Looking for a few good men (and women)

“http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-border-minutemen,0,2983091,print.story?coll=sns-ap-nationworld-headlines

This looks interesting ...

By LARA JAKES JORDAN
Associated Press Writer

February 21, 2005, 1:14 PM EST

WASHINGTON -- Intent on securing the vulnerable Arizona border from illegal immigrant crossings, U.S. officials are bracing for what they call a potential new threat this spring: the Minutemen.

Nearly 500 volunteers have already joined the Minuteman Project, anointing themselves civilian border patrol agents determined to stop the immigration flow that routinely, and easily, seeps past federal authorities. They plan to patrol a 40-mile stretch of the southeast Arizona border throughout April when the tide of immigrants crossing the U.S.-Mexico border peaks.”

“Officials fear the Minuteman patrols could cause more trouble than they prevent. At least some of the volunteers plan to arm themselves during the 24-hour desert patrols. Many are untrained and have little or no experience in confronting illegal border crossings

Who wants to put money down on how long it takes a minuteman to shoot an American? Or a minuteman arrested for the murder of an illegal?


They do have the brains to realize you can't shoot someone for illegal entry, yes?”

“sure you can BM, just drag them thru the window ;)”

“BM - Did you read the article? They're not there to shoot people. They are there to inform border agents.

Just because some "official" is "fearful" it will happen, doesn't make it so.”

“They volunteer to go "protect" a border. Some are armed. I'm thinking these people have some pretty strong convictions.

I'm thinking that's a dangerous combination.

But, if you feel otherwise then lets put some money down on my wager? ;)

BTW - aren't some smugglers armed? Isn't there more than illegals coming through?

Might turn into a scene right out of The Wild West, accept maybe with automatic gunfire, eh?
last edited: 2/21/05 3:10:46 PM”

“I won't gamble my families money on this bet, but I will take this bet -> Loser has to apologize for their stupidity and inability to grasp basic world events, the essential inner workings of mankind, and freely admit they need to switch political leanings in order to avoid being on the side of misguided fruit-cakes.

I'm a conservative. I assume you're a liberal.

The apology has to be posted on the general board, directed to the other person, and cannot "cop-out" via such things as explaining you're only saying this because you have to, etc. It has to sound sincere. And, no follow-up postings.

In other words, instead of paying money, you'll need to swallow your pride.”

“Sarge, you may be a conservative but Bush (the one you voted for) wants to let them in.”

“How very Stove Stomper-ish of you Ewker...”

“in your opinion”

“Ewker - agreed.

That's why I don't support the Republican party. I had to vote for Bush though. I didn't want us to have to get UN approval before we take congressional actions.”

“sorry to disappoint you Nigal but I was right on what I posted. There was no troll or name calling just a 99.9% chanceI was right.

As far as the story I am sure they will get lots of volunteers to do this. I think people in this country are getting real tired of all the illegal aliens in this country.”

“I suppose some people would feel better if we paid them $55,000/yr, gave them all the benefits under the sun, and called them "federal employees". Maybe even throw in an official looking badge.

Of course, to be fair, they'd receive Top Notch government training first. .... Right?”

“No Ewker, my statement was completely accurate. You made a broad statement about conservatives and an inaccurate one at that. Exactly what you lambaste Stove Stomper for doing. You further flavored the accusation with the good old, “It’s all your fault for voting for him” statement. Quite a statement from someone who didn’t even vote.

Yeah, you’re a moderate alright…”

“Exactly what you lambaste Stove Stomper for doing. - Nigal

Nigal, Nigal, Nigal......
I make broad statement's about silly a$$ed Liberals. So 'Exactly' is the incorrect term to use. ;-)”

“I apologize for my broad statement. LOL!”

“Nigal, I made a board statement about conservatives....lol Care to show me where that statement is?
I made a statement to Sarge about Bush wanting to let them in which he does. Sarge agreed to what I said. I was talking to one person not a group. So tell me how I was inaccurate. You know as well as I do Bush wants to let them in. Maybe you have changed your mind and agree with him now.”

“#1. You assumed that because he was a conservative he voted for Bush.

#2. Bush does not want to “Let them in”. He wants to allow the ones here to stay.

I may be against the policy but at least I can keep a clear head about it and stay accurate.”

“no assumption at all. It was based on comments he made prior to my post. It was easy to figure it out.

ok I will give you the 2nd part, he wants to allow them to stay here. Just beware that if it happens others will come.”

“I suppose some people would feel better if we paid them $55,000/yr, gave them all the benefits under the sun, and called them "federal employees". Maybe even throw in an official looking badge.

Of course, to be fair, they'd receive Top Notch government training first. .... Right?

