Video: “Pardon Ramos and Compean”
posted at 11:03 pm on February 19, 2007 by Allahpundit
Co-produced by Grassfire.org, which has collected more than 300,000 signatures on the related petition. One of Patterico’s guestbloggers is reviewing the trial transcript systematically to determine whether this really is the snow job the agents’ supporters claim or whether it’s more Tancredo shenanigans. I’ll let you know when he renders his verdict. In the meantime, I’m still hazy on why, precisely, the U.S. Attorney would want to frame them. It’s not earning him any friends in CBP; it’s putting his boss in even hotter water on immigration than he’s already in; and, if he’s found to have acted unethically, it’s putting his own career at risk. So why do it?
Reminds me of Dana Carvey’s old bit about “framing O.J.” Watch it below if you never seen it. It’s a treat.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Framin’ OJ!!!
csdeven on February 19, 2007 at 11:09 PM
I’m in!
greggish on February 19, 2007 at 11:27 PM
HALLIBURTON!
Slublog on February 19, 2007 at 11:29 PM
Good God, Dana Carvey is a dead ringer for an older Jason Dohring. Looks, speech patterns, and movements. Wild.
Anwyn on February 19, 2007 at 11:33 PM
NAU!
see-dubya on February 19, 2007 at 11:34 PM
Uh oh see-dubya, here comes your crusader photoshop.
Theworldisnotenough on February 19, 2007 at 11:42 PM
Comes a man…
Slublog on February 19, 2007 at 11:43 PM
This should be a mandatory campaign question for all candidates. Will you or won’t you pardon them?
roninacreage on February 19, 2007 at 11:45 PM
Well if no one cares and no one is asking questions and your administration is hip deep with Mexico trying to pass amnesty and have a open border why not”frame” them. And stop spouting that frame crapola. Frame is not the same thing as railroadig these guys, instead of firing them and giving an illegal alien imminity twice over, with the basis for a nice multi-million dollar civil suit thrown in for good measure.
Theworldisnotenough on February 19, 2007 at 11:51 PM
Post eaten shoot.
Theworldisnotenough on February 19, 2007 at 11:55 PM
Not to buy into conspiracy theories or anything, but I think this is a way for the amnesty crowd to illustrate how crappy we are to Mexican immigrants and how we should really make it easier for them to come in to the country.
A drop in the bucket that helps paint the picture of how we should really switch to a automated eFence to secure our border rather then have harsh justice of actual agents enforcing our sovereignty.
On a side note, I think I’m going to start calling you Schadenfruede-pundit in the future. ;)
liquidflorian on February 19, 2007 at 11:56 PM
Funny that such an open and shut case would require a systematic review of the court transcripts.
spmat on February 19, 2007 at 11:59 PM
I don’t know, but I’m still hazy on why El Presidente Bush is still advocating an amnesty/guest worker program even though it isn’t winning him many friends from the Republican base and isn’t likely to win him any substantial support from left-leaning Hispanics.
tommy1 on February 20, 2007 at 12:01 AM
Well, let’s start with this audio…
Then read the transcript from the trial….
From the audio….. “little” Johnny Sutton says that the Illegal Alien Drug Smuggler was not given any form of amnesty…… from the court transcripts, not only was he given amnesty, he was given a prefered pass, and involved, and LET GO, in another drug smuggling incident AFTER the Ramos and Compean affair, as well as stayed at the house of a memeber of the prosecution, the bullet fragments did not match Ramos and Compean guns with certainty, and the chain of evidence was compromised…
I could go on and on…….
This is falling apart on them, boys and girls, just do the research…..
PinkyBigglesworth on February 20, 2007 at 12:02 AM
Ramos and Compean
Jumped the Shark Feb 12, 8:10 am
When Sutton posted the transcripts
the most vocal critics:
Michael McCaul BT (before Transcripts)
“This is a conspiracy”
“We gave total immunity to a drug dealer, concealed it from the jury” (Prosecutor in 4th sentence, 17 seconds into opening statements told the jury that everyone testifying had immunity including the drug dealer)
“What are they trying to hide”
“The DHS lied to us, mislead my committee”
Michael McCaul AT (after Transcripts)
“Lets not rush to judgement”
John Culberson BT
“This smells of a coverup”
“Skinner deliberately mislead us”
John Culberson AT
“It appears that they violated numerous policies and procedures”
Ted Poe BT (rightwingnut former Judge, former prosecutor from same office Poe came from)
“Why we ought to pardon em, give em more ammo and send them down there to hunt more drug dealers”
Ted Poe AT
“Why we ought to pardon em, GIVE THEM MEDALS, more ammo and send them down there to hunt more drug dealers”
“Its whats NOT in the transcripts that tells the tale”
EricPWJohnson on February 20, 2007 at 12:07 AM
Of course the two Border Patrol agents are bad and deserve to be in prison.
Why not?
They ARE law enforcement officials, and, as we all know, as depicted in Hollywood movies, main stream news media outlets, and leftist, fifth column, racist, and illegal immigrant outlets, Law Enforcement officials are all corrupt and criminals, while those they stop are always innocent victims of oppression.
