It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Vt. farmer draws a line at US bid to bolster border..UPDATED

page: 3
42
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2010 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 

"No one has tried to explain to me how an illegal immigrant working in a field is more dangerous than a potential terrorists crossing that spot with a briefcase nuke. I'd be interested to hear that."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


Once again, you are the one being racist...and it's sad, whether or not you
are brown, white, green or purple......

It is about numbers. If you have for example 14,000 + illegals crossing over the Texas/Mexico border in a month, do you not believe that in those 14,000+ people that the chances are higher that one of them could be carrying a nuke in a container??? versus say 14,000 people crossing at this US/Canada border in one year? Once again, you are not thinking logically.

Or is that scenaro not possible because they are brown people coming from Latin America and are all farmers?

Who is making belittling and racist comments now?









[edit on 17-5-2010 by manta78]

[edit on 17-5-2010 by manta78]




posted on May, 17 2010 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by manta78
 



Once again, you are being racist...and it's sad, whether or not you
are brown, white, green or purple......


Exactly which group of people am I beign "racist" towards?


It is about numbers. If you have for example 14,000 + illegals crossing over the Texas/Mexico border in a month, do you not believe that in those 14,000+ people that the chances are higher that one of them could be carrying a nuke in their briefcase??? versus say 14,000 people crossing in one year? Once again, you are not thinking logically.


Logic huh...ok...here is some logic for you.

If I want to get a briefcase nuke in and my target is New York City (which is a favorite target...wouldn't you agree?). I would look at a few things.

1. Chances of getting CAUGHT crossing the border.

2. Distance I have to travel to get to my target (more chances of getting caught).

Currently...where do I have a better chance of getting caught? On the sourthern border where they have a lot of border patrol, UAVs, helicopters, cameras and citizen groups watching the border. Or on the northern border where no one is watching?

It doesn't matter how many cross...it matters how many are caught. The percentage is higher on the southern border...so I would cross at the northern border.

And then would I rather travel 400 miles to my traget after crossing (around 6-7 hour trip) or 2000 miles which will take me a day or two?

Is that enough logic for you?


Who is making belitting and racist comments now?


Again...who am I being "racist" too...who am I having a preconcieved negative judgement about based on the color of their skin???



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 01:16 PM
link   
"Again...who am I being "racist" too...who am I having a preconcieved negative judgement about based on the color of their skin???"
------------------------------------------------------
Ok, about here:

"This only confirms what many of us already think...it isn't about "border security"...it is about brown people."

and here:


"Do you honestly not see the open hatred and racism towards "illegal immigrants" (aka brown people) on ATS lately??? Things like this just prove that the BS they are spouting about "we need to control all borders" is in fact just BS. They don't care about "border security"...only stopping brown skinned people from coming in."

and here:


"He obviously has an issue with the brown people from Mexico."

and here:

"What I understand from your post is that your main goal for "border security" is to keep out "brown people".



and here:

"You say race bait...I say calling it as I see it. It would only offend you if it is true...right?"

"You can be "brown and still be "racist" towards other "browns". Hispanics are notorious for that. Let me guess...you are not from Mexico...right? Doesn't really matter...because even within Mexicans there is "racism" towards certain groups."

Are all examples you posted in response to various comments made on this thread.

Using the race card is a racist act in itself. How about dealing with
the real issues about what the problems are with our borders, and how can they be resolved.






[edit on 17-5-2010 by manta78]



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by manta78
 


To some tackling border priorities where they are needed the most is an act of racism. These people do not think with their minds but only bellow the bigot hatred they have grown accustomed to.

Vermont to be recognized as danger zone or a hot spot is ludicrous. This administration looks like a fool everyday whenever they believe they are trying to protect this nation.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by manta78
 



Are all examples you posted in response to various comments made
here.


Yes...all responses to INDIVIDUALS...not directed towards one specific race.

Do you understand what racism is??? I'm not sure you do.

See I base my opinion or judgement of someone based on their INDIVIDUAL comments/actions.

A racists base their opinion or judgement of someone based on THEIR RACE.

So please...just tell me what group of people am I being racists to???


Using the race card is a racist act in itself.




That's funny...can you explain the "logic" to me behind that?

If someone on here displays a racist attitude toward one group of people over many different posts...I'm calling that person a racist.

It's not "using the race card"...it is calling a spade a spade. If they don't like being called a racist...then maybe they should stop acting racist.

