
FY 04's number of OTM apprehensions was 75,389. The 119% increase in
the apprehension of

Every US soldier VOLUNTEERED!. They knew the risks when they signed
up. This thread is about the illegals destroying the American way of
life

On Mar 13, 8:29 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
Meanwhile, YOUR PRESIDENT can't put his foot down and arrange for our
soldiers to have the protective gear they need. They have to get it from a
CHARITY. Otherwise, they are at high risk of coming home with brain injuries
that are more prevalent in this war than any other.

Compare the numbers. A few arrests vs. thousands of at-risk soldiers, all
because YOUR PRESIDENT is busy playing video games, dancing through Latin
America, and playing with himself.

YOUR PRESIDENT, who says "support the troops".

wrote in message

oups.com...



On Mar 13, 5:54 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
quoted text -

I read everything. More than you will digest in your entire life. I've
read
of maybe 1/2 dozen truly nasty people being detained the the border
patrol
in the Southwest.

For someone that claims to read so much, you really know embarassing
little. And it isn't hard to find the truth. Here's testimony
given last year by the Chief of the US Border Patrol to the US Senate,
regarding what's really going on at the border. Since, you have an
obvious comprehension problem, I'll excerpt a few cogent points for
you. Far from your asinine claim of "maybe a 1/2 dozen truly nasty
people" coming across the border, in one year they detained over 6,000
with prior arrests for aggravated assault, another 12,000 with drug
arrests, 500 homicide suspects, and a total of 31,000 with major crime
histories. And those are just the ones that the border patrol was
fortunate enough to catch.

Quite a nice situation isn't it? Read the rest of the testimony,
some of which I provided below, before you further embarass
yourself. And you and the other foolish Joe want to let these
"good folks" walk right on in, while trying to make anyone who wants
to stop this into a xenophobic racist.

http://kyl.senate.gov/legis_center/s...06_Aguilar.pdf
CBP's Border Patrol is the first line of defense in DHS' multi-agency
effort to dismantle the
violent smuggling organizations that threaten the American quality of
life. This line of defense
does come at a price, and our dedicated agents face significant risks.
In fact, 192 Border Patrol
Agents have been assaulted already in FY 2006. These statistics
continue to reflect an upward
trend; in FY 2005, 778 agents were assaulted, more than doubling the
FY 2004 total of 374.

With immediate access to IAFIS nationwide, Border Patrol agents have
identified thousands of egregious offenders in the past year,
including 513 homicide suspects, 648 sex crime suspects, 6439 subjects
previously charged
or convicted of aggravated assault, and 11,844 suspects involved in
dangerous drugs or
trafficking, which otherwise may have gone undetected. With 31,414
major crime hits and
120,268 total IAFIS hits through fiscal year 2005, we have made
significant strides towards
improving national security and greatly enhancing our ability to
secure our Nation's borders

Recently, the Border Patrol arrested an individual who was wanted for
a 1994 double-homicide
committed in Grant County, CA. The Grant County Prosecutors' Office
charged the individual
after Border Patrol agents turned him over to the local sheriff's
office. Also in February, Border
Patrol Agents in Albuquerque, New Mexico, assisted the Albuquerque
Fugitive Operations Unit
with the arrest of a subject who was wanted in Mexico for a triple
homicide. Information was
shared with the Albuquerque Fugitive Operations Unit. This information
subsequently led to his
arrest and turn over to Border Patrol. This individual was turned over
to Mexican authorities.
These are just two very recent examples of the criminal element
present at the Nation's border.
This important initiative was made possible through the joint efforts
of the US-VISIT Program,
which provided the funding and overall project coordination, and CBP,
which installed the
workstations and conducted training.
The United States continues to experience a rising influx of nationals
other than Mexicans
(OTMs) illegally entering the country. OTM apprehensions totaled
165,175 for FY05, whereas
FY 04's number of OTM apprehensions was 75,389. The 119% increase in
the apprehension of- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'll bet you pretend to believe in family values.




wrote in message
oups.com...
Every US soldier VOLUNTEERED!. They knew the risks when they signed
up. This thread is about the illegals destroying the American way of
life

On Mar 13, 8:29 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
Meanwhile, YOUR PRESIDENT can't put his foot down and arrange for our
soldiers to have the protective gear they need. They have to get it from
a
CHARITY. Otherwise, they are at high risk of coming home with brain
injuries
that are more prevalent in this war than any other.

Compare the numbers. A few arrests vs. thousands of at-risk soldiers, all
because YOUR PRESIDENT is busy playing video games, dancing through Latin
America, and playing with himself.

YOUR PRESIDENT, who says "support the troops".

wrote in message

oups.com...



On Mar 13, 5:54 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
quoted text -

I read everything. More than you will digest in your entire life. I've
read
of maybe 1/2 dozen truly nasty people being detained the the border
patrol
in the Southwest.

For someone that claims to read so much, you really know embarassing
little. And it isn't hard to find the truth. Here's testimony
given last year by the Chief of the US Border Patrol to the US Senate,
regarding what's really going on at the border. Since, you have an
obvious comprehension problem, I'll excerpt a few cogent points for
you. Far from your asinine claim of "maybe a 1/2 dozen truly nasty
people" coming across the border, in one year they detained over 6,000
with prior arrests for aggravated assault, another 12,000 with drug
arrests, 500 homicide suspects, and a total of 31,000 with major crime
histories. And those are just the ones that the border patrol was
fortunate enough to catch.

Quite a nice situation isn't it? Read the rest of the testimony,
some of which I provided below, before you further embarass
yourself. And you and the other foolish Joe want to let these
"good folks" walk right on in, while trying to make anyone who wants
to stop this into a xenophobic racist.

http://kyl.senate.gov/legis_center/s...06_Aguilar.pdf
CBP's Border Patrol is the first line of defense in DHS' multi-agency
effort to dismantle the
violent smuggling organizations that threaten the American quality of
life. This line of defense
does come at a price, and our dedicated agents face significant risks.
In fact, 192 Border Patrol
Agents have been assaulted already in FY 2006. These statistics
continue to reflect an upward
trend; in FY 2005, 778 agents were assaulted, more than doubling the
FY 2004 total of 374.