Ignore that gun, the knife, the drugs, the dead body in the possession of the perp, and all the immigration laws broken by the perps the Border Patrol agents have stopped, just rush the Border Patrol agents into prison post haste!
Gotta’ get those naughty law enforcement people behind bars and make the streets, and desserts, safe for law breaking murderers, rapists, vandals, robbers, racists, terrorists, and invaders.
William
William2006 on February 20, 2007 at 12:09 AM
“…whether this really is the snow job the agents’ supporters claim or whether it’s more Tancredo shenanigans….”
Maybe the two are related. Hear me out.
Just look at the ‘brick by brick’ dissolution with the sovereign idea of ‘THE UNITED STATES of AMERICA’. And look at the lack of any official cojones to stop the la raza invasion or open border policy this nation seems hell-bent upon embracing!
Not a week goes by that another outrage does not pass with nothing is being done on the federal level or that is not met with a parasitic
furorfuhrer by the aclu, et al.We’ve become milk toast pussies buried in our cacoon of comfort and soon to be conquered by a bloodless & bulletless invasion. We hardly deserve posterity.
Think about it.
locomotivebreath1901 on February 20, 2007 at 12:14 AM
Let me play “devil’s advocate” here. I saw the US Attorney give his side and it seemed plausible. So, if the facts were not presented I hope it is corrected.
I feel anyone wearing a badge or in a position of authority has to be held to a higher standard. If these guys lied and tried to cover up what happened then they should be given the maximum – no mercy. People have to have trust in law enforcement.
However, if these two guys are innocent and someone up the ladder is making them a scapegoat then that person should be in the slammer for twice as long. Let all the facts come out, which I’m sure will happen.
Unfortunately, there is a certain type of ego-deficient personality that is sometimes attracted to law enforcement. I know some personal examples. Those kind of people have to be screened out. The ugly reality is that too often they wind up with a badge and a gun.
By the way, when is Sandy Berger going to take his lie detector test as was agreed in his plea bargain for stealing documents out of the archives?
Texas Mike on February 20, 2007 at 12:32 AM
Speaking of O.J. Simpson, you guys must watch this clip of Chris Rock doing a sketch years ago. My god he was dead on target. Watch the very last few seconds.
TheThink on February 20, 2007 at 12:42 AM
I’m still hazy on why said U.S. attorney would go so far out of his was to protect a known drug smuggler. The transcripts prove that Aldrete-Davila was detained for a second incident of moving drugs into the U.S. after the incident with the agents – or why the jury was not allowed to hear about that to ascertain Aldrete-Davila’s worthiness as a witness.
I’m still hazy on why said U.S. attorney would make a misleading statement about what type of immunity Aldrete-Davila was given – a statement even Patterico himself found disturbing.
I’m still hazy as to why said U.S. attorney would us the law concerning use of firearms as a felony when there is no proof whatsoever that the two border patrol agents set out to commit any felony that day.
In general, I’m still hazy as to why said U.S. attorney went out of his way not only to protect a known, repeat offending drug smuggler and would also go so out of his way to throw the book at two border patrol agents who tried to stop him.
You needn’t bother answer the “frame up” question. Just answer the ones above for starters – and then tell me you think it’s justice or good for the cause of securing our borders for our government to bend over backwards protecting a drug smuggler while showing an excess of prosecutorial zeal in going after our border patrol agents.
thirteen28 on February 20, 2007 at 12:43 AM
Remaining question, as I understand it the Defense and the Accused have been given a “Gag Order”, but not “little” Johnny Sutton…….. who is all over the media.
Comment from the Defense and the Accused……… “not allowed.”
The “Transcrips of the Trial” were sealed, took until the agents were encarcerated, making an appeal not possible until they (the transcripts) were released, and “bail pending appeal” denied, un-like millions of rapists, child molestors, illegal alien gang member murderers walking our streets today…..
Anyone else see any problem in this……..?
PinkyBigglesworth on February 20, 2007 at 12:44 AM
I can’t wait to hear what happened in the trial and finally settle this. (Giggle, snort.)
This trial is going to be like the OJ trial. Everyone is going to see what they want.
For the record, Allah, I don’t think it is a good idea to wonder what might cause a prosecutor to indict someone who is innocent as if prosecutors are immune to stupid decisions or prejudice.
Bill C on February 20, 2007 at 12:46 AM
Oh, BTW, how many of you “throw the book at these agents” types agree with this sentiment offered by the prosecution in their closing statement:
(Regarding Aldrete-Davila and others that do what he does):
In other words, according to the prosecution in this case, if you are poor and unemployed in Mexico, then you can be excuses for violating our border and smuggling illegal drugs into the U.S.
Wonderful.
Glad you pro-prosecutor types agree with him.
thirteen28 on February 20, 2007 at 12:52 AM
I just saw somewhere–and I can’t find it again or I’d blog it myself–that Aldrete-Davila was given not only immunity, but also documents to come into the country in exchange for his testimony.