So please tell me when I "use the race card" (which isn't what is happening...but whatever)...which group of people am I being "racisit" to???

[edit on 17-5-2010 by OutKast Searcher]



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by prionace glauca
 


I thought you were for border security?

But only on the southern border...right???


This only confirms what many of us already think...it isn't about "border security"...it is about brown people.

If you want border security and walls built everywhere...then be prepared for the governemnt to be doing this all along the northern and southern border.


This is a silly race bait. they need to start on the Southern border because that is the biggest threat. More people are killed by illegal mexicans than illegal canadians. to argue otherwise is stupid.

On the OP....Texans have big ego's. We all know that. But most Texans will tell you not to screw with a New Englander. That is a tough bunch of people up there.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by prionace glauca
reply to post by manta78
 


To some tackling border priorities where they are needed the most is an act of racism. These people do not think with their minds but only bellow the bigot hatred they have grown accustomed to.

Vermont to be recognized as danger zone or a hot spot is ludicrous. This administration looks like a fool everyday whenever they believe they are trying to protect this nation.



It is the same idiocy as searching old ladies at the airports, while letting obviously Arab people to walk through unabated.

Sure, it is politically correct. But it is also stupid. Very stupid.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by prionace glauca
 



These people do not think with their minds but only bellow the bigot hatred they have grown accustomed to.


Exactly what "bigot hatred" am I bellowing?

You do know the definition of bigot...right?


Vermont to be recognized as danger zone or a hot spot is ludicrous.


And I assume you are privy to all the intel they have access to that made them come to this conclusion and you have analyzed it and have determined that it is 100% definately not a weak spot that terrorists may target....right?

Could you share that intel with all of us...and maybe you analysis of it that shows that it is definately not a weak spot???

Because you must have all that intel to make such a bold claim...OR the other option is that you are just making claims out of your ass with no proof or backing at all.

I'm going to go with option 2.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


Hey OutKast, did you ever stop and think, that the government is doing this all bass ackwards? First of all, I would think that they would want to deal with the worst spots first, then, work on those areas that may be a problem in the future. I believe that this is the reason for the debate. The government doesn`t seem to be worried about the real bad areas on the southern border, but yet, they want to look at an area in of all places, Vermont? I would want to see the photos taken of people crossing the border in that area compared to those taken at the southern borders, before I would fall in line with what the government says. Oh, one question, as for the race card. What has race to do with it? It`s a fact, that it`s the number of people crossing the southern border that`s the problem, compared to those crossing the northern border, not the color of their skin. So please, enough of the race card playing.



[edit on 17-5-2010 by FiatLux]



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 



This is a silly race bait. they need to start on the Southern border because that is the biggest threat. More people are killed by illegal mexicans than illegal canadians. to argue otherwise is stupid.


No one is arguing that.

If you read the article their reason for doing this is that it is a potential weak spot where terrorists could sneak in dangerous material.

What is more of a threat to national security...illegal immigrants where the majority are coming to work and then you have a small percentage that have killed an American citizen.

Or the possibility of a terrorists bringing in a briefcase nuke and in 6 hours being in New York City???



I have no problem with the governemtn securing either border...my problem is with those that spout off about all this being about "border security"...and then complain when they are trying to plug a hole in a location they deemed a weak spot....just because it is on the northern border and not the southern border.

To me...this just diplays that their true intentions aren't "border security"...it is just "keep out the brown people".

Call it a "race bait" if you want...but nothing I said is untrue.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by FiatLux
 



First of all, I would think that they would want to deal with the worst spots first, then, work on those areas that may be a problem in the future.


Ah...you must be privy to the that intel as well that shows where the most dangerous spots are...right?


Again...the government can multitask...just because they are doing this in Vermont doesn't mean they can't do something on the southern border as well.

So what would be the logic in NOT plugging a hole that they see as a weak spot?

You ever hear of the phrase "low hanging fruit"...this is a quick one to fix for them...I don't understand why anyone of you who support "border security" would be against this.

It is all very funny to me.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


It's like this youngster. We don't want people coming from north or south ilegally, but at the same time we want to have the serious situation handled first(the southern borders) and then afterwards we'll handle the less serious situation( the northern borders). I don't see one post here, where pople are talking about hating "brown people", but what I did see, was someone post this and you didn't even respond to it:::

The last I heard, these aren't Norwegians, Swiss, Irish, French,
German, Finnish or Scottish people coming across the southern border.
Those folks have figured out how to get into the US "LEGALLY".
And they haven't come here demanding anything. They even learned
English if they didn't already speak it. And they don't fly the French or
German flag and rub it in our face like these "brown people" do.