With immediate access to IAFIS nationwide, Border Patrol agents have
identified thousands of egregious offenders in the past year,
including 513 homicide suspects, 648 sex crime suspects, 6439 subjects
previously charged
or convicted of aggravated assault, and 11,844 suspects involved in
dangerous drugs or
trafficking, which otherwise may have gone undetected. With 31,414
major crime hits and
120,268 total IAFIS hits through fiscal year 2005, we have made
significant strides towards
improving national security and greatly enhancing our ability to
secure our Nation's borders

Recently, the Border Patrol arrested an individual who was wanted for
a 1994 double-homicide
committed in Grant County, CA. The Grant County Prosecutors' Office
charged the individual
after Border Patrol agents turned him over to the local sheriff's
office. Also in February, Border
Patrol Agents in Albuquerque, New Mexico, assisted the Albuquerque
Fugitive Operations Unit
with the arrest of a subject who was wanted in Mexico for a triple
homicide. Information was
shared with the Albuquerque Fugitive Operations Unit. This information
subsequently led to his
arrest and turn over to Border Patrol. This individual was turned over
to Mexican authorities.
These are just two very recent examples of the criminal element
present at the Nation's border.
This important initiative was made possible through the joint efforts
of the US-VISIT Program,
which provided the funding and overall project coordination, and CBP,
which installed the
workstations and conducted training.
The United States continues to experience a rising influx of nationals
other than Mexicans
(OTMs) illegally entering the country. OTM apprehensions totaled
165,175 for FY05, whereas
FY 04's number of OTM apprehensions was 75,389. The 119% increase in
the apprehension of- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
Meanwhile, YOUR PRESIDENT can't put his foot down and arrange for our
soldiers to have the protective gear they need. They have to get it
from a CHARITY. Otherwise, they are at high risk of coming home with
brain injuries that are more prevalent in this war than any other.

It isn't as simple as you make it sound, Joe. Military equipment is always
undergoing testing and modification, even during wartime. There are three
helmet systems in use, and they are being retro-fitted with the new padding
system. Even without the new padding system, the helmets are incredibly
effective. I know from experience. With the new padding system, it's even
better solving some of the issues with blast concussion.

Operation Helmet began providing new liners before official testing and
adoptation was completed by the military. And they have helped in getting
them out faster than thru normal military channels. This has nothing to do
with Bush. It has to do with the process that all military gear goes through
from the Aberdeen Proving Grounds, a process that has been in place during
many administrations.

In fact, some of the first helmet pads sent out by Operation Helmet, outside
of approved channels, were defective and actually aggravated blast
concussions. This problem has been solved as the design used by SOCOM
helmets. Since September last year, all new helmets issued have had the new
padding system. Retro-fit kits are also being distributed on a priority
basis so that the front-line soldiers get them first.

Compare the numbers. A few arrests vs. thousands of at-risk soldiers,
all because YOUR PRESIDENT is busy playing video games, dancing
through Latin America, and playing with himself.

That's the kind of hyperbole that just trashes any positive points you're
trying to make.

YOUR PRESIDENT, who says "support the troops".




--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

On Mar 13, 7:29 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
Meanwhile, YOUR PRESIDENT can't put his foot down and arrange for our
soldiers to have the protective gear they need. They have to get it from a
CHARITY. Otherwise, they are at high risk of coming home with brain injuries
that are more prevalent in this war than any other.

Compare the numbers. A few arrests vs. thousands of at-risk soldiers, all
because YOUR PRESIDENT is busy playing video games, dancing through Latin
America, and playing with himself.

YOUR PRESIDENT, who says "support the troops".

I show you the true border numbers straight from the head of the
border patrol in testimony to Congress:

31,000 detained with major crime histories
6,000 aggravated assault
12,000 drug related
500 homicide suspects
778 agents assaulted


And your response is, " a few arrests" And then back to trying to
relate it to Iraq. No facts, just BS. You're quite the moron.





wrote in message

oups.com...



On Mar 13, 5:54 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
quoted text -

I read everything. More than you will digest in your entire life. I've
read
of maybe 1/2 dozen truly nasty people being detained the the border
patrol
in the Southwest.

For someone that claims to read so much, you really know embarassing
little. And it isn't hard to find the truth. Here's testimony
given last year by the Chief of the US Border Patrol to the US Senate,
regarding what's really going on at the border. Since, you have an
obvious comprehension problem, I'll excerpt a few cogent points for
you. Far from your asinine claim of "maybe a 1/2 dozen truly nasty
people" coming across the border, in one year they detained over 6,000
with prior arrests for aggravated assault, another 12,000 with drug
arrests, 500 homicide suspects, and a total of 31,000 with major crime
histories. And those are just the ones that the border patrol was
fortunate enough to catch.

Quite a nice situation isn't it? Read the rest of the testimony,
some of which I provided below, before you further embarass
yourself. And you and the other foolish Joe want to let these
"good folks" walk right on in, while trying to make anyone who wants
to stop this into a xenophobic racist.

http://kyl.senate.gov/legis_center/s...06_Aguilar.pdf
CBP's Border Patrol is the first line of defense in DHS' multi-agency
effort to dismantle the
violent smuggling organizations that threaten the American quality of
life. This line of defense
does come at a price, and our dedicated agents face significant risks.
In fact, 192 Border Patrol
Agents have been assaulted already in FY 2006. These statistics
continue to reflect an upward
trend; in FY 2005, 778 agents were assaulted, more than doubling the
FY 2004 total of 374.