That I have a serious problem with. There doesn’t seem to be any doubt the guy was hauling dope over the border; getting shot in the butt while doing so does not entitle one to a green card.
see-dubya on February 20, 2007 at 1:12 AM
I don’t get it Allah I thought Johnny Sutton’s fact sheet was gospel?
Theworldisnotenough on February 20, 2007 at 1:13 AM
Guys, we need to be careful about the border patrol police state. It’s a real threat. For real. I mean, look at border security. That mug is on lock down 24-7, and you don’t think that methed-up bunch of terminators known as the border patrol aren’t itching for a coup?
spmat on February 20, 2007 at 1:15 AM
Well, now we are getting down to the “just of it”…. Good post thirteen28…… did anyone listen then read from my previous post above? I know it takes a little effort, I am just curious…….
Living near the border, and not crossing it anymore, have any of you enjoyed the experience of a “Filthy Sanchez”?
Have anyone of you enjoyed the hospitality of the Tijuana Police Department, who wait at the border and target Americans who just, by the way, enter their country?
Have any of you had friends or family members raped by uniformed Mexican Police, only to have our Consulant say…….. “Well, it’s their custom, and we don’t want to create an International incident…”
“Pesos, anyone?”
PinkyBigglesworth on February 20, 2007 at 1:27 AM
From Bush’s justice department’s closing statement on why the border agents should be convicted:
“We all know that there’s a lot of poverty in Mexico. We know why people commit these crimes. We know why people bring drugs into the United States. Because they don’t have the money to feed their families. That’s why they do it.”
If you try to keep your kids off drugs, you are taking food right out of the mouths of poor Mexican families. And for that you should be ashamed.
Perchant on February 20, 2007 at 2:07 AM
Okay Allah, at the risk of pissing you off …
The reason you’re having so much trouble figuring it out is because you insist on denying the only possible explanation and instead mock it.
It’s even more tough to understand why you act as though you can’t even imagine any reason for what is happening. Most of your own readers understand. Why are you not getting it?
Instead, you choose to believe that Bush sincerely believes that granting amnesty to 30 million illegals is “good for the country.” Instead, you choose to believe that Bush sincerely believes that there are 30 million jobs that Americans won’t do. You know? Jobs like construction, roofing, and other jobs that used to pay $15-$30 per hour. Instead, you choose to believe that this entire immigration sham has absolutely nothing to do with private business agreements between Mexico and Bush.
What’s really impossible to understand is how you go on insisting you just don’t get it.
Gregor on February 20, 2007 at 2:37 AM
The weird part about this is that the prosecution obviously considers shooting an illegal alien drug dealer in the butt to be a more heinous crime than having an illegal alien deal drugs to our kids.
The problem: The agents did not follow the rules of engagement and tried to hide that fact.
Solution: Change the rules of engagement. If you try to flee froma border patrol agent, bullets should fly.
Kevin M on February 20, 2007 at 2:38 AM
Allah, what is the deal with covering this now, when you have failed to cover any of the developments in this case for the last two weeks.
Exit question: If this goes the other way and the agents are exonerated, will you cover that/apologize for how you have and have not handled this story?
America1st on February 20, 2007 at 2:38 AM
Breaking News…. ” Where is Rita Cosby?”
I would insist…. “This is serious!!!”", but we have so many distractions, why let the truth get in the way again……………
(Sarcasim “ON)
(let’s move ten years into the future, if you are a “white” male or female, you have to pay all the bills, shut your mouth, and not practice any religion…….. if you are Muslum or Mexican, you can carry firearms, kill at leasure, rape, torture, and use “your version of history” as the diffence…. then you have to deal with the “black Americans”, those who decided to stay in America, and those who want to return… after leaving, how are you going to deal with them especially if some of “them” are homosexual?”
PinkyBigglesworth on February 20, 2007 at 2:48 AM
Because he thinks it’s the right thing to do?
I found the pro-Border Patrol video kind of smarmy – nothing at all concerning the facts of the case, just visceral reactions from people who may have been asked a loaded question and know nothing about the facts themselves.
I haven’t followed the details, and take no position, but that video contained nothing to persuade me that the BP agents are innocent, or victims of some kind of frame-up. The video boils down to “border patrol agents should be above the law”.
LagunaDave on February 20, 2007 at 3:42 AM
The video is not an argument, that is true. It doesn’t offer any form of evidence or describe a differing scenario from the prosecution’s case. That also doesn’t mean they are guilty.
Oh, the BP agents did knowingly violate policy it appears, in collecting their spent brass and failing to report the shooting. Not a felony. By law, not a crime. A breech of policy, not punishable with prison sentences of 11 and 12 years.
Breaking: Ramos and Compean had help “cleaning up”, according to DHS memo withheld from defense.
Why did the prosecution fail to provide this document, which defense attorney’s claim “couldn’t be more important”, when two separate statutes demand that the defense be furnished with copies of ALL available evidence, especially potentially exculpatory evidence.
I believe that Ramos and Compean should have been suspended for misconduct in altering the scene of a shooting (along with the other seven BP agents who had knowledge of same and never reported it), but by no means should they have been prosecuted as criminals, especially under the law used, which presupposes that they began the day with criminal intentions.
