O’Keefe’s Latest
Remember James O’Keefe? The journalist who nailed ANSWER ACORN?
Well, he’s at it again. And this one is just about as good.
Here ya go. It’s rather eye-opening.
One last parting thought. From the linked article:
In a 2011 speech at the border, President Obama claimed that his policies had ‘strengthened border security beyond what many thought possible.’
‘The fence is now basically complete,’ the president claimed.
Really? Well, if that’s the case – looks like someone’s got some ‘splainin’ to do . . . .
Category: "Your Tax Dollars At Work", Illegal Immigrants
I just saw this over at Drudge … the video is very funny and sad all at the same time!
I have always despised the term “basically” as a qualification for damn near any statement. It is a lawyer’s word and it is one of the first and most frequently used qualification by law school students. As for OBL, basically, he’s dead.
+1. I hate it when folks use “obviously” in a similar way.
In a 2011 speech at the border, President Obama claimed that his policies had ‘strengthened border security beyond what many thought possible.’
Yep – those nasty Canadians don’t stand a chance when they try to cross the border…
Didn’t he expose ACORN? Not familiar with ANSWER…
Good catch – brain cramp on my part. Fixed now.
FWIW, GDContractor: this is ANSWER. IMO they seem to be a somewhat less-overtly- union-thuggish manifestation of the same type of idiocy as ACORN, possibly more akin to the “Occupy” movements. But they are a separate and distinct organization.
Damn Hondo. I had never heard of them. They’ve been protesting war and imperialism for almost 13 years? Must be doing a pretty shitty job of it.
ANSWER is the operational arm of the American Communist Party.
The purpose of ANSWER is to mobilize mass demonstrations against whatever target is selected for whatever reason that target gets selected. ANSWER is known to be able to put upwards of 100k “demonstrators” into the streets at any given time. Funds donated to ANSWER pay for those “demonstrators”.
latest fox news poll 27% want the children deported 70% don’t. Not in poll but if asked most of 70% would want republican tea bagger racists deported “but who would take them maybe isis if they converted.
Hey, everyone – drivel-boi is back, drooling on the keyboard again.
Any bets on how many comments he this time before his keyboard shorts out again (from the drool) and quits working ?
VWP, you might want to try harder when it comes to your lies, dumbass. Your stupidity knows no bounds. It amazes me that you’ve been able to stay alive as long as you have. Well, sooner of later Darwin will rear his ugly head and all will be right in the world.
First off, you need to get a new line…
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/24/fox-news-poll-border-crisis-divides-voters/
“Perhaps the most pressing question is what to do with the children. Forty-five percent of voters think the children should be treated as illegal immigrants and deported immediately. Yet almost as many — 40 percent — see them as refugees fleeing a humanitarian crisis and feel they should be allowed to stay in the U.S.”
Last time I checked, 45% does not equal 27% and 40% does not equal 70%. Then again, I don’t know that new common core math stuff.
Perhaps I could ask that you cite your sources, but because your “poll” hasn’t changed for the past month (must be a first in the nation) I am guessing that your sources fall somewhere between Jack and Shit… and Jack just left town.
This was poll shown on o’reilly fox not news but republican propaganda network and o’reilly was very upset with it.
VWP, are you by chance a service monkey? Just curious.
I’ll wave the bullshit flag on that one without a link to video being provided.
Why?
Because we are all pretty sure your dumbass:
A) Has never actually watched FNC
and
B) Would burst into flames if you did.
Besides, FNC is nowhere near as “conservative” or “RNC Propaganda” as liberals (and FNC) would have people believe, and that goes double for the gun-grabber O’Schmucky.
Okay, now you need to make up your mind. Is it Republican propaganda or is it a true poll?
Also, how is a poll shown on Fox News not as accurate or more accurate than a poll shown on Fox News? Before you overheat your brain, that is a rhetorical question. I have cited the source of my poll, so put up or shut up.
Oh, and saying “O’Reilly” isn’t citing a source, it’s name dropping… and not a very effective name drop, either.
Here’s a poll for you drooler boi. 100% of people who have met you want you to fuck yourself with a rusty chainsaw.
VWP,
Here is a poll:
Of the those who responded to the survey in the “me, myself and I category” with respects to anything YOU say, 100 % checked the KMRIA box!
And from a poll taken at TAH, 100% of respondents think you’re a fucking dumbass, dumbass!
Only a fuckstick like you would equate the right wing of our country to ISIS. How many Democrats have we beheaded, stoned to death or raped?
Next question – How many black republicans have been called Uncle Tom’s, race trators and house n***gers by the Democrats?
Yeah, real fucking party of tollerance there VWP. Now go fuck yourself with a rusty can.
Ignoring the ‘fence’ aspect itself, it’s entirely possible that border security has been markedly improved. Crossing the Rio Grande is easy – people who aren’t familiar with it envision a giant flowing river, but there are plenty of parts that are small streams you can simply wade across.