With immediate access to IAFIS nationwide, Border Patrol agents have
identified thousands of egregious offenders in the past year,
including 513 homicide suspects, 648 sex crime suspects, 6439 subjects
previously charged
or convicted of aggravated assault, and 11,844 suspects involved in
dangerous drugs or
trafficking, which otherwise may have gone undetected. With 31,414
major crime hits and
120,268 total IAFIS hits through fiscal year 2005, we have made
significant strides towards
improving national security and greatly enhancing our ability to
secure our Nation's borders

Recently, the Border Patrol arrested an individual who was wanted for
a 1994 double-homicide
committed in Grant County, CA. The Grant County Prosecutors' Office
charged the individual
after Border Patrol agents turned him over to the local sheriff's
office. Also in February, Border
Patrol Agents in Albuquerque, New Mexico, assisted the Albuquerque
Fugitive Operations Unit
with the arrest of a subject who was wanted in Mexico for a triple
homicide. Information was
shared with the Albuquerque Fugitive Operations Unit. This information
subsequently led to his
arrest and turn over to Border Patrol. This individual was turned over
to Mexican authorities.
These are just two very recent examples of the criminal element
present at the Nation's border.
This important initiative was made possible through the joint efforts
of the US-VISIT Program,
which provided the funding and overall project coordination, and CBP,
which installed the
workstations and conducted training.
The United States continues to experience a rising influx of nationals
other than Mexicans
(OTMs) illegally entering the country. OTM apprehensions totaled
165,175 for FY05, whereas
FY 04's number of OTM apprehensions was 75,389. The 119% increase in
the apprehension of- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"Dave Bugg" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
Meanwhile, YOUR PRESIDENT can't put his foot down and arrange for our
soldiers to have the protective gear they need. They have to get it
from a CHARITY. Otherwise, they are at high risk of coming home with
brain injuries that are more prevalent in this war than any other.

It isn't as simple as you make it sound, Joe. Military equipment is always
undergoing testing and modification, even during wartime. There are three
helmet systems in use, and they are being retro-fitted with the new
padding system. Even without the new padding system, the helmets are
incredibly effective. I know from experience. With the new padding system,
it's even better solving some of the issues with blast concussion.

Operation Helmet began providing new liners before official testing and
adoptation was completed by the military. And they have helped in getting
them out faster than thru normal military channels. This has nothing to do
with Bush.

It has everything to do with Bush. The title "commander in chief" means he
is, in effect, the CEO of a very large corporation called America. Since you
and I are aware of the issue, it stands to reason that HE should be aware of
the issue as well. If he was an actual manager, heads would roll and careers
would be ruined until the solution was the best it could be.

wrote in message
oups.com...
On Mar 13, 7:29 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
Meanwhile, YOUR PRESIDENT can't put his foot down and arrange for our
soldiers to have the protective gear they need. They have to get it from
a
CHARITY. Otherwise, they are at high risk of coming home with brain
injuries
that are more prevalent in this war than any other.

Compare the numbers. A few arrests vs. thousands of at-risk soldiers, all
because YOUR PRESIDENT is busy playing video games, dancing through Latin
America, and playing with himself.

YOUR PRESIDENT, who says "support the troops".

I show you the true border numbers straight from the head of the
border patrol in testimony to Congress:

31,000 detained with major crime histories
6,000 aggravated assault
12,000 drug related
500 homicide suspects
778 agents assaulted


And your response is, " a few arrests" And then back to trying to
relate it to Iraq. No facts, just BS. You're quite the moron.


Doesn't matter to me. You're still talking "maybe", or past history. In the
next few months, more soldiers will die in a place where the enemy never
was. This is not "maybe". This is absolute. Rove and his bitch are trying to
distract you from that with issues like borders, the "war on drugs", and how
much aid we should continue giving to Colombia.

All bull****.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

Operation Helmet began providing new liners before official testing
and adoptation was completed by the military. And they have helped
in getting them out faster than thru normal military channels. This
has nothing to do with Bush.

It has everything to do with Bush. The title "commander in chief"
means he is, in effect, the CEO of a very large corporation called
America.

Commander-in chief means that he is responsible for the decision to deploy
troops. Congress is responsible for budget authorizations and expenditures
to the Dept. of Defense. The CEO analogy doesn't really work in a government
that has a division of responsibilities and power via the three branches of
government.

Since you and I are aware of the issue, it stands to reason
that HE should be aware of the issue as well. If he was an actual
manager, heads would roll and careers would be ruined until the
solution was the best it could be.

I'm aware of it because I was in the military and have a specific interest
in this area of personal equipment development.

NO President is aware of this type of thing because it is not under his
oversight. Hell, John Kennedy ( then Johnson) wasn't aware of the need for,
or the later development of, steel-soled combat boots in Vietnam when
punji-stick booby traps made their nasty appearence. The only reason the new
padding system is needed is because of the development of IEDs, which have
unique concussive patterns from other types of explosions. When the weakness
was discovered, R&D immediately began to make a great helmet system even
better.

Right now there are probably 3000 - 4000 research projects going on for
weapons systems and personal gear. Then there is prototype testing that is
deciding the effectiveness of gear that has been put into trials. Each
military branch maintains their own contracts for R&D and manufacturing with
approval of the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs. It is the Armed
Services committees of the House and Senate that hear the details and then
approve or disapprove of project funding. A President doesn't focus on this
area because the responsibility lies elsewhere.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

On Mar 13, 8:14 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
wrote in message

oups.com...





On Mar 13, 7:29 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
Meanwhile, YOUR PRESIDENT can't put his foot down and arrange for our
soldiers to have the protective gear they need. They have to get it from
a
CHARITY. Otherwise, they are at high risk of coming home with brain
injuries
that are more prevalent in this war than any other.

Compare the numbers. A few arrests vs. thousands of at-risk soldiers, all
because YOUR PRESIDENT is busy playing video games, dancing through Latin
America, and playing with himself.

YOUR PRESIDENT, who says "support the troops".