It stinks.
That one’s getting a bit tired, AP.
Freelancer on February 20, 2007 at 7:13 AM
No pardon for Romo!
You fumble a snap and cost your team a shot at the big one, when a win is just about guaranteed, you should be shown no mercy. Throw the book at him.
What? Oh. Not Tony Romo?
Oh, yeah, as for Ramos: pardon him and his compadre. Duh.
Someone should probably pass a non-binding resolution on the topic or something. They’re very popular these days.
Professor Blather on February 20, 2007 at 7:43 AM
Hazy? You have got to be kidding. Where are you stories on Julie L. Myers and Traci Lembke?
Freelancer is spot on and I’m amazed you just don’t get it Allah. 11 to 12 years WTF? By the way the OJ bit is beyond the pale.
Timber Wolf on February 20, 2007 at 7:54 AM
Free them!
EnochCain on February 20, 2007 at 8:38 AM
Ditto. Someone (the current president) get some balls and free these men. The current president continues to disappoint me.
Wade on February 20, 2007 at 8:49 AM
You know, I’m still hazy on why the President and a majority of the GOP pols in Washington, want to give 20 million illegals absolute amnesty.
I’m still hazy as to why our President doesn’t seem to care that medical care for the children of illegals, alone, cost us around $200 million, in FY 05.
I’m still hazy as to why the US Attorney granted the drug smuggler complete immunity from US prosecution, but made sure 2 BP agents got 12 years, for doing their job.
None of it makes any sense, but it happens.
amerpundit on February 20, 2007 at 8:50 AM
I dunno, the part about the border patrol agent getting ganked in a federal prison because he shot a Mexican drug runner in the ass is pretty funny. If I were a Mexican drug runner, I’d be laughing my @ss off.
spmat on February 20, 2007 at 8:50 AM
Bush becomes less and less Conservative by the day. He’s made the federal government larger. He pushes for amnesty for illegals. He supports legislation that eventually interferes in American’s lives.
Bush is, sadly, becoming a let down. While he is strong on terror, that’s about it.
I agree with Wade, someone needs to get some balls and free these guys.
amerpundit on February 20, 2007 at 8:55 AM
spmat, I’m sure the agent’s family is laughing their asses off.
amerpundit on February 20, 2007 at 8:56 AM
Phyllis Schlafly has an article at Human Events discussing the problems with the case which include evidence withheld by the prosecution.
I think it is incumbent on those who believe that Ramos and Compean are guilty to explain how these men lied when they, in fact, gave an oral report of the incident to a superior at the scene. The mitigating factor in their conviction is the contention that they were trying to hide their “crime” but this memo seems to prove otherwise.
Bill C on February 20, 2007 at 9:00 AM
Substitute aggravating for mitigating.
Bill C on February 20, 2007 at 9:04 AM
The NAU stuff doesn’t count as “shenanigans”?
Allahpundit on February 20, 2007 at 9:12 AM
Just amazing.
The everyday common Americans in the video get it, they understand all of the downsides of throwing these Border Patrol agents in the slammer and the total lack of any upside in the decision. (Well, for us, there’s plenty of uppies for the Mexican drug smugglers).
I can’t rule out the possibility that this is just more evidence of the dumbing down of America, infiltrating every nook and cranny in our society – including the U.S. Attorney’s office. If this decision, to prosecute these agents and give a druggie immunity wasn’t pure stupidity, I don’t know what is.
fogw on February 20, 2007 at 9:12 AM
Why don’t you move to Mexico and join in on all the fun?
fogw on February 20, 2007 at 9:16 AM
Fisking Oscar Juarez‘s “eyewitness” testimony.
Bill C on February 20, 2007 at 9:17 AM
It’s called TDS – Tancredo Derangement Syndrome.
thirteen28 on February 20, 2007 at 9:23 AM
They’re actors. Don’t be naive.
JaHerer22 on February 20, 2007 at 9:45 AM
This is ultimately a political case because the outcome affects the morale of the border police, the calculations of the illegals – and the coyotes that facilitate entry in to the US. One can believe that Mexico doesn’t have total control over it’s military – thanks to the uber corrupting presence of drug money. However, it is not innocent in the realm it does have more control over. Degradation of policing functions is a hallmark of Third World countries and seems to be a goal of the Left – police bust their balls catching criminals in the act, and lazy soft judges release them back to the streets. Police who are not backed up will not carry out their duties. As long as the police (or anyone else for that matter) believes a judgment was fair, they’ll accept it, even if they wanted it to do another way. This case reeks of unfair, whether it is or not. The perception of cops being tossed in jail and the criminal being excused is a very very bad preception to dominate the public eye, especially now with the national tensions over the mushiness of the border. This has been handled very very badly. It will have long term ramifications – none good.
naliaka on February 20, 2007 at 9:53 AM
Like I said, ” …this is just more evidence of the dumbing down of America …”
Thanks for participating Jaherer.
fogw on February 20, 2007 at 9:56 AM
Allah, why do you consistently refuse to debate the NAU on factual grounds?
