Bill from NYC Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 What a disgrace, and I do NOT blame the individual soldiers. The leaders of America want illegal aliens in this country to please their big business puppeteers. It makes sense, whereas businesses can exploit them, and taxpayers can fund their anchor babies and medical care. I just hope that these soldiers are not hurt while acting out the charade of protecting our borders from the criminals who invade us, and exploit our resources at the expense of the working class, taxpaying citizens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 I'm confused. Is this bushbad, or liberalsbad? Either way, i think that our border troops need to be given the order to shoot on sight when they catch illegals trying to cross the border. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pdh1 Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 I'm confused. Is this bushbad, or liberalsbad? Either way, i think that our border troops need to be given the order to shoot on sight when they catch illegals trying to cross the border. It's called "grow some balls and do something about". I wish people like Molson on this board would put as much energy into dealing with the problems of illegals and our border, as they do on bashing "Neocons". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 I'm confused. Is this bushbad, or liberalsbad? Either way, i think that our border troops need to be given the order to shoot on sight when they catch illegals trying to cross the border. Maybe not illegals...but armed bands crossing the border, I don't think it's entirely unreasonable if the rules of engagement allow the National Guard to open fire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 Maybe not illegals...but armed bands crossing the border, I don't think it's entirely unreasonable if the rules of engagement allow the National Guard to open fire. Wait, you mean if they are in danger, they should be able to protect themselves?! What a Brilliant idea! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 Wait, you mean if they are in danger, they should be able to protect themselves?! What a Brilliant idea! Marines in Lebanon in the early '80s, when their barracks were bombed, couldn't stop the bomber because not only were the sentries not allowed to shoot, their guns weren't even loaded. Stupid happens. With alarming frequency, actually. And usually repeats. The USS Cole was bombed while sailors looked on mutely, not allowed to engage, for example... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 What? Really in regards to the USS Cole? Dayum, I never knew that. Crazy. Now I'm interested, what type of books do you read this in Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 What? Really in regards to the USS Cole? Dayum, I never knew that. Crazy. Now I'm interested, what type of books do you read this in You want crazy? Company in WNY, Amherst Systems, did the radar simulations for the B-2 bomber. Real secret stuff. I found out a couple years before the B-2 was even publicly known by bribing a janitor with a pizza to tell me what they did. Generally, America's idea of "security" is anything but. I just pick up lots of stuff. Reading...people I talk to (work with two guys right now that were in Somalia and Bosnia; wife's friend was THE Army guy in charge of mass graves investigation in Iraq, and one of the DOJ attorneys advising the Iraqis at Saddam's trial. Paul, of course, knew his sh--...his family gave me most of his unclassified reference materials). The Cole thing I've seen in a few places; most recently, as I recall, on an episode of Discovery Channel's "Future Weapons" (a "this weapons could have prevented the Cole bombing" thing - I believe they actually say there were armed Marines on the deck, weapons pointed at the gomers, without permission to fire). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 I'm confused. Is this bushbad, or liberalsbad? Either way, i think that our border troops need to be given the order to shoot on sight when they catch illegals trying to cross the border. Both! The working stiff is caught in the crossfire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 What a disgrace, and I do NOT blame the individual soldiers. The leaders of America want illegal aliens in this country to please their big business puppeteers. It makes sense, whereas businesses can exploit them, and taxpayers can fund their anchor babies and medical care. I just hope that these soldiers are not hurt while acting out the charade of protecting our borders from the criminals who invade us, and exploit our resources at the expense of the working class, taxpaying citizens. As usual Bill, that was an excellent post. It's terrible that neither Bush nor the Democrats care about keeping this country from being assimilated by illegal aliens; and are only willing to take token actions to stop it. Apparently, the war on terror means invading countries based on faulty intelligence, but doesn't involve the obvious step of securing our own borders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 What a disgrace, and I do NOT blame the individual soldiers. The leaders of America want illegal aliens in this country to please their big business puppeteers. It makes sense, whereas businesses can exploit them, and taxpayers can fund their anchor babies and medical care.I just hope that these soldiers are not hurt while acting out the charade of protecting our borders from the criminals who invade us, and exploit our resources at the expense of the working class, taxpaying citizens. The article, right towards the top, says that they were heavily armed (and armored) and already in the US, and were heading to Mexico. Six to eight gunmen - possibly heading for Mexico with drug money - approached a group of Tennessee National Guard troops at an overnight observation post Jan. 3 on the U.S. side of the Arizona-Mexico border. No one fired a shot, and the confrontation ended when American troops retreated to contact the Border Patrol. The gunmen then fled into Mexico. Surely you're not suggesting that the guy bagging your groceries, cutting your lawn, and cleaning your office by day is then donning his bullet-proof vest, loading his semiautomatic weapons and running drug money back into Mexico in the dead of night, only to hop the fence before dawn and exchange his paramilitary gear for a pair of overalls and a mop to go back to work for less than minimum wage to support his anchor babies and steal our free health care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 Is this an immigration thread or a legalize drugs thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 Marines in Lebanon in the early '80s, when their barracks were bombed, couldn't stop the bomber because not only were the sentries not allowed to shoot, their guns weren't even loaded. Stupid happens. With alarming frequency, actually. And usually repeats. The USS Cole was bombed while sailors looked on mutely, not allowed to engage, for example... And even if they wre loaded, each Marine was only given 5 rounds kept in the clip in the pouch. Same rules as those who did walking patrols. Oh the stories I could tell you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted February 1, 2007 Author Share Posted February 1, 2007 Surely you're not suggesting that the guy bagging your groceries, cutting your lawn, and cleaning your office by day Is this all you think that Mexicans are good for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 Is this all you think that Mexicans are good for? They do roofing, too... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokinandjokin Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 They do roofing, too... And there's always four or five riding in a car, never just one. Carpooling is good for the environment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 And there's always four or five riding in a car, never just one. Carpooling is good for the environment. Twelve or fourteen to a house, too. They're very conservation conscious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 Is this all you think that Mexicans are good for? Fixed for Bill in NYC... Surely you're not suggesting that the Mexican doctor operating on your wife, the Mexican lawyer filing that amicus brief, and the Mexican border patrol agent working with Bill in NYC to track down all the illegal immigrants by day is then donning his bullet-proof vest, loading his semiautomatic weapons and running drug money back into Mexico in the dead of night, only to hop the fence before dawn and exchange his paramilitary gear for surgical scrubs and/or a Constitutional law text to go back to work to support his anchor babies, steal our free health care and infringe on Bill in NYC's right to B word and moan about drafting offensive linemen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted February 2, 2007 Author Share Posted February 2, 2007 Fixed for Bill in NYC... Surely you're not suggesting that the Mexican doctor operating on your wife, the Mexican lawyer filing that amicus brief, and the Mexican border patrol agent working with Bill in NYC to track down all the illegal immigrants by day is then donning his bullet-proof vest, loading his semiautomatic weapons and running drug money back into Mexico in the dead of night, only to hop the fence before dawn and exchange his paramilitary gear for surgical scrubs and/or a Constitutional law text to go back to work to support his anchor babies, steal our free health care and infringe on Bill in NYC's right to B word and moan about drafting offensive linemen. You didn't have to go through all that trouble. You DO realize that your stance on this issue mirrors that of men such as McCain, Bush, and the rich white guys over at Tyson Foods, right? How does this make you feel? Not so bad I suppose, because your phony liberal role models (who you think are SO different) are also on the same page with these sell outs. I am taking what I consider to be a much more open minded stance on this issue. If these Guardsmen (or women) are to be armed and stationed at our borders, only to be ordered to, or left in a position that they must retreat from criminals who invade us, I would be happier to see them brought back and stationed someplace else, rather than act out this dangerous charade. Newsflash!!! The sell-out pols want these invaders. The majority of the citizens of the United States do NOT. As long as our citizens take the wishy-washy approach that your posts are marked by, nothing will change. Go ahead, worship the likes of Nancy Pelosi, (and her hubby who is connected to Dole Foods). Keep telling yourself that Hillary, Obama, Gore, etc. are somehow not thieves and really different than the current administration. Cheer as "liberal" justices seize people's homes and give them to big business. The sad part is that you seem WAY to smart to fall for this nonsense, but maybe I over-rate you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 You didn't have to go through all that trouble. You DO realize that your stance on this issue mirrors that of men such as McCain, Bush, and the rich white guys over at Tyson Foods, right? How does this make you feel? Not so bad I suppose, because your phony liberal role models (who you think are SO different) are also on the same page with these sell outs. It's sure is tough sledding over here on the PPP. Go against Bush et al, and you're a left-wing lemming commie. Seemingly agree with some of their stance on an issue and you're a phony left-wing liberal commie. I am taking what I consider to be a much more open minded stance on this issue. If these Guardsmen (or women) are to be armed and stationed at our borders, only to be ordered to, or left in a position that they must retreat from criminals who invade us, I would be happier to see them brought back and stationed someplace else, rather than act out this dangerous charade. Newsflash!!! The sell-out pols want these invaders. The majority of the citizens of the United States do NOT. How is your stance open-minded when you're the one calling them criminals and invaders, and (I'm assuming here, but correct me if I'm wrong) that you'd advocate gunning them down by armed guards for trying to come here to work? I don't mind them here. I have worked with many of them here over the years. I have hired many of them over the years. They are hard-working, pleasant, amicable co-workers, who, quite frankly have a far better work ethic than many of the shiftless, lazy americans I have had the displeasure of working with over the years. Which one of us is the more open-minded of the two? As long as our citizens take the wishy-washy approach that your posts are marked by, nothing will change. Go ahead, worship the likes of Nancy Pelosi, (and her hubby who is connected to Dole Foods). Keep telling yourself that the likes of Hillary, Obama, Gore, etc. are somehow not thieves and really different than the current administration. Cheer as "liberal" justices seize people's homes and give them to big business. The sad part is that you seem WAY to smart to fall for this nonsense, but maybe I over-rate you. Nothing about my posts could be construed by anyone that has read them to be wishy-washy on any level. People may not agree with me, but they will always know what my position is. You support who you want and I'll support who I want. I think Pelosi has done an excellent job so far. I never liked Hillary as she is far too Conservative on many issues I am passionate about. Obama will make an excellent president, and Gore would have been infinately better than the fool we have in there now. Intelligence means absolutely nothing on the PPP, but I am pretty freaking smart, yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts