peepinmofo Posted July 19, 2011 Author Share Posted July 19, 2011 Post something false and pay the piper, princess. You think Im "paying the piper"? Cmon now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 You wrote a 10,000 word essay, believing something that is completely false. After it was discussed, in detail, in previous posts, and shown to be unequivocally false. seems like what mcboog wrote is completely consistent with the memo instructing agents and prosecutors on which cases to pass over. you may find mcboog tiresome and longwinded, but don't you think someone who works directly in the field for the agency in question might just have a little bit better understanding what's going on than you do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 Reading...and honesty You wrote a 10,000 word essay, believing something that is completely false. After it was discussed, in detail, in previous posts, and shown to be unequivocally false. Reading...and honesty : seems like what mcboog wrote is completely consistent with the memo instructing agents and prosecutors on which cases to pass over. you may find mcboog tiresome and longwinded, but don't you think someone who works directly in the field for the agency in question might just have a little bit better understanding what's going on than you do? Not to mention that what McBoog wrote totally stands alone from the Dream Act issue. But instead of reading it and responding to it, Bushy just wants to lump it all in with the Dream Act issue so he can be lazy and not have to say why he thinks McBoog is wrong. If McBoog is wrong about Obama passing an executive order version of the Dream Act, then he must be wrong about EVERYTHING, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 Post something false and pay the piper, princess. Can one of you please outline what you believe to be false in McBoog's post? It will be easier for me to comprehend if you use this format: 1. Lie #1 2. Lie #2 etc.... TIA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 Not to mention that what McBoog wrote totally stands alone from the Dream Act issue. When he refereed to the backdoor amnesty deal put in place, I did assume, apparently not logically, that he was talking about the Dream Act (and wasn't the only one). What was he talking about? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 When he refereed to the backdoor amnesty deal put in place, I did assume, apparently not logically, that he was talking about the Dream Act (and wasn't the only one). What was he talking about? 1) No way we will ever be able to catch and deport everyone that is here illegally. It is impossible and for anyone to say that we should "at least try" is peeing on a forest fire. The reality, is that this administration is making it harder on us to even prosecute the criminal aliens that our "leaders" are saying we are focusing on. Even when we hook up the visa violators (students out of status like the 9-11 hijackers etc.) considered SIAs (Significant Interest Aliens, usually indicated by country of origin), the immigration judges (IJs) are letting them walk right out the back door. As fast as my guys can find them and catch them, the IJs are letting them walk with low to no bonds. I can't think of one that we put into proceedings in the last year and a half that was actually deported. And these are REALLY people we don't want here! As long as the administration is controlling the policy and direction of the CIS (Citizenship and Immigration Services) portion of Homeland Security, it doesn't matter how many we hook up. Unless we get a target that has a prior deportation and an aggravated felony conviction or is in criminal violation of some other federal law so we can get the criminal attorneys (USAO) to take it (the guidelines for cases they will accept has gotten more difficult on us as well at the direction of the administration), there is a better than even chance they are going to walk out the back door. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 When he refereed to the backdoor amnesty deal put in place, I did assume, apparently not logically, that he was talking about the Dream Act (and wasn't the only one). What was he talking about? Um, why don't you just read what he wrote? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 Um, why don't you just read what he wrote? I have work to do and McBoog's editor isn't here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 (edited) don't you think someone who works directly in the field for the agency in question might just have a little bit better understanding what's going on than you do? Did you seriously just say that? Can we count on you taking your own advice to heart from here on out? Edited July 19, 2011 by bushwacked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 (edited) Um, why don't you just read what he wrote? I kind of walked away with the impression that the whole thing is completely and utterly fracked - but I didn't get the impression that the rant did not include the falcified executive order kicking off the dream act. I am against the dream act and would be all for 360 nerds running chain guns on a southern (and northern) boarders via their xbox controller (so long as we put up some signs letting folk know what is likely to come their way if they try to get into our country illigally). eta: damnable fingers. Edited July 19, 2011 by Duchess Jack Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 but don't you think someone who works directly in the field for the agency in question might just have a little bit better understanding what's going on than you do? You mean like wiegie for economics? :stirspot: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 You mean like wiegie for economics? economics, last I checked, is not a federal agency. this is a question about what is or is not happening in the BICE. you have an ICE field agent saying "this is what is happening", and bushwacked telling him he is wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 If McBoog is wrong about Obama passing an executive order version of the Dream Act, then he must be wrong about EVERYTHING, right? Not necessarily but it is interesting to note that, per year, I believe the Obama administration has deported more illegals than the Bush administration. Or, more correctly, during the periods of each administration as opposed to them personally. Don't know why that would be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 economics, last I checked, is not a federal agency. It certainly isn't a federal competency. These clowns and their debt limit posturing are beginning to get me very worried. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 It certainly isn't a federal competency. amen to that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 (edited) seems like what mcboog wrote is completely consistent with the memo instructing agents and prosecutors on which cases to pass over. you may find mcboog tiresome and longwinded, but don't you think someone who works directly in the field for the agency in question might just have a little bit better understanding what's going on than you do? Clearly he does not since he thinks he's carrying out some executive order that doesn't exist. Not to mention that what McBoog wrote totally stands alone from the Dream Act issue. But instead of reading it and responding to it, Bushy just wants to lump it all in with the Dream Act issue so he can be lazy and not have to say why he thinks McBoog is wrong. If McBoog is wrong about Obama passing an executive order version of the Dream Act, then he must be wrong about EVERYTHING, right? After buing into peep's BS hook, line and sinker, you are going to lecture the rest of us on how to read? Can one of you please outline what you believe to be false in McBoog's post? It will be easier for me to comprehend if you use this format: 1. Lie #1 2. Lie #2 etc.... TIA. Better yet, explain to the rest of us what is wrong with the manner in which INS has prioritized it's business. I don't advocate across the board spending cuts at the same time advocating a tax cut for Bill Gates so for me, if INS has to do more with less, their memo seems reasonable. But mainly, I can't believe you three are still trying to justify this thread. Look at the chivesing title of the thread - it is still wrong and you all are trying to "raise" the level of debate? Try and get it right first. Edited July 19, 2011 by Clubfoothead Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 Clearly he does not since he thinks he's carrying out some executive order that doesn't exist. it's not an "executive order", they are guidelines on prosecution and enforcement from the political appointee head of his agency telling him and other agents to ignore certain types of deportation cases and they do exist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 blah blah blah blah blah blah blah Executive order what? Your inability to admit you are full of $hit is rather disappointing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 Clearly he does not since he thinks he's carrying out some executive order that doesn't exist. After buing into peep's BS hook, line and sinker, you are going to lecture the rest of us on how to read? Better yet, explain to the rest of us what is wrong with the manner in which INS has prioritized it's business. I don't advocate across the board spending cuts at the same time advocating a tax cut for Bill Gates so for me, if INS has to do more with less, their memo seems reasonable. But mainly, I can't believe you three are still trying to justify this thread. Look at the chivesing title of the thread - it is still wrong and you all are trying to "raise" the level of debate? Try and get it right first. I'm not, never have and will not try and justify the original topic of this thread. It is apparent that the Dream Act was not executed via executive order. The current conversation, this tangent, if you will, is in regard to what McBoog posted and we are merely arguing the fact that you have misinterpreted what he is saying. With regard to the dream act, I am not in favor of it and will never be in favor of it. But, again, that is not what this thread is about. So, if we are merely arguing about the original intent of this thread, well, then we should just go ahead and shut it down because it is apparent that the Dream Act was not ratified via executive order. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 I have work to do and McBoog's editor isn't here. [McBoog's] You long-haired Obama suckling hippie. [/Editor] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peepinmofo Posted July 19, 2011 Author Share Posted July 19, 2011 Clearly he does not since he thinks he's carrying out some executive order that doesn't exist. After buing into peep's BS hook, line and sinker, you are going to lecture the rest of us on how to read? Better yet, explain to the rest of us what is wrong with the manner in which INS has prioritized it's business. I don't advocate across the board spending cuts at the same time advocating a tax cut for Bill Gates so for me, if INS has to do more with less, their memo seems reasonable. But mainly, I can't believe you three are still trying to justify this thread. Look at the chivesing title of the thread - it is still wrong and you all are trying to "raise" the level of debate? Try and get it right first. Stop being such a dou(he (I know, its hard for you to do that). I saw something that caught my eye. I then posted it here. Dont make it sound like I was fabricating something to get people to go gaga over it. Are you insinuating that there is no such thing as the DREAM Act? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 The current conversation, this tangent, if you will, is in regard to what McBoog posted and we are merely arguing the fact that you have misinterpreted what he is saying. See I don't advocate 20% across-the-board spending cuts to ward off some imaginary deficit problem while keeping tax breaks for the richest in-place. You can't advocate speding cuts then whine like a baby that you don't like the way INS is prioritizing things. When you actually read the memo (remember I actually did), it seems reasonable - deport the criminals before looking to deport the wife of some guy dodging RPG fire in Kabul. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 See I don't advocate 20% across-the-board spending cuts to ward off some imaginary deficit problem while keeping tax breaks for the richest in-place. You can't advocate speding cuts then whine like a baby that you don't like the way INS is prioritizing things. When you actually read the memo (remember I actually did), it seems reasonable - deport the criminals before looking to deport the wife of some guy dodging RPG fire in Kabul. I can't believe you three are still trying to justify this thread. Look at the fu(king title of the thread - it is still wrong and you all are trying to "raise" the level of debate? Try and get it right first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 [McBoog's] You long-haired Obama suckling hippie. [/Editor] That's something I can take the time to read. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 I can't believe you three are still trying to justify this thread. Look at the fu(king title of the thread - it is still wrong and you all are trying to "raise" the level of debate? Try and get it right first. I've never claimed to raise the level of any debate. The fact that I am involved in the debate most likely diminishes its level. My last comment was limited to the content of the field memo. I don't disagree with how it prioritizes the handling of deportation cases in a time of reduced budgets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.