Please debate the evidence as you would the 9/11 conspiracy, or shut up about it. You have absolutely nothing to disprove a single claim.
Your blind bias is getting old.
Gregor on February 20, 2007 at 9:58 AM
A little off subject, but the analogy is close. I still remember Billy Dale being driven off on in a van with all of his paperwork in boxes that he carried down from his office. After working with 7 presidents and 30 years of impicable service. Then being brought up in trial for tax evasion and accused of other mishaps (or at least violating tax laws) and being found innocent (one very, very minor tax incident in the past decade). One of the things they tried to find him guilty of; having a large savings account…no kidding. All because a certain president or his wife wanted the travel agency to go to a crony.
People in power, will destroy anyone or anything they feel is in their way to achieving their goals…always to the “betterment” of the nation.
One or two people is just a grain of sand in their shoe, an irritation.
Mexico has a problem with us patrolling? Remove the grains of sand.
right2bright on February 20, 2007 at 10:21 AM
It’s kind of bad form to tell the owner/main writer of a blog to shut up on a particular issue or viewpoint. We’re all conservativish here – we agree on 90% of the issues out there. No reason to get ugly about the 10% we disagre upon.
Plus, if the border is really being erased, someone forgot to tell the Canadians.
Slublog on February 20, 2007 at 10:22 AM
Look behind you!!!….
Remember those scary movies where the heroine yells at her friend “look behind you” and her friend says ‘Nah, you aren’t gonna get me with that one”……
Well the North American Union is sneaking up on you…..and you can keep ignoring the blatant clues, including the nod to Bank Of America to go right on ahead with embedding Illegals into the country…..
But just like in the movies when it happens it will grab you around the neck and it will be too late for you to escape.
ENJOY!!
Mellen on February 20, 2007 at 10:30 AM
Freelancer –
Absolutely.
heroyalwhyness on February 20, 2007 at 10:38 AM
Acting on the orders of his old buddy Bush.
Bush thought his legacy would have been spreading democracy to the mideast. Well we all know how that is going. So plan “b” for the legacy is Globalization of the United States.
His open borders policy is a small, but integral part of putting the globalization legacy into place. To make it work, he needs millions of illegal aliens to enter the country and infiltrate our society. Discouraging border enforcement, by over zealously prosecuting Ramos and Compean, also works toward Bushs’ goals.
He is indeed planning and implementing the “Crime of the Century”
They just need to update the video in the link with these pics
as well as evidence of his refusal to enforce our immigration laws.
voiceofreason on February 20, 2007 at 10:45 AM
I don’t why, but my links didn’t show up, making my post worthless. Sorry all.
voiceofreason on February 20, 2007 at 10:48 AM
Note to self: or tag required…
spmat on February 20, 2007 at 11:15 AM
Crap.. we need a preview function on this thing..
Note to self: [/sarcasm] or [/bittersarcasm] tag required..
spmat on February 20, 2007 at 11:16 AM
Preview functionality for the masses, please.
ameripundit et al., I’m being sarcastic. Bitterly so.
spmat on February 20, 2007 at 11:18 AM
I didn’t ask Allah to shut up about the subject. I asked him to debate the evidence and the facts rather than simply mock it. My quote was …
I don’t think that’s too much to ask. Allah has been asked many times to explain what he finds incorrect about the NAU theories and he vanishes each time, just like this time. He throws out the standard nutjob mockery and then runs away.
Allah is supposed to be a professional writer and he’s proved that he can debunk incorrect claims based on facts and evidence. Why does he refuse to even make an attempt when dealing with this topic?
I agree. So why does Allah insist on mocking the 90% of his readers who disagree with him. Why does he insist on mocking Tancredo? Is it the same reason he wrote prior to the mid-terms that he would vote a straight democratic ticket? Allah mocks 90% of his readers and offers absolutely nothing to support his slander.
I have no problem with someone who wants to debate the NAU. I’ll volunteer to debate Allah on the NAU anytime, on a solo thread on this blog for everyone to see.
What I have a problem with is his refusal to offer a single example of incorrect info, facts, or evidence regarding the NAU. Nothing. All he’s got is cartoonish photoshops of Tancredo and insulting one liners designed to embarrass people into silence.
Errrr … Not.
Anyone actually spending some time researching this subject knows that the Canadians are just as pissed off as we are.
Just a few examples here, here, and here.
And how about here?
Or here?
Gregor on February 20, 2007 at 11:47 AM
The “softwood lumber sellout?”
You do realize that the softwood lumber agreement actually helped loggers in the United States, at the expense of Canadian loggers, right?
Hardly a free borders type situation there.
Slublog on February 20, 2007 at 11:52 AM
I should add that the reason the Canadians are ticked is because they lost a trade dispute with the United States, not because they feel they are giving up sovereignty.
This example does not fit your thesis.
Slublog on February 20, 2007 at 12:06 PM
No.
The NAU stuff is a shenanigan but not perpetrated by Tancredo.