Exactly. People are so anti-gun that of course these "minutemen" are itching to shoot illegals. Don't you know that gun ownership turns people into murderers? But somehow a Fed agent is exempt from this stereotype because they've had cursory "training".

It just goes to show how shallow and susceptible to suggestion the liberal mindset is.”

“Oryx, maybe you had better read all of the post before you label the one who posted that as a liberal.”

“I'm not calling him a liberal. The people who think the minutemen are trigger happy psychos are the ones I'm calling liberal.

Re-read my post, Ewker.”

“ok gotcha.”

“man am i glad my family came to this country back in the day when it was easy and god's will and all that.

you know, kill a few injuns and take over some dirt the ol' fashion way.

but these new bassturds trying to come over are totally different. they smell and it's not god's will for them to be here.

we should shoot them all for crossin our border - or they'll take our jobs!”

“What will really happen is that the federales will wind up killing several of the Minutemen. The goon squads will claim that the psychotic Minutemen, armed with machine guns, came at them or some such other BS. Happens all the time in this country. Remember the family traveling through Tenn. on the interstate with their dog? You don't have to do anything in Amerika for the police to step on you. The sad thing is that in the past no one cared much because most of the people winding up on the wrong end of a billy club were black or poor. But things are changing because in this day and time the cops have declared war on everyone.
>
The illegals have nothing to worry about inside the US. They're in more danger from the Mexican gangs who extort money, rape, and murder them before they cross the border. If only all American citizens were treated like the illegals here. Free attorneys, free medical care, special language teachers in the schools, easy jails when some of their bad eggs commit felonies, and food stamps if needed.

Now let me say something else. Some of the finest and hardess working people I have met are the Mexican laborers I see working
on my construction project sites. These people are just looking for a better life for themselves and their families. We should accept them into our country if they came here legally. It's the right thing to do.
last edited: 2/22/05 10:21:03 AM”

“"You don't have to do anything in Amerika for the police to step on you"

Too true in my experience SH, I once was in custody as a suspect in a shooting that never even occured. It was a scary hour in the nack seat of the squad car. It doesnt sound like much as I read what I wrote but if you heard the details you'd agree.”

“I won't gamble my families money on this bet, but I will take this bet -> Loser has to apologize for their stupidity and inability to grasp basic world events, the essential inner workings of mankind, and freely admit they need to switch political leanings in order to avoid being on the side of misguided fruit-cakes.

I'm a conservative. I assume you're a liberal.

The apology has to be posted on the general board, directed to the other person, and cannot "cop-out" via such things as explaining you're only saying this because you have to, etc. It has to sound sincere. And, no follow-up postings.

In other words, instead of paying money, you'll need to swallow your pride.”
sarge
4:15:20 PM
2/21/05


I only gamble with cash, "sarge".

pretending to swallow your pride over the internet by spewing empty words is a wusses bet.
last edited: 2/22/05 6:52:28 PM”

“Wuss? Really? Interesting. Never been called that to my face before. Must be something about calling somebody a "wuss" over the internet...

Your words are only "empty" if you don't stand behind them.

Do you not stand behind your words Bearmagnet?

Should we not trust you?

Is your word not good?

Thanks for the warning.”

“all a person has is their word.”

“To clarify birch, "empty word" in BMs case. At least that's what he says.”

“The beginning of your post that I quoted, has no meaning. None of that would be true if I lost the bet.

I'm sorry. I think it would be a wusses bet. I would say it to your face. I'm honest like that and feel like I could express my opinion. Would you not be man enough to handle my opinion or would you have to resort to violence to "prove" it wasn't a wusses bet?”

“empty or full, its all we have.

Words are some powerful stuff, especially big ones with lots of letters, they are very important.”

“BM just kicked it up a notch talking violence now. This is gonna be fun.”

“I just want to know how our "bet" over a bunch of morons running around the desert has anything to do with our political beliefs?

i think they'll act like morons and some violence will occur. Sarge doesn't.

Sarge also implied he's never heard the word "wuss" uttered to him because that would be dangerous. I take that to mean he would get violent if I did.”

“BM - Violence? To my face? Man enough?

(So much for liberal "peace/love" of the 60s. My, how times change.)

You put "sarge" in quotes before as if you don't like that name. You can call me by the name my friends call me if you'd prefer. They call me "Grasshopper". You can call me "Grasshopper the Wuss" if you like.

Let me remind you that you brought up the "violence", after you called me a name saying my words were of a "wuss". I believe strongly in not picking fights with people. Not to say I haven't been in fights, but I ALWAYS warn the person first they should reconsider. People just do not listen.”

“I did not say I would get violent. Your wording made me think you might get violent. I said it would be a wusses bet. I really don't equate that with the person being a wuss.

Would "it's a wimpy bet" have been better?