You guessed it, it is "brown" people from Mexico who are criminally
breaking the law, not our friends from Deer Creek, Alberta, etc.

See one other thing, is if I were to be an illegal immingrant in Mexico, I wouldn't be on their welfare or enjoying their colleges, but I would probably be in jail or deported back to the states, so what is wrong with us doing that to them?

Also, you're missing the main point, it's not about color, it's about the people's home and the Fed's trying to take it from them. BTW, you don't know who's talkin tough on the internet and who pops guns off for a living so don't pretend you do. As far as shootin guns go, if people were on my land like that trying to take it, I wouldn't have to kill anyone, just keep shootin that gun at people(not hitting them) and no one will do anything to my house and I didn't have to kill anyone..



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by prionace glauca
 



The people of the southern border have already given the government land, how do u think they were able to build a fence in the first place?



I didn't ask if they have or not already. I am asking if you support the government seizing land from American citizens to secure the southern border.

There were plenty of lawsuits about this very topic when they were building the "fence" (joke).


I'm just curious if you support the government seizing property on the southern border because you seem very against them doing it on the northern border.


I am 10000% against the government seizing privately owned property from citizens to "protect the southern border" However, I am 1000% for those people who own property on the southern border to protect their property however they see fit when someone trespasses.

The government should not be seizing private property at all. But they certainly shouldnt be taking property in locations that are NOT even a a threat. Give me a flippn break. I traveled to the lower 48 from Alaska and saw the most remote areas along the border of Canada and US - and yet they want to seize this farmer's private property? Go flippn do it along the Yukon/BC borders on FEDERAL land were it is MUCH MUCH MUCH easier to cross illegal and NOBODY would ever see you. But nope. They have to focus in on a measly 4 acres of privately owned property.

What a load of crap.

Let the farmer defend HIS OWN LAND from those who chose to trespass upon it!

[edit on May 17th 2010 by greeneyedleo]



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
It is the same idiocy as searching old ladies at the airports, while letting obviously Arab people to walk through unabated.

Sure, it is politically correct. But it is also stupid. Very stupid.


I am in total agreement. The political correctness has gotten us no where. What is more idiotic that, we as a nation know where the problem is, We as a nation support Arizona's handling of the situation, and yet the administration still tip toes up North. Even with the surge in violence just a couple hundred feet from our southern borders, this administration is ready to take someone's farm in the name of straightening the borders.


Just can not wait for these idiots to voted out if America is left by the time the POTUS elections come around.

[edit on 17-5-2010 by prionace glauca]



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by prionace glauca
 


I said "legitimate" attacks. There are many questions surrounding those "terrorists" as well as many others. The best way that I can put it is like this. We are spending trillions of dollars to stop terrorists who can't even make a proper bomb? It makes no sense.

I have no idea of how well you are educated on terrorism, so I will offer to you America:Freedom to Fascism. It explains that we are fighting a boogeyman created by the elites.

All of these "terrorist attacks" that never come to fruition are ways to scare people into giving up their freedom. Is there a possibility of a real terrorist? Sure.
I lean towards CIA assets that have been used to destabilize countries for decades. Anyone with half a brain can build a bomb and do it quietly. So, yes these are attacks, but are they "legitimate" attempts of a terrorist attack? I don't believe they are.

[edit on 17-5-2010 by TheRoadLessTraveled]



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


How is an illegal immigrant more important than a potential terrorist. Hmm, let me see.
Santa Claus
the Easter Bunny
Al Quaeda
Illegal Immigrant

Which of these is not a fictional character?



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 



So what would be the logic in NOT plugging a hole that they see as a weak spot?


If it's a weak spot then by all means go ahead and plug it. Since it is such an unused port the best way to do that would be to close it down all together, instead of stealing this family's land.

In answer to one of your previous questions, yes I am against the government stealing property in the the southern border states to secure those borders also. I am opposed to the government stealing anyone's land under any circumstances.