Great links Pinky!
brtex on February 20, 2007 at 12:12 PM
Which “example?” My “thesis?”
I’m not sure what your point is. I responded to your suggestion that Canadians know nothing of the NAU. I provided links to 5 different links in which Canadians are discussing the NAU.
What “thesis” are you referring to? And suggesting that the five links I provided somehow relate to a lost trade dispute is confusing.
Gregor on February 20, 2007 at 12:12 PM
Because it isn’t his job to defend his opinions in the comments. His job is to write about them within the context of the day’s news on the front page. Well, that and to bring teh funny. Are his jabs and snarks annoying at times? They are to me. Sometimes he makes me really angry, especially on religion topics, but I usually just take it out on him by snarking back.
Besides, his occasional trips left of Limbaugh make the site more interesting and provocative. I know it keeps me coming back. Remember, he’s one of three main guns here, each one having its own quirks and each one part of the HA ethos.
spmat on February 20, 2007 at 12:15 PM
Except that he doesn’t “write” anything to support his mockery. He simply throws out the cartoons and one liners and runs away. That’s my point, as I stated before. He offers nothing of value. Zero.
Gregor on February 20, 2007 at 12:18 PM
The final link contained a quote that suggested the softwood lumber agreement was a sell-out and linked it to the idea of the NAU. That’s entirely false – this trade dispute was a result of Canadian government support of their lumber industry, which allowed them to keep their prices artificially low and undercut U.S. loggers.
The trade agreement levels the playing field, and Canadians are understandably unhappy about that. So the anger in the last link was not at the idea of the NAU, but at what some Canadians consider capitulation in this particular agreement.
And my link hardly suggested the Canadians “know nothing” of the NAU. My point was to show that if it’s supposed to erase borders, then it’s doing a poor job since border disputes are still going on.
Slublog on February 20, 2007 at 12:20 PM
Slublog, that’s just misleading. You suggest that because someone in the article MENTIONED the softwood lumber agreement, that the entire article was regarding that subject, rather than the NAU? Come on! You’re kidding, right?
Remember that my link was just one of five in response to you writing this …
Here are quotes from the article …
And further …
So, this has absolutely nothing to do with the NAU, huh? Nothing to do with erasing borders?
And Canadians have absolutely no concerns, huh? Someone “forgot to tell the Canadians?”
Gregor on February 20, 2007 at 12:31 PM
Again, he’s not under any obligation to defend his opinions on the front page, either. Is he wrong on this subject? I think so, thus my various snarks about it, but you’re getting plenty of arguments from others who seem to have his opinion on the matter and many times at the level of detail you’re requesting. Why does it have to come from Allah?
spmat on February 20, 2007 at 12:33 PM
Nice try, but you have yet to explain how a trade dispute that ended with one side happy and one side unhappy proves a far-reaching conspiracy to end national sovereignty.
Slublog on February 20, 2007 at 12:33 PM
That quote proves nothing other than the fact that someone in the article is unhappy about the resolution of the trade dispute (with good reason) and is looking for a scapegoat.
So allow me to repeat myself – the softwood lumber agreement helped American loggers and has the potential to hurt Canadian loggers. They had reason to be upset, and are using the American boogeyman (a familiar figure in Canadian politics) as a target of their frustration.
Irritated quotes do not a conspiracy prove.
Slublog on February 20, 2007 at 12:35 PM
If anyone is interested…Ramos and Compean are not the only law enforcement officers sutton has convicted in relation to illegal aliens. Read the linked story of a Texas Deputy that was defending himself when he stopped an SUV full of illegals.
Any of this sound familiar….
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20070202-124744-1388r.htm
Sorry, you’ll have to cut and paste, I don’t know how to embed a link on this page…not the biggest techie. I do have large problem with sutton and his judgement. I think they are using these prosecutions to throw more cold water on border enforcement. I you were an agent, would you be more or less likely to do your job diligently knowing you are working without a net. If a known drug dealer is more important than our agents, they have no hope of stopping the other illegals because they will be prosecuted.
still468 on February 20, 2007 at 12:39 PM
oops, the link did come up right when it posted…I am not with it today.
still468 on February 20, 2007 at 12:39 PM
Slublog, you’re making me think you’re being misleading on purpose. You have to know that the link provided was not intended to offer evidence of the NAU. You know that. You’re a smart guy and I’ve read many of your comments on many topics. So I’m wondering why you’re trying to suggest that the link was intended for this purpose.
For the third time …
The link was in response to you suggesting that Canadians somehow are unaware, unconcerned, or have not knowledge of the NAU or open border issue. All five links served the purpose of verifying that Canadians are in fact aware of the NAU, the SPP, and the Bush agenda. The links specifically mention all three.
If you want to throw me out a question on the NAU itself, have at it. I’ll be happy to offer links or other evidence to answer any questions you might have. But don’t suggest that the links were in response to something they were not.
Gregor on February 20, 2007 at 12:40 PM
Also, I find it unsurprising that the angry quote came from a member of the NDP. That party and the Liberals were defeated on that vote by the Tories and the Bloc Quebecois.