I show you the true border numbers straight from the head of the
border patrol in testimony to Congress:

31,000 detained with major crime histories
6,000 aggravated assault
12,000 drug related
500 homicide suspects
778 agents assaulted

And your response is, " a few arrests" And then back to trying to
relate it to Iraq. No facts, just BS. You're quite the moron.

Doesn't matter to me. You're still talking "maybe", or past history. In the
next few months, more soldiers will die in a place where the enemy never
was. This is not "maybe". This is absolute. Rove and his bitch are trying to
distract you from that with issues like borders, the "war on drugs", and how
much aid we should continue giving to Colombia.

All bull****.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -



Of course it doesn't matter to you. You'd rather remain ignorant of
the facts and go around embarrasing yourself, because the facts might
contradict with you own little private world of fabricated beliefs.
You claimed only a few nasty illegals are coming across the border.
I showed you that 31,000 a year that are detained are involved in
serious crimes. 500+ are homicides! Ouch! That's gotta
hurt....

And with that kind of gross ignorance about something so simple, you
expect anyone to take seriously your rants about Iraq. Or anything
else for that matter? LOL

I'm had enough fun exposing you for a fool. I'm sure others will be
more than happy to demolish you some more

Bye, Bye!

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Dave Bugg" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
Meanwhile, YOUR PRESIDENT can't put his foot down and arrange for our
soldiers to have the protective gear they need. They have to get it
from a CHARITY. Otherwise, they are at high risk of coming home with
brain injuries that are more prevalent in this war than any other.
It isn't as simple as you make it sound, Joe. Military equipment is always
undergoing testing and modification, even during wartime. There are three
helmet systems in use, and they are being retro-fitted with the new
padding system. Even without the new padding system, the helmets are
incredibly effective. I know from experience. With the new padding system,
it's even better solving some of the issues with blast concussion.

Operation Helmet began providing new liners before official testing and
adoptation was completed by the military. And they have helped in getting
them out faster than thru normal military channels. This has nothing to do
with Bush.

It has everything to do with Bush. The title "commander in chief" means he
is, in effect, the CEO of a very large corporation called America.

False; that's just a wretchedly ****ty analogy.
America is not a corporation, and the president doesn't
run "America"; he is the head of the federal
government. Government is a big part of America, but
it is not the country, and the federal government is
not the only governmental entity in the country.

Even limiting the analysis to the federal government,
which is not all of government, which in turn is not
all of the country, the president is *not* like a CEO
of a corporation. There is no separation of powers in
a corporation: no courts, no legislature. You exhibit
massive and *willful* ignorance of the Constitution by
failing to note that the entire Article I of the
Constitution, 10 sections in all, spell out the powers
and responsibilities of the *legislative* branch.

You are a benighted polemicist, and stupid beyond words.

wrote:
On Mar 13, 7:29 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
Meanwhile, YOUR PRESIDENT can't put his foot down and arrange for our
soldiers to have the protective gear they need. They have to get it from a
CHARITY. Otherwise, they are at high risk of coming home with brain injuries
that are more prevalent in this war than any other.

Compare the numbers. A few arrests vs. thousands of at-risk soldiers, all
because YOUR PRESIDENT is busy playing video games, dancing through Latin
America, and playing with himself.

YOUR PRESIDENT, who says "support the troops".

I show you the true border numbers straight from the head of the
border patrol in testimony to Congress:

31,000 detained with major crime histories
6,000 aggravated assault
12,000 drug related
500 homicide suspects
778 agents assaulted


And your response is, " a few arrests" And then back to trying to
relate it to Iraq. No facts, just BS. You're quite the moron.

He did a barely competent job of trying to argue the
topic for a little while; then, he let the mask slip,
and revealed himself as the doctrinaire far-left kook
his is.

On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 22:54:44 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com...
On Mar 13, 3:21 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message

...





In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

wrote in message
groups.com...

I thought the current estimate was 2 million a year. These people
are
also coming ahead of people trying to get here legally.- Hide
quoted
text -

I thought the total number crossing was estimated at over 1Mil, but
whatever it is, you're right, it's very high. The tens of thousands
number I referred to was for illegals crossing the Mexican border
who
are not from the AMERICAS, meaning these people are from Europe,
Middle East, Africa, etc. We tend to think only Mexicans are
crossing. My point was that you also have these people and it;s not
a
far stretch to imagine Islamic terrorists deciding to come in via
that
route. But apparently those in favor of not enforcing immigration
law aren't concerned at all about that.

How do we decide where to focus our priorities? Number of people
killed
by
failing to fix a problem? Killed at what rate and during what period?
Measure a day at a time? A week?

Focus on enforcing the laws presently on the books. If we do
that, the discussion of deaths is superfluous.. as if it isn't anyway.

I was thinking more of policy than laws. President Rove is doing a great
job
of using fear (yet again) to focus his sheep on the immigration issue,
while
he continues to kill our soldiers in the wrong country. So I'm thinking
"focus on a problem where there MIGHT be trouble" (borders),

There is no "might" be trouble. There IS trouble when you have no
control over 1mil+ illegals, who we know nothing about, walking into
the US every year. And don't try to obfuscate the issue of
immigration by dragging in Iraq, which has nothing to do with it. If
Rove is doing such a great job of focusing attention on illegal
immigration, it's funny how there's very little talk of it anywhere in
the last few months. Try watching the news. All they cover is
Iraq, Obama, Hillary and whatever item of the day they can find that
Bush has done that the media thinks is wrong.


or "focus on a
problem where there IS trouble" (Iraq). Meanwhile, the Rove's little
doggy,
George, hasn't a clue as to where al Qaeda is strongest. It happens to be
where we sent a few soldiers BEFORE Iraq.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -



I read everything. More than you will digest in your entire life. I've read
of maybe 1/2 dozen truly nasty people being detained the the border patrol
in the Southwest.