Now from one member to another can you please give it a rest already. You're are severely derailing this thread with your determination to make this about race when it's not. For cripes sake almost a third of this entire thread is nothing but your posts claiming racism, and then because of your relentlessness about another third of it is devoted to people attempting to explain to you that it's not about race for them. There are those of us that wish to discuss the aspects of what this thread is about, not what you wish it to be about. You're wasting board space with your nonsense accusations that have nothing at all to do with this thread. This thread is about the government attempting a land grab under the guise of securing our borders. This family should not have to lose their land, the government can secure the border without their land, and if they can't then they can simply close that port.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 



This is a silly race bait. they need to start on the Southern border because that is the biggest threat. More people are killed by illegal mexicans than illegal canadians. to argue otherwise is stupid.


No one is arguing that.

If you read the article their reason for doing this is that it is a potential weak spot where terrorists could sneak in dangerous material.

What is more of a threat to national security...illegal immigrants where the majority are coming to work and then you have a small percentage that have killed an American citizen.

Or the possibility of a terrorists bringing in a briefcase nuke and in 6 hours being in New York City???



I have no problem with the governemtn securing either border...my problem is with those that spout off about all this being about "border security"...and then complain when they are trying to plug a hole in a location they deemed a weak spot....just because it is on the northern border and not the southern border.

To me...this just diplays that their true intentions aren't "border security"...it is just "keep out the brown people".

Call it a "race bait" if you want...but nothing I said is untrue.


I have no problem considering the Canadian border when we talk about border security. But i live down here on the southern border. there is already crime down here. We are not talking about the potential for crime (as in your suitcase nuke example), but real crime that is costing money and lives.

if you ask me, you address the issue that actually exists first, then you can focus on the issues that might come up later. you have to stop the bleeding before you can even think about the next step.

When you say "small percentage"....this small percentage is actually 100%. They are here illegally, they are breaking the law. That means 100% of them are unlawful. Beyond that, you have i would guess closer to 10-20% that commit crimes, at least in my area, that are worth prosecuting.

In 2008, i had a total of 8 people that i knew murdered by the Cartel (we call them "Mafia" down here, as that is the gang that runs stuff) in my small town of 25k people. Of those 8, 7 were innocent women, children, and 1 unborn child. Add to this another 3 killed by LEO. There was a turf war going on in my town between the Latin Kings (supported by the Mafia) and the local drug family/sherrifs office (they own the LEO's...one even lives next door to them).

There is real violence going on down here. Come visit me for a week. See what is happening. Then make an opinion about the motivations of the people who want to see tighter southern border security.

BTW, my wife is hispanic. Dark skin, dark hair, sexy as hell. Her mom, dad, brothers, sisters, and hundreds of cousins are all hispanic, too. They agree that the "mojado's" need to get in line and do it the right way. They want the border closed, too.

I know it is hard for some people to come to terms with. But to us down here on the border, this isn't about race. This is about staying alive, and not having to kill another person because the government allowed them into our country by not enforcing the border, and then they tried to commit a violent crime against us.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher



Ah...you must be privy to the that intel as well that shows where the most dangerous spots are...right?


And you are privy, right? How many news reports do you see that shows groups of people crossing the northern border like they are doing down south? This is what you turn to when you can`t play the race card? Not everyone is going to fall for your crap.



Again...the government can multitask...just because they are doing this in Vermont doesn't mean they can't do something on the southern border as well.


Yea, but that wouldn`t be bad, IF, they were doing that at both borders, which their not. If they were, you wouldn`t see groups of people crossing the southern border, now would you? Ever watch the video`s of them doing this on the news? The government multitasking is like a person who can`t walk and chew gum at the same time. They always fall flat on their faces when they do it.


So what would be the logic in NOT plugging a hole that they see as a weak spot?


Uh, maybe plugging the holes in the southern border also? Have they done this? No, as many thousand can see.


You ever hear of the phrase "low hanging fruit"...this is a quick one to fix for them...I don't understand why anyone of you who support "border security" would be against this.


Wow, such logic. Ok, I`ll try and see it your way.(one moment, while I become a contortionist) Ok, yes, I do see it you way, but I still don`t understand, that if this is working, why are there so many still able to cross the southern border? And yes, that is even looking at it from your view.


It is all very funny to me.


I don`t find it funny at all. The ONLY thing I find funny, is the fact that the government is even working it in this way, and not making sure the first part is EVEN working at all.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 02:32 PM
link   
The farmer only gets 40 grand out of an 8 million budget? If Homeland Security is going to be that thrifty, shouldn't they just build a decent carport next to a trailer they've dragged to the side of the road?



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join