Your instinctive ability to get the facts wrong is hitting on all cylinders.

Redhead Infidel is a female.

Say hello to Johnny Sutton for me, when you’re done running his bathwater.

I read Ms. Malkin’s post. Note that she didn’t spend any time accusing Bush of pulling strings to ensure the Agents’ conviction. She didn’t accuse Sutton of lying. She didn’t accuse the DoJ of railroading. You guys did. And for that, you get the Tinfoil Hat award, not Ms. Malkin which you so desperately tried to associate my comment with.

Nice try. But you got caught lying again and you’re trying to rationalize it away as you seem want to do. You’ve exposed yourself for what you are. A hothead and a liar.

The difference between you and Redhead is that he actually made an effort by providing real evidence to support his arguement. All you’ve provided is absurd vitriol, foul language and lies to anyone one who challenged your assertions.

I’ll let you have the last word on this thread. I know you can’t help yourself.

.

GT on February 8, 2007 at 3:07 PM

From Michelle Malkin:

Meanwhile, Border Patrol agents are getting thrown in jail for doing the job no one else wants to do except at election time–enforcing the borders for real. Debra Saunders reports:

Someone ought to tell the Bush administration that prisons are for criminals, not law-enforcement personnel trying to do their jobs. On Thursday, a federal judge in Texas sentenced two former Border Patrol agents to 11 and 12 years in prison because they shot at a drug smuggler who was evading arrest.
In February 2005, Border Patrol agent Jose Alonso Compean got in a scuffle with smuggler Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila, who was driving a van that carried 743 pounds of marijuana. Agent Compean and fellow Agent Ignacio Ramos shot at Mr. Aldrete-Davila — they say they thought he had a gun, which Mr. Aldrete-Davila denies. Agent Ramos shot the smuggler in the butt, but because Mr. Aldrete-Davila kept running — across the border — they said they thought they did not hit him. The agents picked up their shells and failed to report the shooting. For that violation of agency policy, Agents Ramos and Compean deserved an administrative review and some sort of job-related punishment.

Instead, due to a case of blind and bloodthirsty federal prosecutorial overkill, Agents Ramos and Compean were sentenced to 11 years and 12 years, respectively. Oh, and the smuggler was granted immunity for the 743 pounds of pot and is suing the federal government for $5 million. Crime pays, while going after criminals can land you hard time in prison…

…I should note the feds had offered the agents one year in a plea bargain, the El Paso Times reported, but the agents preferred to go to trial. “They were innocent, why should they take it?” noted T.J. Bonner, president of the agents’ union, the National Border Patrol Council. “They trust in the system of justice, and it let them down.”

If these agents were gun-happy rogue enforcers, or if they were running a criminal operation, Mr. Sutton would be right to want to put them behind bars. But these are good guys with no other marks against them. Agent Ramos was nominated for Border Patrol Agent of the year in 2005 — before the drug smuggler got his deal.

OOOOPS! I wonder why Michelle would write this post and include the text from Debra Saunders … if she didn’t AGREE WITH IT.

Strange stuff going on, huh GT?

Seeing as I never said that, you’re lying again, Gregor.

Oh yeah? Now the situation is a bit reversed, isn’t it?

How about this comment:

Uh huh….I see.

Bush signs bill to build 700-mile fence on U.S.-Mexico border: USA Today

Feds Begin Construction of Vehicle Fence Along Southwest Border: FoxNews

Yep, no doubt about it. Your tinfoil hat is on too tight and I’ve wasted entirely too much time on your silliness.

GT on January 31, 2007 at 4:46 PM

Which of course, was in response to my comment that read:

Yes, you ARE mistaken. The wall has yet to even be funded and my prediction is that it will never be built. And even if it IS built, it is nothing more than a symbolic fraud. The LOCATION of the fence will no doubt be some obscure location which will have absolutely no positive impact on illegal crossings. It’s a 700 mile fence to be located at a ‘yet to be determined’ position and to cover only about 1/3 of the actual border.

Gregor on January 31, 2007 at 11:50 AM

Of course, you might notice the first part of this comment that I posted, which was a quote from link Michelle had written titled “Border Security Symbolism”. In the same post, Michelle wrote:

President Bush signed the Secure Fence Act this morning. (Video here.) Efforts to water it down, such as it is, are still underway:

Sens. John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchison, both Texas Republicans, had wanted to amend the fence bill to give local governments more say about where fencing is erected. They lost that battle, but Republican leaders assured them the Homeland Security Department would have flexibility to choose other options instead of fencing, if needed.