So much miscommunication from both sides, methinks.
last edited: 2/22/05 7:26:22 PM”

“Back on topic ...

You questioned how this bet has to do with political beliefs.

Depends on where you're coming from, but generally I believe that liberals think that conservatives (ie - in this case, people that think that it's everyone's job to make sure our borders are enforced, not just big government's ) are a bunch on red neck trigger happy morons. I think that their (general) view is wrong, yet you seem to be holding to that position.

I have found that liberals tend to have a misguided view of events. They make so many predictions about politics, and are more often that not, wrong.

They thought there would be 100s of thousands of Americans killed in Iraq. They thought we would be attacked my chemical weapons in the process (which the subsequently completely forgot about afterwards and took the opposite stance), they thought the Iraqis would reject democracy. They thought (as Russia did) it would take over 10 years to free Afghanistan of the taliban, ... I think it was more like 10 minutes.

They, before the war, claimed that WE supplied Saddam with WMD, but now they can't be found they claim they never existed. Which is it? Truth is, they were moved. Yes, that's right, they didn't just disappear into thin air.

They thought Kerry would win by a landslide. 10 percent I believe was a common number they threw out. (Often following up with "Bush is out of touch with most Americans".)

They thought SS would be a nice supplement to retirement when conservative said, "no, it will get out of hand".

They (general) just do not seem to have a grasp on reality and often make wrong predictions.

So, to answer your question, I just thought (well, actually you made the initial bet) that it would be interesting to make a prediction and then revisit that prediction after the fact to see who was right. That's all there was to it.”

“I think that is a huge generalization and very biased one.

I would hardly call our prez a redneck. I don't know any redneck conservatives, in fact. I know wealthy business people that are conservative. Probably more than Liberal. What's that say about Blue State Stereotypes? ;)

And both sides are often wrong.”

“"I think that is a huge generalization and very biased one."

Reread my post, this time please don't skip over the word "general". I was careful to add it many times in that post, but it's as if you decided to not read it.”

“also ...

You said: "They do have the brains to realize you can't shoot someone for illegal entry, yes?"

then you said ...

"I don't know any redneck conservatives, in fact. I know wealthy business people that are conservative."

What was I supposed to think with that original statement? That you didn't think they were backwards?”

“I saw the "general". To me, I think your assumption is wrong. Even in a "general" way.

Now I want to know where I stated that i thought all these people running around the desert must be of a certain political belief?

Did I say "conservative redneck trigger happy republican morons" somewhere?

If so, I'll apologize. I certainly would never asume a particular political party/belief system would be the only morons there.
last edited: 2/22/05 7:53:10 PM”

“What was I supposed to think with that original statement? That you didn't think they were backwards?”
sarge
8:48:54 PM
2/22/05

Sarge. We suck at communicating with each other, obviously.

Morons can come from anywhere. Why do you think I'm "assuming "backwards"?”

“re: "general" - I backed it up. If you disagree, that's fine. But at least I gave examples of where I'm coming from.

re: "conservative redneck trigger happy republican morons".


Conservative:
By definition, the guys out there are conservatives. (A) They aren't looking for tax dollars to solver the problem. (B) They are exercising there 2nd amendment rights. (C) They are looking to control the borders.

Redneck:
you said: "Some are armed. I'm thinking these people have some pretty strong convictions. I'm thinking that's a dangerous combination." Doesn't sound like you think they're civilized here. Sounds like you think they're uncivil, i.e. - backward "rednecks".

Trigger happy:
you said: "Who wants to put money down on how long it takes a minuteman to shoot an American? Or a minuteman arrested for the murder of an illegal?" Nuff said.

Republican:
Um, I didn't say you said they were "republicans", did I? If so, I'll apologize.

Morons:
you said: "They do have the brains to realize you can't shoot someone for illegal entry, yes?"

Did you use those exact words in that order? No. But then again, I didn't say that you did.”

“Phew ... and I almost put submitted this thread to "general"!”

“. Sounds like you think they're uncivil, i.e. - backward "rednecks

Sounds like you think I think that. I cannot be held responsible for that. and IMO, you seem very insecure about this.

Thanks for stereotyping me.

Conservative:
By definition, the guys out there are conservatives. (A) They aren't looking for tax dollars to solver the problem. (B) They are exercising there 2nd amendment rights. (C) They are looking to control the borders.

Once again, that's what you think. I'm sorry but it sounds like you have a narrow view of who believes what.

Republican:
Um, I didn't say you said they were "republicans

Sorry you missed the sarcasm.

Did you use those exact words in that order? No. But then again, I didn't say that you did.”

see last reply.

You seem to have a Black & White idea in regards to belief systems.

I think this "debate" is pointless.