Meanwhile, our soldiers need to get protective helmet liners FROM A ****ING
CHARITY, instead of from YOUR PRESIDENT, who doesn't even know the soldiers
need these things. Where are our priorities???

Our priorities are to increase the value of stocks and investments for
the rich and lower the standard of living for the poor.

On Mar 14, 3:24 am, Terry wrote:
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 22:54:44 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"





wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
On Mar 13, 3:21 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message

...

In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

wrote in message
groups.com...

I thought the current estimate was 2 million a year. These people
are
also coming ahead of people trying to get here legally.- Hide
quoted
text -

I thought the total number crossing was estimated at over 1Mil, but
whatever it is, you're right, it's very high. The tens of thousands
number I referred to was for illegals crossing the Mexican border
who
are not from the AMERICAS, meaning these people are from Europe,
Middle East, Africa, etc. We tend to think only Mexicans are
crossing. My point was that you also have these people and it;s not
a
far stretch to imagine Islamic terrorists deciding to come in via
that
route. But apparently those in favor of not enforcing immigration
law aren't concerned at all about that.

How do we decide where to focus our priorities? Number of people
killed
by
failing to fix a problem? Killed at what rate and during what period?
Measure a day at a time? A week?

Focus on enforcing the laws presently on the books. If we do
that, the discussion of deaths is superfluous.. as if it isn't anyway.

I was thinking more of policy than laws. President Rove is doing a great
job
of using fear (yet again) to focus his sheep on the immigration issue,
while
he continues to kill our soldiers in the wrong country. So I'm thinking
"focus on a problem where there MIGHT be trouble" (borders),

There is no "might" be trouble. There IS trouble when you have no
control over 1mil+ illegals, who we know nothing about, walking into
the US every year. And don't try to obfuscate the issue of
immigration by dragging in Iraq, which has nothing to do with it. If
Rove is doing such a great job of focusing attention on illegal
immigration, it's funny how there's very little talk of it anywhere in
the last few months. Try watching the news. All they cover is
Iraq, Obama, Hillary and whatever item of the day they can find that
Bush has done that the media thinks is wrong.

or "focus on a
problem where there IS trouble" (Iraq). Meanwhile, the Rove's little
doggy,
George, hasn't a clue as to where al Qaeda is strongest. It happens to be
where we sent a few soldiers BEFORE Iraq.- Hide quoted text -
If the poor schmucks in this country stayed in school, didnt get
knocked up at 15 and showed some initiative themight get rich too!!!
The poor are nothing but America;s pets. We feed them give them
shelter and take care of their vet (doctor ) bills. We give them 2
meals /day at school but allow them to do nothing



- Show quoted text -

I read everything. More than you will digest in your entire life. I've read
of maybe 1/2 dozen truly nasty people being detained the the border patrol
in the Southwest.

Meanwhile, our soldiers need to get protective helmet liners FROM A ****ING
CHARITY, instead of from YOUR PRESIDENT, who doesn't even know the soldiers
need these things. Where are our priorities???

Our priorities are to increase the value of stocks and investments for
the rich and lower the standard of living for the poor.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"Dave Bugg" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

Operation Helmet began providing new liners before official testing
and adoptation was completed by the military. And they have helped
in getting them out faster than thru normal military channels. This
has nothing to do with Bush.

It has everything to do with Bush. The title "commander in chief"
means he is, in effect, the CEO of a very large corporation called
America.

Commander-in chief means that he is responsible for the decision to deploy
troops. Congress is responsible for budget authorizations and expenditures
to the Dept. of Defense. The CEO analogy doesn't really work in a
government that has a division of responsibilities and power via the three
branches of government.

Since you and I are aware of the issue, it stands to reason
that HE should be aware of the issue as well. If he was an actual
manager, heads would roll and careers would be ruined until the
solution was the best it could be.

I'm aware of it because I was in the military and have a specific interest
in this area of personal equipment development.

NO President is aware of this type of thing because it is not under his
oversight. Hell, John Kennedy ( then Johnson) wasn't aware of the need
for, or the later development of, steel-soled combat boots in Vietnam when
punji-stick booby traps made their nasty appearence. The only reason the
new padding system is needed is because of the development of IEDs, which
have unique concussive patterns from other types of explosions. When the
weakness was discovered, R&D immediately began to make a great helmet
system even better.


I just changed my mind. I agree with you. Previously, I was discussing a
president who is aware of the consequences of his actions. But, at this
point in the history of the country, such a president is only theoretical.

If the first 1000 Chrysler mini-vans went up in flames when the windshield
wipers were turned on, do you think Lee Iacocca would have been aware of it?

"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
ink.net...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Dave Bugg" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
Meanwhile, YOUR PRESIDENT can't put his foot down and arrange for our
soldiers to have the protective gear they need. They have to get it
from a CHARITY. Otherwise, they are at high risk of coming home with
brain injuries that are more prevalent in this war than any other.
It isn't as simple as you make it sound, Joe. Military equipment is
always undergoing testing and modification, even during wartime. There
are three helmet systems in use, and they are being retro-fitted with
the new padding system. Even without the new padding system, the helmets
are incredibly effective. I know from experience. With the new padding
system, it's even better solving some of the issues with blast
concussion.

Operation Helmet began providing new liners before official testing and
adoptation was completed by the military. And they have helped in
getting them out faster than thru normal military channels. This has
nothing to do with Bush.

It has everything to do with Bush. The title "commander in chief" means
he is, in effect, the CEO of a very large corporation called America.

False; that's just a wretchedly ****ty analogy. America is not a
corporation, and the president doesn't run "America"; he is the head of
the federal government. Government is a big part of America, but it is
not the country, and the federal government is not the only governmental
entity in the country.