I rest my case. You called Michelle a tinfoil hatter.

Good job.

I’m sure Allah would find that amusing since he’s indicated his belief in their guilt thus far.

And I’ve called Allah out publicly on that subject, right here on this blog. Am I supposed to be cowering in fear now? Was that supposed to be something I didn’t already know?

I only respond to you because I find you entertaining and little else.

No, you respond to me because you’re a troll and you feel you have to discredit anyone who might object to the government’s agenda on this by ridiculing them into submission. It’s apparently your job. It’s not working. Sorry.

Some questions are good questions such as the one Redhead Infidel asked concerning my thoughts on Skinner’s apparent dishonesty to the Congressmen. That was a good question.

But yet, by your previous comments which I’ve posted above … you’ve labeled Redhead Infidel a “tinfoil hat” wearer also.

You’re on a roll. Or is it … a troll?

Right GT. I lied. I lied because I didn’t happen to remember using a word in a post over a week ago that your comment implied was used in the conversation which we were having at the time.

But you were so emphatic…. “It’s never happened.”

You wouldn’t even entertain that idea that perhaps you might be wrong. Instead, you called me a liar.

Lets face it. You’re a hothead with the emotional maturity level of a 12 year old, IMHO.

Who lied? I apologize for not remembering that I once used a certain word in an entirely different conversation.

Perhaps you’ll be more careful in calling other people liars in the future, but I doubt it.

As for you relating this to Michelle Malkin. It’s interesting that the conversation you brought up was one in which I pointed out that you had labeled Michelle a nutjob by giving that label to people who happen to share her views.

Seeing as I never said that, you’re lying again, Gregor. You really should learn to control that. People might begin to realize the kind of person you really are. Now before you try to prove me wrong, I’m going to challenge you to show me where Ms. Malkin believes that Sutton & Co. are liars. If you can’t, then you’re no better than Skinner, right?

That’s probably a true statement, however it’s still an odd time for you to point it out. Especially since you are bashing every belief she has. So, if I have a quarter of the intelligence that Michelle has, yet I agree with her, and you call her a nutjob … what does that say about you? Would that mean you have 1/16th the intelligence as Michelle? I think that’s giving you too much credit.

I’m sure Allah would find that amusing since he’s indicated his belief in their guilt thus far. Perhaps you can provide us with a link to any comments she’s made concerning the case. I haven’t found any. Perhaps you can. In the meantime, do you think its wise to speak for her?

As for this entire conversation … you’re very good at what you do, which is to lie, mislead, and twist facts and quotes to distract people from the truth.

Well, you certainly have it down to a science.

Notice how you’ve taken a single word that I said over a week ago and used it to divert the conversation away from the original topic, and the fact that you are a political hack who is in this thread for the sole purpose of posting disinformation.

If that were the case, all you’ve done is prove how gullable and easily distracted you are.

You’ve verified, by avoiding answering previous questions, that you have a connection to parties involved with this trial, or some other party which is somehow related. You are a biased, Bush loving, troll who has exactly three fans on this blog. Congrats.

What’s it like living in your fantasy world, Gregor? If I were directly involved in this case, do you really think I’d be wasting my time with you? Are you really that self-centered and arrogant? It sure looks like it.

Here. Let me help you out. I only respond to you because I find you entertaining and little else. Some questions are good questions such as the one Redhead Infidel asked concerning my thoughts on Skinner’s apparent dishonesty to the Congressmen. That was a good question. Asking me where I’m from is a stupid one because no matter what I answer, you’re only going to twist and spin it like you have everything else, nevermind the fact that question is irrelevant.

Have a good day.

.

GT on February 8, 2007 at 12:15 PM

Right GT. I lied. I lied because I didn’t happen to remember using a word in a post over a week ago that your comment implied was used in the conversation which we were having at the time. Who lied? I apologize for not remembering that I once used a certain word in an entirely different conversation.

As for you relating this to Michelle Malkin. It’s interesting that the conversation you brought up was one in which I pointed out that you had labeled Michelle a nutjob by giving that label to people who happen to share her views. You basically call Michelle Malkin a nutjob, and then somehow feel that my agreeing with her indicates that I have a “quarter of the intelligence she has.”