Slublog on February 20, 2007 at 12:42 PM
Yes, and I’ve provided context as to why that might not matter as much as you believe, given the political situation in Canada.
Slublog on February 20, 2007 at 12:44 PM
I disagree. There’s absolutely nobody on this blog who offers any honest debate of the facts. They resort to the same tactic that Allah uses, and the same tactic Sublog is using above. They purposely ignore, mislead, or slant the facts until those who offer actual evidence get frustrated and give up. Do you think Sublog doesn’t understand that those links were provided to show that Canadians are also debating the NAU and SPP? Do you think he actually believes I posted the links to “prove the truth of the NAU?”
Come on. He knows it, but he’s going to continue to suggest otherwise until I shut up. I can post his question, and my answer as it appeared in order all day, but it won’t matter.
Gregor on February 20, 2007 at 12:47 PM
Gregor, how much do you know about Canadian politics?
Slublog on February 20, 2007 at 12:49 PM
And honestly, Gregor, I would appreciate it if you would stop accusing me of deliberatly trying to “ignore, mislead or slant facts.” You claim to want an open debate, but insult those who take the time to discuss this issue.
Slublog on February 20, 2007 at 12:51 PM
Okay, I’ll let you play your little game of misdirection.
Let’s just assume for your benefit, that we were discussing the softwood lumber agreement. It still doesn’t matter. The argument was not whether or not the softwood lumber agreement was related to the NAU. The argument was that Canadians aren’t worried about open borders. You still lose. The link clearly shows there is an uproar in Canada over the NAU, SPP, and the Bush agenda. It doesn’t really matter if their concerns over the softwood lumber agreement are correct. Your suggestion that they “someone forgot to tell the Canadians” is incorrect.
Gregor on February 20, 2007 at 12:55 PM
Seriously, I knew that was coming. Look, if you want an honest debate, then debate honestly. I’m not going to allow you to mischaracterize my comments.
This entire discussion is in response to you writing a single line.
“Someone forgot to tell the Canadians”
I posted five links which clearly showed that the Canadians are just as pissed off about the NAU, SPP, and open borders as we are.
Now, you insist on suggesting that my links were for the purpose of proving the NAU theory.
That’s not exactly an honest discussion.
Gregor on February 20, 2007 at 12:59 PM
You know what? I’ve had it with that bullsh*t. Enough.
I guess this answers the question of how much you know about Canadian politics. The softwood lumber debate has been going on for twenty years – it pre-dates the Bush administration and has gotten quite ugly.
That might explain some of the anger, and the looking for a scapegoat. Again, the quotes you provided are from the losing side of this debate so they have some reason to be angry, given that the Tories and Bloc Quebeois defeated them by working together. What your link supports is the fact that the NAU is being blamed for a political defeat that the NDP and Liberals couldn’t prevent.
Slublog on February 20, 2007 at 12:59 PM
And my quote about forgetting to tell the Canadians?
Pure snark.
And I have been trying to explain that in one of the cases, one which I have a good degree of familiarity with, the NAU played no part and can take no blame for their anger.
Slublog on February 20, 2007 at 1:05 PM
I still fail to see what the relationship is to the fact that “someone obviously did not forget to tell the Canadians.”
Obviously, they’re discussing the NAU, correct?
Obviously, they’re discussing the SPP, correct?
Obviously, they’re discussing the Bush agenda, correct?
Obviously, they’re discussing the problem of open borders, correct?
And your entire point is meaningless anyway. You are suggesting that the fact that Canadians were on the bad side of a business deal somehow means the NAU is not real?
So, I guess the fact that my company is contracting some of it’s high paying jobs to workers in Mexico city has nothing to do with the SPP? I guess simply because Americans are pissed off at losing business to outsourcing somehow means the entire NAU crowd is simply made over bad business deals?
The entire argument makes no sense.
Gregor on February 20, 2007 at 1:08 PM
We’re all just mad at losing jobs, so therefore there is no NAU.
Makes sense.
Gregor on February 20, 2007 at 1:10 PM
I asked you nicely to stop, and you did not respect that wish.
From now on, I’ll leave you to complain how no one will debate you “on the facts.” Perhaps when no one does, you’ll get the point.
Slublog on February 20, 2007 at 1:11 PM
Oh no! I’m just so mean. I’m sorry, I’m such an evil person to suggest that the point you made was meaningless. Such a horrible person.
As for me oneday getting the point, what you fail to realize is that I don’t need to “debate” this topic with anyone other than about three of you. For the most part, 85% of the population is aware that something is going on under the table with this government. If the three of you ever feel like debating the facts, let me know. I asked you earlier to throw out a specific NAU claim that you would like to debate, but you avoided it, as does Allah.
It’s easier just to claim I’m being “mean” and run away.
Gregor on February 20, 2007 at 1:25 PM
You’re not “mean,” Gregor. You’re simply uncivil.
I find incivility disagreeable and will only endure it so long before deciding it’s not worth my time.
