turtlespeed 226 #1 October 19, 2010 What is the Department of Homeland Security doing about this? Well - they deny it. Then they put up signs saying that it is dangerous to be in your own country . . . Then they deny it again . . . Then they admit it, sort of. How about - DOING SOME LAW ENFORCEMENT!? Assassins sent - Drug Wars cross US border I'm interested how the pro illigal immigrant people will defend this.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #2 October 19, 2010 Quote"This particular information proved to be inaccurate." Did you not make it that far? And do you find it intertesting that Fox News buried that quote in the 7th paragraph? I'm obviously not defending Mexican assassins in the US (although you will claim I am) but you really should read the stories you reference. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
futuredivot 0 #3 October 19, 2010 and you must have stopped reading before the dead people in the next paragraph.You are only as strong as the prey you devour Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #4 October 19, 2010 QuoteQuote"This particular information proved to be inaccurate." Did you not make it that far? And do you find it intertesting that Fox News buried that quote in the 7th paragraph? I'm obviously not defending Mexican assassins in the US (although you will claim I am) but you really should read the stories you reference. They can deny it all they want . . . They can say it was proved wrong all they want. If it was false, why would they spend money erecting signs? QuoteThe federal government has posted signs along Interstate 8 in the Vekol Valley warning travelers the area is unsafe because of drug and alien smugglers, and the local sheriff says Mexican drug cartels now control some parts of the state.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skipbelt 0 #5 October 19, 2010 it was a washington times article , all properly attributed , but nice try at fox bashing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #6 October 19, 2010 > If it was false, why would they spend money erecting signs? Government wasting money because they screwed up? You're right; could never happen. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #7 October 19, 2010 Quote> If it was false, why would they spend money erecting signs? Government wasting money because they screwed up? You're right; could never happen. Because they screwed up? Screwed up by denying it was happening?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #8 October 19, 2010 >Screwed up by denying it was happening? Oh, I think that government has demonstrated quite well that they can screw anything up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #9 October 19, 2010 Quote>Screwed up by denying it was happening? Oh, I think that government has demonstrated quite well that they can screw anything up. So which part is it that you are trying to disagree with?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #10 October 19, 2010 >So which part is it that you are trying to disagree with? Your suggestion that it was an active effort to deceive instead of simple incompetence on the part of the government. But if you're asking about the larger issue - then I agree with you. We should arrest and prosecute assassins using our law enforcement agencies. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #11 October 19, 2010 Quote>So which part is it that you are trying to disagree with? Your suggestion that it was an active effort to deceive instead of simple incompetence on the part of the government. But if you're asking about the larger issue - then I agree with you. We should arrest and prosecute assassins using our law enforcement agencies. For your reference: Original Post: QuoteWhat is the Department of Homeland Security doing about this? Well - they deny it. Then they put up signs saying that it is dangerous to be in your own country . . . Then they deny it again . . . Then they admit it, sort of. How about - DOING SOME LAW ENFORCEMENT!? Assassins sent - Drug Wars cross US border I'm interested how the pro illigal immigrant people will defend this. Where in that post did I say it was deceit and not incompetence? The point is that Janet isn't doing her job, if indeed she even ever could. You should hear what one of the Sherrifs interviewed had to say about it. He seems to think that it goes beyond incompetence.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skipbelt 0 #12 October 19, 2010 it's so bigotted to point out that people are going to kill us ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #13 October 19, 2010 OMFG It must really be a bitch having to check for so many groups boogeymen under yall's beds everynight. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #14 October 19, 2010 >Where in that post did I say it was deceit and not incompetence? You didn't. My reply was to a later post you made, in which you asked "if it was false, why would they spend money erecting signs?" Answer - incompetence, which is not unusual for government. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #15 October 19, 2010 Quoteit was a washington times article , all properly attributed , but nice try at fox bashing. Because, ya know, The Washington Times is unbiased and not associated at all with right wing extremism.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #16 October 19, 2010 Quote OMFG It must really be a bitch having to check for so many groups boogeymen under yall's beds everynight. By your response it is pretty obvious that you condone and even support the actions in the article then. Personally, any attack by another country or it's people taking place in side MY country's borders is completely and totally unacceptable. I am sorry you don't feel the same way. I thought you were a patriot. I guess I was wrong.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #17 October 19, 2010 Well, it was posted on foxnews.com, silly me for thinking Fox News might be involved. And you should really look into the Washington Times. They make Fox News look like a bunch of lefty pamphleteers. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
aphid 0 #18 October 19, 2010 Quote Personally, any attack by another country or it's people taking place in side MY country's borders is completely and totally unacceptable. Could a similar opinion also apply to, say, UAV drone attacks or incursions inside Pakistan? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #19 October 19, 2010 QuoteQuote Personally, any attack by another country or it's people taking place in side MY country's borders is completely and totally unacceptable. Could a similar opinion also apply to, say, UAV drone attacks or incursions inside Pakistan? Is it not?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,523 #20 October 19, 2010 QuoteQuote Personally, any attack by another country or it's people taking place in side MY country's borders is completely and totally unacceptable. Could a similar opinion also apply to, say, UAV drone attacks or incursions inside Pakistan? There's a bit of a difference between drug smugglers coming into the US to break our laws and attacks against groups using Pakistan as a safe haven. I wouldn't have a real big problem with the Mexican police or army chasing Mexican smugglers across the border in hot pursuit. Unfortunately, the Mexican police or army that are crossing into the US are usually working for the drug smugglers, not trying to catch them. Turtle - What should CBP/Homeland Security actually do?? Not generic "seal the border" or "stop those guys". It's a huge desert and there are limited assets. Anyone who suggests increasing the budget either gets clobbered for more deficit spending or increasing taxes."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #21 October 19, 2010 Quote What should CBP/Homeland Security actually do?? Not generic "seal the border" or "stop those guys". It's a huge desert and there are limited assets. Anyone who suggests increasing the budget either gets clobbered for more deficit spending or increasing taxes. They have UAVs - There is a National Guard - There are options that are not being taken. I guess we could stop using money to sue individual states and put that money toward enforcing the crimes.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #22 October 19, 2010 >I guess we could stop using money to sue individual states and put >that money toward enforcing the crimes. I assume you mean "enforcing the law." I would think that an even better approach would be to redirect the hundreds of billions we spend on optional wars and use at least some of that to enforce our laws here in the US. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BillyVance 35 #23 October 19, 2010 Quote Quote What should CBP/Homeland Security actually do?? Not generic "seal the border" or "stop those guys". It's a huge desert and there are limited assets. Anyone who suggests increasing the budget either gets clobbered for more deficit spending or increasing taxes. They have UAVs - There is a National Guard - There are options that are not being taken. I guess we could stop using money to sue individual states and put that money toward enforcing the crimes. If the military was given a green light to, they could target the drug runners via UAVs. Blow a bunch of these assholes up, and I bet that would cut down on the illegal traffic a good bunch because of the fear of getting blown up. But it aint gonna happen. "Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #24 October 19, 2010 Quote>I guess we could stop using money to sue individual states and put >that money toward enforcing the crimes. I assume you mean "enforcing the law." I would think that an even better approach would be to redirect the hundreds of billions we spend on optional wars and use at least some of that to enforce our laws here in the US. Yes - I meant enforce the law. What they are doing right NOW, is reinforcing the crime.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #25 October 19, 2010 >If the military was given a green light to, they could target the drug >runners via UAVs. Blow a bunch of these assholes up . . . I seem to recall us getting sorta pissed off when Mexicans killed a US 'border jumper.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