That’s probably a true statement, however it’s still an odd time for you to point it out. Especially since you are bashing every belief she has. So, if I have a quarter of the intelligence that Michelle has, yet I agree with her, and you call her a nutjob … what does that say about you? Would that mean you have 1/16th the intelligence as Michelle? I think that’s giving you too much credit.

As for this entire conversation … you’re very good at what you do, which is to lie, mislead, and twist facts and quotes to distract people from the truth. Notice how you’ve taken a single word that I said over a week ago and used it to divert the conversation away from the original topic, and the fact that you are a political hack who is in this thread for the sole purpose of posting disinformation.

“Disinformation”:

false information deliberately and often covertly spread (as by the planting of rumors) in order to influence public opinion or obscure the truth

You’ve verified, by avoiding answering previous questions, that you have a connection to parties involved with this trial, or some other party which is somehow related. You are a biased, Bush loving, troll who has exactly three fans on this blog. Congrats.

Like I said, you really need to grow up.

.

Wow! You got me! I’m guilty! I guess I used the word … A WEEK AGO.

Yes, that’s embarrassing, but I’m not sure which is more embarrassing. Me not remembering using the word “dipsh!t” or you whining and moaning about an insult that was thrown at you immediately AFTER you threw THIS at me:

Trust me. You don’t have a quarter of the intelligence she has.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

I appreciate you helping me out like that by including your own quote in your comment.

It’s also a little scary that you would remember a single word from a post from January 31st, AND THEN bring it up a week later as if I had just said it.

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/01/29/andy-mccarthy-unloads-on-agents-in-border-patrol-shooting/#comments

The fact is that you did use the word and now you deny it. So, did you make an honest mistake or did you lie?

.

Is there something NEW in the quote you posted? No. Reading comprehension classes. Community college courses are cheap.

Trust me. You don’t have a quarter of the intelligence she has. The fact that you have try to deflect my point by bringing her into it proves it.

Then why are you mocking her beliefs, dipshit?

You’re just a waste of bandwidth and my time at this point.

GT on January 31, 2007 at 6:34 PM

So do us all a favor and cancel your internet subscription. There’s about 99% of Hot Air readers who are sick of you.

Gregor on January 31, 2007 at 6:47 PM

I do wish you’d grow up.

.

Right here sunshine….Gregor on January 31, 2007 at 6:47 PM link

Hmmmm….now what does that make you?

GT on February 8, 2007 at 7:57 AM

Beautiful. You really do think we’re all stupid. You link to this exact same thread, which was posted on Feb 5th. I guess you just assumed nobody would actually follow the link?

And there’s no post on Jan 31st that includes any of the comments you’re suggesting were made. GT stil lying. You’re a professional, aren’t you?

Is this another attempt at spreading lies GT? Can you please point out a single comment I’ve ever posted in which I called someone an “idiot” or a “dipshit?”

It’s never happened.

Gregor on February 7, 2007 at 1:21 PM

Right here sunshine….Gregor on January 31, 2007 at 6:47 PM link

Hmmmm….now what does that make you?

……

Really, I’m in awe of anybody even bothering to reply to GT’s blather anymore. He has, so far, not answered a single question put to him, but he’s pretty good at what we used to call “trolling” in my USENet days.

YHBT. HAND. HTH.

Misha I on February 7, 2007 at 4:00 PM

Not answered a single question? I’m sorry. What was that you quoted me saying? Seriously, am I dealing with 12 year olds here?

……

This is a first-hand account, not someone who heard it from someone else. Will that satisfy you as an appropriate source, GT?

Redhead Infidel on February 7, 2007 at 1:55 PM

Much better! And what did I say to you should happen to Skinner if proved true? Are you going to support me on that – yes or no?

.

GT: My take is that I don’t know all the facts yet. I’m going to do what the AP should have done. I’m not going to take the word of just one source.

Unless said one source is a Mexican drug smuggler, of course.

Who gives a fuck what Homeland Security openly admits?

Really, I’m in awe of anybody even bothering to reply to GT’s blather anymore. He has, so far, not answered a single question put to him, but he’s pretty good at what we used to call “trolling” in my USENet days.

YHBT. HAND. HTH.

“These guys did very serious crimes and once anybody who knows all the facts of this case — the fact that they shot at an unarmed guy 15 times, lied about it, covered it up, destroyed the evidence … it’s hard for me to imagine a prosecutor would look the other way,” he said.

1. It has not been proven that the drug smuggler was unarmed. Sutton has been unable to prove it, yet he states it like it’s a fact.

2. Compean and Ramos DID NOT LIE about shooting the drug smuggler. They didn’t know that they had until almost a month later!

3. The DID NOT try to “cover it up”. They verbally reported to their superiors that they fired their weapons.

4. They DID NOT destroy evidence. Sutton has been harping on this because he claims that the site of the shooting was a “crime scene” and that the BP agents knowingly altered the scene of the crime by picking up their shell casings. That is FALSE. The agents, including the agents that were with them at the time of the shooting, did NOT designate the area a crime scene, since they did NOT know that the drug smuggler had been shot.

JOHNNY SUTTON IS A BALD-FACED LIAR.

This is a first-hand account, not someone who heard it from someone else. Will that satisfy you as an appropriate source, GT?

As opposed to calling people idiots and dipshits.

Oooooohkay.

Your a parody of yourself and don’t even know it. Hahahahaha!

GT on February 7, 2007 at 1:14 PM

Is this another attempt at spreading lies GT? Can you please point out a single comment I’ve ever posted in which I called someone an “idiot” or a “dipshit?”

It’s never happened.

Gregor on February 7, 2007 at 12:44 PM

As opposed to calling people idiots and dipshits.

Oooooohkay.

Your a parody of yourself and don’t even know it. Hahahahaha!

.

Thank you for your continued efforts in reaffirming my heart felt belief that you are a nut. I hope you have a wonderful day.

GT on February 7, 2007 at 12:28 PM

Thank you for actually answering my comment with affirmation of my point. Which would be this one:

there are some such as Allah, GT, and others who call us nutjobs …

You have to wonder if they actually believe what they say, or if there’s some other reason they continue to ignore, or worse, purposely bury something so obvious by using ridicule.

Gregor on February 7, 2007 at 12:07 PM

You make it far too easy.

…there are some such as Allah, GT, and others who call us nutjobs…

Hmmm…so maybe that’s why Allah won’t attribute me…

Thank you for your continued efforts in reaffirming my heart felt belief that you are a nut. I hope you have a wonderful day.

.

GT, I’m curious. What do you make of the fact that DHS has been lying about this case ALL ALONG?

Redhead Infidel on February 7, 2007 at 11:27 AM

An intelligent question! Hurray!!!

My take is that I don’t know all the facts yet. I’m going to do what the AP should have done. I’m not going to take the word of just one source. I’m going to want independent verification from multiple sources. Please note that independent verification is different than one blog parroting another.

Now, I know thats not the answer you want to hear so I’ll indulge you. Lets assume the story is accurate.

1) Does what Skinner told the congressmen have any direct bearing on the testimony told at the trial (i.e. – did they say it under oath before the judge and the jury)? If so, then Skinner ought to take Ramos and Compean’s place in jail and serve out their term for them.

2) If what Skinner told the congressmen was a lie but was not part of any sworn testimony in the Ramos-Compean trial, then I think Skinner should be brought up on charges assuming that he broke any laws
and share a cell with Ramos and Compean.

.

It turns out that high level homeland officials lied to 5 Congressmen (this morning on the Bill Handel show) about this case. It’s getting curiouser and curiouser by the day, from all sides.

Entelechy on February 7, 2007 at 12:02 PM

But yet, with all of this … there are some such as Allah, GT, and others who call us nutjobs for believing there’s an under the table agenda that has to do with Mexico.

You have to wonder if they actually believe what they say, or if there’s some other reason they continue to ignore, or worse, purposely bury something so obvious by using ridicule.

GT, I’m curious. What do you make of the fact that DHS has been lying about this case ALL ALONG?

Redhead Infidel on February 7, 2007 at 11:27 AM

GT doesn’t care. As evidenced by his refusal to answer the questions I put to him, he is connected in some way to the parties involved in this trial. Whether it’s to the Bush administration, Johnny Sutton, or some illegal immigrant of drug smuggling group … GT is defending something more than just his opinion.