Good night.

I tag my teammate, Y2. LOL!
last edited: 2/22/05 8:12:24 PM”

“Sarge, would you not agree that thos type of organization could attract some extremists. Some sort of training would be good. As would some sort of background check. They are also putting themselves at risk. They are likely to be armed, as are the smugglers. If this ever comes to serious fruition then I'm with bearmagnet that it's going to end up with a shootout. Who ends up dying is more down to luck than judgment.

And btw to use your terms
those conservatives
1) Claimed that Iraq had WMDs. They were wrong.
2) Claimed that Saddam was linked to AQ, they were wrong.
3) Thought they'd be welcomed as liberators - they were wrong.
4) Thought "war lite" was an option. Thought 100-150,000 troops would be enough for occupation. They were wrong.
5) Thought theinsurgency was being rolled back - They were wrong.
6) Thought it was "Mission Accomplished" = They were wrong.
7) Thought that Bush brought integrity to the office - They were wrong. He either lied to the about WMDs or made a huge mistake.
8) Thought Bush's decision to invade Iraq would make america safer - They were wrong. (See Goss's words last week).
9) Thought Bush would be fiscally responsible - They were wrong.

And something the Liberals were wrong about. They thought Americans were smart enough to see how they'd been misled and vote Bush out of office. They were wrong!”

“re: stereotyping. If saying "sounds like you think" is stereotyping, looks like you just did the same. To me, "sounds like you think" is not a stereotype (placing a person in a category of people), but a supposition on what one thinks, as the words imply.

re: narrow view. No more so than your "narrow view" of these guys who have "some pretty strong convictions".

re: sarcasm. That's sarcasm? Ok. Whatever dude.

re: black & white. Yeah, that's me, a "black and white" view on belief systems. If that's true, then maybe you voted for Bush this time. Did you? ... I didn't think so. Maybe I have a "realistic" view of belief systems. To remind you, it was you who made the assumptions about people when this thread began, in your first post. Pretty "black and white" if you ask me.

Good night Bearmagnet. Sleep tight.”

“Sorry. I'm outside the ring and untouchable.

I glanced at your post and saw nothing in response to my tag teammate?”

“hey BM, I'm not part of your bids to provoke here ya know. I do disagree with much of what Sarge said though.”

“y2-

“Sarge, would you not agree that thos type of organization could attract some extremists. Some sort of training would be good. As would some sort of background check. They are also putting themselves at risk. They are likely to be armed, as are the smugglers. If this ever comes to serious fruition then I'm with bearmagnet that it's going to end up with a shootout. Who ends up dying is more down to luck than judgment."

> They could attract extremists, but extremists could do their stuff anyways without this organization. If anything, this org would keep them in better check than they normally would be. I disagree with your prediction of a shootout. But then again, I don't mind a shootout if that is what it takes to protect our borders. NOTHING else will deter them from coming over.

1) Claimed that Iraq had WMDs. They were wrong.

> Um, they were? Funny because he used them. We gave him some. What happened to them? David Copperfield did some magic and turned them into doves?

2) Claimed that Saddam was linked to AQ, they were wrong.

> Really? Not according to the investigations. Maybe you should read them in total and not just the summary the Peter Jennings provides.

3) Thought they'd be welcomed as liberators - they were wrong.

> Really? What are you talking about? Where do you get your information? [url]http://crystal.polsci.uh.edu/data/lineberry/saddam's%20statue.jpg[/url]

4) Thought "war lite" was an option. Thought 100-150,000 troops would be enough for occupation. They were wrong.

> Um, that's how many is there. That is enough.

5) Thought theinsurgency was being rolled back - They were wrong.

> http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4814246,00.html

6) Thought it was "Mission Accomplished" = They were wrong.

> For those who don't know what the "mission" was, it was the objective to take over Baghdad. Are you saying Saddam and his men are still in power? Ok Baghdad Bob.

7) Thought that Bush brought integrity to the office - They were wrong. He either lied to the about WMDs or made a huge mistake.

> Or neither. The WMD exist. If you disagree, please explain how they disappeared.

8) Thought Bush's decision to invade Iraq would make america safer - They were wrong. (See Goss's words last week).

> (See the latest attack on America) ... oh that's right ... there has been none.

9) Thought Bush would be fiscally responsible - They were wrong.

> Funny, I don't know ANY conservatives who thought that. Where did you hear they thought that?

And something the Liberals were wrong about. They thought Americans were smart enough to see how they'd been misled and vote Bush out of office. They were wrong!”

> Don't forget they were losers too, not just wrong.

BM - I didn't respond because his post wasn't up when I began writing my response to you. Feel better now? I thought you were going to bed?
last edited: 2/22/05 8:37:58 PM”