Slublog on February 20, 2007 at 1:30 PM
Yes, I do sometimes lose my cool. I agree with that and sometimes I will apologize. But I would say that I haven’t lost my cool here. Saying that your point is meaningless is not being uncivil. Suggesting that you’re being misleading on purpose is not being uncivil. I haven’t lost my cool with you. I respect most of the comments you make, so I would not do that. But it does get too annoying to deal with when someone repeatedly mischaracterizes something you say. I stand by everything I’ve written and again, I repeat that I would gladly debate any part of the NAU over factual evidence. The link I provided however, was not intended to debate the NAU. It was meant to show the NAU and SPP awareness of the Canadian people.
You pointed to one of those links and stated that because they are angry over a bad business decision, it voids their anger over the SPP.
Suggesting that I used the link to debate the reality of the NAU is completely false.
Gregor on February 20, 2007 at 1:39 PM
Gregor,
If you dislike AP and his style so much, why frequent here? Seems like it aggravates you more than anything you may gain from it.
I guess I don’t frequent here enough to know – or to get too upset by any thing posted here. Just an observation.
major john on February 20, 2007 at 2:29 PM
Because 98% of the readers who comment here are conservative and the discussions on the threads are usually informative. Allah is very good at what he does, on most issues. The problem is that he doesn’t write about the NAU or Tancredo in his “usual” style. He offers no factual information other than to link to what others write and then mock it.
I have no problem with Allah having his point of view on whatever topic he chooses. It just stands to reason that he should be willing to back up his mockery instead of just yelling nutjob nutjob nutjob and then running away.
The purpose of a blog is to write about a topic, and then allow readers to comment on what you wrote. It seems a little odd that some readers suggest that insulting something that Allah writes is wrong. You will never see me suggest that Allah should not write his opinions, and in fact I was once harshly attacked for defending his right to do just that. I just ask that he make an attempt at discussing the issue based on the facts instead of mocking those who do.
Gregor on February 20, 2007 at 4:24 PM
Welcome to the club.
GT on February 20, 2007 at 5:44 PM
With you GT … I make absolutely no apology and I offer you the highest in incivility. I also will not hesitate to publicly call you a liar, for which you are the very definition.
Welcome back.
Gregor on February 20, 2007 at 5:54 PM
I’m still hazy on exactly why DHS would lie about the Ramos and Compean case to Congress actually and personally every thing I’ve read about this case leads me to believe that there was a great injustice carried out in this conviction and sentence. Once you read Juarez’s testimony you’ll see that he was carefully led around the truth, that he couldn’t have seen if Aldrete-Davila had a weapon or not. His testimony was far from the convincing proof that it was presented as. Now we have come to expect this type of courtroom behavior from defense attorneys trying to get their clients free from charges but should we accept it from attorneys representing our own government. I certainly don’t think so! As for the allegations that Ramos and Compean failed to report the shooting and covered up evidence by picking up their brass that’s been busted all the hell. They followed policy to the letter by verbally reporting the shooting to their supervisor who decided not to file a written report and every single shell casing in every single police shooting gets picked up all over America. The fact that their supervisor didn’t call in a forensics team to work the scene means that Ramos and Compean had to pick up the brass themselves.
Both soldiers and cops make decisions in a moment that determine if they live or die. I will always choose to believe the soldier or cop’s version of events as he saw them in that one brief moment over a drug smuggler or a terrorist and yes I will grant myself the moral authority to question the patriotism of anyone sitting at a computer with a cup of coffee beside them who decides they aren’t deserving of that right.
Ramos and Compean won’t be pardoned. Bush isn’t going to do it. None of the Democrats who want to be President are going to do it. Neither McCain nor Giuliani are going to do it. I doubt Romney would do it. Hunter or Tancredo would do it in a heartbeat but they’re being starved for air and will never get a chance.
Will history record that George W Bush destroyed the GOP? Probably not but it should. There is a stink that carries from our borders clear up to the Oval Office and Jimmy Carter’s globalization dreams via NAFTA are actively being carried out by our President through the Commerce Department, DHS, and our own Justice Department without a single Congressional vote. Strangely the left has found at least one Bush policy they agree with.
Buzzy on February 20, 2007 at 5:59 PM
Hey, don’t get mad at me if I caught you in a lie and called you on it.
I hate to break it too you, but your vitriolic carping isn’t what most would consider to be debating. Frankly, its rather boorish.
That said, kudos to DRJ at Patterico’s for his efforts. I have to agree with LagunaDave’s comments about the training and professionalism issues with the Border Patrol. I think those issues are part and parcel of the problems at the Border. I’m curious as to whether or not the Ramos/Compean trial and conviction has done anything to help correct matters at the BP.
.
GT on February 20, 2007 at 7:03 PM
Right GT. Right. Just keep on lying. You’ve still got three fans.
Gregor on February 20, 2007 at 8:11 PM
This is George W. Bush in 1996. People who read this must have been scratching their heads trying to figure out which citizens he was referring to:
And here’s Bush’s justice department ten years later making clear exactly who he was referring to in the Dole Letter:
If Bush wasn’t referring to people like Davila, who was he referring to?
Perchant on February 20, 2007 at 10:39 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »