The NAU stuff doesn’t count as “shenanigans”?

Allahpundit on February 20, 2007 at 9:12 AM

No.

News source: Los Angeles Times (Politics)
Source: http://www.latimes.com/
Date: 06/04/96

.
.
On the issue of drug smuggling, for example, Wilson urged Dole this spring to push the Clinton administration to officially cite Mexico for not adequately helping U.S. authorities crack down on traffickers.

Bush, however, responded to the issue by writing a letter telling Dole that any such step “would have devastating effects for the citizens of the U.S.-Mexico region.”

And here’s Bush’s justice department ten years later making clear exactly who he was referring to in the Dole Letter:

“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 Bush wasn’t referring to people like Davila, who was he referring to?

Gregor on February 20, 2007 at 5:54 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.

.

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.

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.

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

Welcome to the club.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I find incivility disagreeable and will only endure it so long before deciding it’s not worth my time.

I asked you nicely to stop, and you did not respect that wish.

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.

And your entire point is meaningless anyway…

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.

Makes sense.

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.

Pure snark.

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.

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.

Okay, I’ll let you play your little game of misdirection.

You know what? I’ve had it with that bullsh*t. Enough.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

The links specifically mention all three.

Yes, and I’ve provided context as to why that might not matter as much as you believe, given the political situation in Canada.