Even limiting the analysis to the federal government, which is not all of
government, which in turn is not all of the country, the president is
*not* like a CEO of a corporation. There is no separation of powers in a
corporation: no courts, no legislature. You exhibit massive and
*willful* ignorance of the Constitution by failing to note that the entire
Article I of the Constitution, 10 sections in all, spell out the powers
and responsibilities of the *legislative* branch.

You are a benighted polemicist, and stupid beyond words.


I'm not saying the president is responsible for funding projects. What I'm
saying is that I seriously doubt he is aware of the equipment situation I've
mentioned, and the same way he was woefully uninformed when the vehicle
armor story broke. (You won't remember that). But, regardless of his legal
abilities, he *is* capable of exerting enormous pressure on whomever he
wants, for any reason at all.

Whether he cares to do so is another story.

On 13 Mar 2007 15:07:09 -0700, wrote:

There is no "might" be trouble. There IS trouble when you have no
control over 1mil+ illegals, who we know nothing about, walking into
the US every year. And don't try to obfuscate the issue of
immigration by dragging in Iraq, which has nothing to do with it. If
Rove is doing such a great job of focusing attention on illegal
immigration, it's funny how there's very little talk of it anywhere in
the last few months. Try watching the news. All they cover is
Iraq, Obama, Hillary and whatever item of the day they can find that
Bush has done that the media thinks is wrong.



Doesn't appear to be causing much of a problem however. But the reason
that you don't hear much on the issue is because many corporate
interests that own the Republican party (and 90% of the Dems) don't
want cheap labor cut off. So while you may grouse about it, when it
comes to bigots vs bucks, the bigots lose.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
ink.net...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Dave Bugg" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
Meanwhile, YOUR PRESIDENT can't put his foot down and arrange for our
soldiers to have the protective gear they need. They have to get it
from a CHARITY. Otherwise, they are at high risk of coming home with
brain injuries that are more prevalent in this war than any other.
It isn't as simple as you make it sound, Joe. Military equipment is
always undergoing testing and modification, even during wartime. There
are three helmet systems in use, and they are being retro-fitted with
the new padding system. Even without the new padding system, the helmets
are incredibly effective. I know from experience. With the new padding
system, it's even better solving some of the issues with blast
concussion.

Operation Helmet began providing new liners before official testing and
adoptation was completed by the military. And they have helped in
getting them out faster than thru normal military channels. This has
nothing to do with Bush.
It has everything to do with Bush. The title "commander in chief" means
he is, in effect, the CEO of a very large corporation called America.
False; that's just a wretchedly ****ty analogy. America is not a
corporation, and the president doesn't run "America"; he is the head of
the federal government. Government is a big part of America, but it is
not the country, and the federal government is not the only governmental
entity in the country.

Even limiting the analysis to the federal government, which is not all of
government, which in turn is not all of the country, the president is
*not* like a CEO of a corporation. There is no separation of powers in a
corporation: no courts, no legislature. You exhibit massive and
*willful* ignorance of the Constitution by failing to note that the entire
Article I of the Constitution, 10 sections in all, spell out the powers
and responsibilities of the *legislative* branch.

You are a benighted polemicist, and stupid beyond words.


I'm not saying the president is responsible for funding projects.

You slopped together a ****ty analogy; that's all.
You're blinded by partisanship, so I'm not surprised
you can't see facts as they are.

"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
nk.net...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
ink.net...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Dave Bugg" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
Meanwhile, YOUR PRESIDENT can't put his foot down and arrange for our
soldiers to have the protective gear they need. They have to get it
from a CHARITY. Otherwise, they are at high risk of coming home with
brain injuries that are more prevalent in this war than any other.
It isn't as simple as you make it sound, Joe. Military equipment is
always undergoing testing and modification, even during wartime. There
are three helmet systems in use, and they are being retro-fitted with
the new padding system. Even without the new padding system, the
helmets are incredibly effective. I know from experience. With the new
padding system, it's even better solving some of the issues with blast
concussion.

Operation Helmet began providing new liners before official testing
and adoptation was completed by the military. And they have helped in
getting them out faster than thru normal military channels. This has
nothing to do with Bush.
It has everything to do with Bush. The title "commander in chief" means
he is, in effect, the CEO of a very large corporation called America.
False; that's just a wretchedly ****ty analogy. America is not a
corporation, and the president doesn't run "America"; he is the head of
the federal government. Government is a big part of America, but it is
not the country, and the federal government is not the only governmental
entity in the country.

Even limiting the analysis to the federal government, which is not all
of government, which in turn is not all of the country, the president is
*not* like a CEO of a corporation. There is no separation of powers in
a corporation: no courts, no legislature. You exhibit massive and
*willful* ignorance of the Constitution by failing to note that the
entire Article I of the Constitution, 10 sections in all, spell out the
powers and responsibilities of the *legislative* branch.

You are a benighted polemicist, and stupid beyond words.


I'm not saying the president is responsible for funding projects.

You slopped together a ****ty analogy; that's all. You're blinded by
partisanship, so I'm not surprised you can't see facts as they are.


Not partisanship. I would never say such things about a Republican like
Bush's dad, who was qualified for the job. But, you have to admit that the
current thing really has no business being where he is. Someone needed a
Gumby they could twist into whatever shape they wanted, so the GOP propped
him up.

Three weeks back, he says he won't meet with the Iranians because he doesn't
think it would result in anything positive. Did you see that news
conference? A few days later, it is announced that Rice will be meeting with
the Iranians. Obviously, he has been marginalized by his own people, or he
wouldn't have made his ridiculous (and spontaneous) blanket remark about
meeting with Iran. Either they tell him very little, or they tell him
everything but he doesn't understand.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
nk.net...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
ink.net...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Dave Bugg" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
Meanwhile, YOUR PRESIDENT can't put his foot down and arrange for our
soldiers to have the protective gear they need. They have to get it
from a CHARITY. Otherwise, they are at high risk of coming home with
brain injuries that are more prevalent in this war than any other.
It isn't as simple as you make it sound, Joe. Military equipment is
always undergoing testing and modification, even during wartime. There
are three helmet systems in use, and they are being retro-fitted with
the new padding system. Even without the new padding system, the
helmets are incredibly effective. I know from experience. With the new
padding system, it's even better solving some of the issues with blast
concussion.

Operation Helmet began providing new liners before official testing
and adoptation was completed by the military. And they have helped in
getting them out faster than thru normal military channels. This has
nothing to do with Bush.
It has everything to do with Bush. The title "commander in chief" means
he is, in effect, the CEO of a very large corporation called America.
False; that's just a wretchedly ****ty analogy. America is not a
corporation, and the president doesn't run "America"; he is the head of
the federal government. Government is a big part of America, but it is
not the country, and the federal government is not the only governmental
entity in the country.

Even limiting the analysis to the federal government, which is not all
of government, which in turn is not all of the country, the president is
*not* like a CEO of a corporation. There is no separation of powers in
a corporation: no courts, no legislature. You exhibit massive and
*willful* ignorance of the Constitution by failing to note that the
entire Article I of the Constitution, 10 sections in all, spell out the
powers and responsibilities of the *legislative* branch.

You are a benighted polemicist, and stupid beyond words.

I'm not saying the president is responsible for funding projects.
You slopped together a ****ty analogy; that's all. You're blinded by
partisanship, so I'm not surprised you can't see facts as they are.


Not partisanship.

Yes, it's partisanship. You've said enough, and in
revealing language, that your partisanship is clear.


I would never say such things about a Republican like
Bush's dad, who was qualified for the job. But, you have to admit that the
current thing really has no business being where he is. Someone needed a
Gumby they could twist into whatever shape they wanted, so the GOP propped
him up.

Three weeks back, he says he won't meet with the Iranians because he doesn't
think it would result in anything positive. Did you see that news
conference? A few days later, it is announced that Rice will be meeting with
the Iranians. Obviously, he has been marginalized by his own people, or he
wouldn't have made his ridiculous (and spontaneous) blanket remark about
meeting with Iran. Either they tell him very little, or they tell him
everything but he doesn't understand.

"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
nk.net...

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
nk.net...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
ink.net...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Dave Bugg" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
Meanwhile, YOUR PRESIDENT can't put his foot down and arrange for
our
soldiers to have the protective gear they need. They have to get it
from a CHARITY. Otherwise, they are at high risk of coming home
with
brain injuries that are more prevalent in this war than any other.
It isn't as simple as you make it sound, Joe. Military equipment is
always undergoing testing and modification, even during wartime.
There are three helmet systems in use, and they are being
retro-fitted with the new padding system. Even without the new
padding system, the helmets are incredibly effective. I know from
experience. With the new padding system, it's even better solving
some of the issues with blast concussion.

Operation Helmet began providing new liners before official testing
and adoptation was completed by the military. And they have helped
in getting them out faster than thru normal military channels. This
has nothing to do with Bush.
It has everything to do with Bush. The title "commander in chief"
means he is, in effect, the CEO of a very large corporation called
America.
False; that's just a wretchedly ****ty analogy. America is not a
corporation, and the president doesn't run "America"; he is the head
of the federal government. Government is a big part of America, but
it is not the country, and the federal government is not the only
governmental entity in the country.

Even limiting the analysis to the federal government, which is not all
of government, which in turn is not all of the country, the president
is *not* like a CEO of a corporation. There is no separation of
powers in a corporation: no courts, no legislature. You exhibit
massive and *willful* ignorance of the Constitution by failing to note
that the entire Article I of the Constitution, 10 sections in all,
spell out the powers and responsibilities of the *legislative* branch.

You are a benighted polemicist, and stupid beyond words.

I'm not saying the president is responsible for funding projects.
You slopped together a ****ty analogy; that's all. You're blinded by
partisanship, so I'm not surprised you can't see facts as they are.


Not partisanship.

Yes, it's partisanship. You've said enough, and in revealing language,
that your partisanship is clear.

Just to be sure you and I share the same definition of "partisanship", are
you saying my comments are the result of disliking a certain political
party, or just one particular person?




I would never say such things about a Republican like Bush's dad, who was
qualified for the job. But, you have to admit that the current thing
really has no business being where he is. Someone needed a Gumby they
could twist into whatever shape they wanted, so the GOP propped him up.

Three weeks back, he says he won't meet with the Iranians because he
doesn't think it would result in anything positive. Did you see that news
conference? A few days later, it is announced that Rice will be meeting
with the Iranians. Obviously, he has been marginalized by his own people,
or he wouldn't have made his ridiculous (and spontaneous) blanket remark
about meeting with Iran. Either they tell him very little, or they tell
him everything but he doesn't understand.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
nk.net...

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
nk.net...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
ink.net...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Dave Bugg" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
Meanwhile, YOUR PRESIDENT can't put his foot down and arrange for
our
soldiers to have the protective gear they need. They have to get it
from a CHARITY. Otherwise, they are at high risk of coming home
with
brain injuries that are more prevalent in this war than any other.
It isn't as simple as you make it sound, Joe. Military equipment is
always undergoing testing and modification, even during wartime.
There are three helmet systems in use, and they are being
retro-fitted with the new padding system. Even without the new
padding system, the helmets are incredibly effective. I know from
experience. With the new padding system, it's even better solving
some of the issues with blast concussion.

Operation Helmet began providing new liners before official testing
and adoptation was completed by the military. And they have helped
in getting them out faster than thru normal military channels. This
has nothing to do with Bush.
It has everything to do with Bush. The title "commander in chief"
means he is, in effect, the CEO of a very large corporation called
America.
False; that's just a wretchedly ****ty analogy. America is not a
corporation, and the president doesn't run "America"; he is the head
of the federal government. Government is a big part of America, but
it is not the country, and the federal government is not the only
governmental entity in the country.

Even limiting the analysis to the federal government, which is not all
of government, which in turn is not all of the country, the president
is *not* like a CEO of a corporation. There is no separation of
powers in a corporation: no courts, no legislature. You exhibit
massive and *willful* ignorance of the Constitution by failing to note
that the entire Article I of the Constitution, 10 sections in all,
spell out the powers and responsibilities of the *legislative* branch.

You are a benighted polemicist, and stupid beyond words.
I'm not saying the president is responsible for funding projects.
You slopped together a ****ty analogy; that's all. You're blinded by
partisanship, so I'm not surprised you can't see facts as they are.

Not partisanship.
Yes, it's partisanship. You've said enough, and in revealing language,
that your partisanship is clear.

Just to be sure you and I share the same definition of "partisanship", are
you saying my comments are the result of disliking a certain political
party, or just one particular person?

You express a cohesive set of political beliefs that
place you firmly to one side of the center.

"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
nk.net...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
nk.net...

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
nk.net...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
ink.net...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Dave Bugg" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
Meanwhile, YOUR PRESIDENT can't put his foot down and arrange for
our
soldiers to have the protective gear they need. They have to get
it
from a CHARITY. Otherwise, they are at high risk of coming home
with
brain injuries that are more prevalent in this war than any
other.
It isn't as simple as you make it sound, Joe. Military equipment
is always undergoing testing and modification, even during
wartime. There are three helmet systems in use, and they are being
retro-fitted with the new padding system. Even without the new
padding system, the helmets are incredibly effective. I know from
experience. With the new padding system, it's even better solving
some of the issues with blast concussion.

Operation Helmet began providing new liners before official
testing and adoptation was completed by the military. And they
have helped in getting them out faster than thru normal military
channels. This has nothing to do with Bush.
It has everything to do with Bush. The title "commander in chief"
means he is, in effect, the CEO of a very large corporation called
America.
False; that's just a wretchedly ****ty analogy. America is not a
corporation, and the president doesn't run "America"; he is the head
of the federal government. Government is a big part of America, but
it is not the country, and the federal government is not the only
governmental entity in the country.

Even limiting the analysis to the federal government, which is not
all of government, which in turn is not all of the country, the
president is *not* like a CEO of a corporation. There is no
separation of powers in a corporation: no courts, no legislature.
You exhibit massive and *willful* ignorance of the Constitution by
failing to note that the entire Article I of the Constitution, 10
sections in all, spell out the powers and responsibilities of the
*legislative* branch.

You are a benighted polemicist, and stupid beyond words.
I'm not saying the president is responsible for funding projects.
You slopped together a ****ty analogy; that's all. You're blinded by
partisanship, so I'm not surprised you can't see facts as they are.

Not partisanship.
Yes, it's partisanship. You've said enough, and in revealing language,
that your partisanship is clear.

Just to be sure you and I share the same definition of "partisanship",
are you saying my comments are the result of disliking a certain
political party, or just one particular person?

You express a cohesive set of political beliefs that place you firmly to
one side of the center.


That's a strange conclusion, considering that I've voted for 4-5 Republicans
in the last two elections.

Back to the issue at hand: Do you believe Bush is competent?

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

If the first 1000 Chrysler mini-vans went up in flames when the
windshield wipers were turned on, do you think Lee Iacocca would have
been aware of it?

Sorry, but that is hardly the same thing. This goes back to your wrongly
held analogy of the president as the CEO. The chairman of the Senate Armed
Services committee would be aware, was aware, and held hearings on the
matter.
--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

"Dave Bugg" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

If the first 1000 Chrysler mini-vans went up in flames when the
windshield wipers were turned on, do you think Lee Iacocca would have
been aware of it?

Sorry, but that is hardly the same thing. This goes back to your wrongly
held analogy of the president as the CEO. The chairman of the Senate Armed
Services committee would be aware, was aware, and held hearings on the
matter.
--
Dave
www.davebbq.com


Let's flip this around. What sorts of things DO YOU think the president
should be aware of, and maybe even able to discuss intelligently if asked
about them without any warning at a press conference?

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Dave Bugg" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

If the first 1000 Chrysler mini-vans went up in flames when the
windshield wipers were turned on, do you think Lee Iacocca would
have been aware of it?

Sorry, but that is hardly the same thing. This goes back to your
wrongly held analogy of the president as the CEO. The chairman of
the Senate Armed Services committee would be aware, was aware, and
held hearings on the matter.
--
Dave
www.davebbq.com


Let's flip this around. What sorts of things DO YOU think the
president should be aware of, and maybe even able to discuss
intelligently if asked about them without any warning at a press
conference?

And this has to do with helmet padding systems, how? What I think the
president should be able to discuss at a press conference is not the issue.
The issue was: is the president responsible for equipment development
projects, R&D, evaluation and implementation?

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

"Dave Bugg" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Dave Bugg" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

If the first 1000 Chrysler mini-vans went up in flames when the
windshield wipers were turned on, do you think Lee Iacocca would
have been aware of it?

Sorry, but that is hardly the same thing. This goes back to your
wrongly held analogy of the president as the CEO. The chairman of
the Senate Armed Services committee would be aware, was aware, and
held hearings on the matter.
--
Dave
www.davebbq.com


Let's flip this around. What sorts of things DO YOU think the
president should be aware of, and maybe even able to discuss
intelligently if asked about them without any warning at a press
conference?

And this has to do with helmet padding systems, how? What I think the
president should be able to discuss at a press conference is not the
issue. The issue was: is the president responsible for equipment
development projects, R&D, evaluation and implementation?

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com


Of course he's not. But he *should* be aware of the broad issue. My
intuition says he's not. And frankly, I don't care about the research
excuse. We're heading into year #4 of this nonsense. I understand the types
of injuries to be prevented are similar to those suffered by race car
drivers during crashes. Did the research begin with this war, or is the
government ignoring what's already known because some bean counter needs to
make the project appear to be new, novel and HIS?