That’s only the first step, though – after that come various patrols, checkpoints (on the roads), and presumably overhead surveillance via the blimps and UAVs in the area.
Not excusing the lack of border control, but just because someone wades across a tiny stretch of the Rio Grande doesn’t mean they’ve defeated all the border security in the area. Think of the border as a region, not a line.
(Again, I’m all FOR more border security… but this is more theatre than scare in my opinion.)
They get picked up by the BP, detained for a while, issued a court summons for a deportation hearing and released. All they have to do is make it across the Rio not-so Grande and we’ll do the rest.
Yep. Essentially de facto the same treatment now as a “dry foot” Cuban immigrant today.
Except that particular difference for Cuban immigrants is spelled out in Federal law. Federal law is being ignored in doing that for everyone else.
Yes, this was a stunt. So was the POTUS’s claim that he had ‘strengthened border security beyond what many thought possible.’
You don’t increase border security by first refusing to enforce existing laws, then removing those responsible for border security from their duties.
I absolutely agree that the President saying that is a ‘stunt’. Most things said in press conferences are stunts. And, in a technical sense, saying it was ‘strengthened beyond what many thought possible’ is just ridiculous — we can all think up plenty of ways it could be much stronger, I’m sure.
I do view the strength of the border security and the enforcement of the laws as slightly different beasts, though. I’ll clarify that I DON’T KNOW whether border protections (be they manpower, technical assets, obstructions, whatever) have improved, but unless you have data showing they’ve stayed static or gotten worse, … well, he could be correct in saying they’ve improved. How you chart that versus increased attempts and people is a whole other issue. In short, give me data, not anti-Obama screeds, and I’d be a lot happier.
(Not you personally – anyone. I’ll look it up myself some day when I get the chance.)
31° 7’14.89″N, 105°39’47.41″W
Plug those coords into Google Earth. Tells you all you need to know about how secure our border isn’t.
That’s interesting. I wonder what those military transport vehicles are doing just south of the border. Also, why are they so close to Highway 10?
Country Singer, they are probably just tourists who got lost. I mean, you don’t think that people could be illegally crossing the border, do you? The White House said that the people coming across the border were law-abiding. If they crossed illegally, they wouldn’t really be abiding by any laws, would they?
I plug those coords into Google Maps and it tells me it is on the “Rio Bravo” instead of the “Rio Grande” river. Wikipedia tells me about “The Mexican-American War” instead of “The Mexican War”. I’m sure there are more PC examples. Game over.
GDContractor: when Google maps displays a location, I believe it also defaults to local names/language for locations (it may also display some English). Take a look at places in Thailand or Korea. (smile)
If the location Country Singer specified is in Mexico (I haven’t checked), using the name “Rio Bravo” would make sense from that perspective. That’s the name by which the Rio Grande is known in Mexico.
That’s a no-go Hondo 🙂
I just told Google Maps to take me to Laredo, TX (as opposed to Nuevo Laredo, its Mexican twin). It did, and it shows the proximate river as being the “Rio Bravo”. Same for Del Rio, TX 78840. It’s a vast left wing PC conspiracy I tell ya (half joking).
“Ignoring the ‘fence’ aspect itself, it’s entirely possible that border security has been markedly improved.” Ah, how clever! It’s freakin genius at work. We don’t stop people at the border. We let them in and maybe nab them in the interior of the country. And IF someone is stopped inside the country, he is asked whether he has ever been convicted of a felony in his native land. And when he says no, he is permitted to remain under Obama’s unilateral version of the Dream Act that failed as legislation. This is brilliant!
Truly, you have a dizzying intellect. I don’t even know where to begin.
You do know that sometimes we put things in place like underground sensors or overhead surveillance so that people might THINK they’re across the border, but we’ve got intercepts enroute? Logistically it’s easier with the (admittedly too few) number of BP officers. For me, and I suspect most people, there’s no tangible difference if someone is picked up 1 millimeter across the border vs. 5 miles inside an uninhabited part of the border. We don’t know whether this would have happened with O’Keefe. I don’t know, and you don’t know.
Also, the process is pretty different from what you say. There are cheery BP guys going around with a clipboard asking a single question then waving them on in, permitting them to stay.
Oh, and O’Keefe is known for distorting things for sensationalist headlines — don’t believe me, he’s a Forbes link regarding some of his ACORN stuff:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/03/08/james-okeefe-pays-100000-to-acorn-employee-he-smeared-conservative-media-yawns/
I also wonder if BP did notice his stunt,… but given the presence of camera men and presumably other logistics, figured it wasn’t, you know, the sorts they’re trained to look out for and focused on actual issues? I’m pretty sure if some asshole donned an Osama bin Laden mask and wandered around Tampa, we wouldn’t deploy DEVGRU or Delta to whisk the guy away. We already killed that bastard, so his ugly mug isn’t exactly going to strike people as utterly terrifying.
All in all,… there’s a lot of hugely mitigating factors to this video, and I’ll take it with a bit of skepticism for the moment. You want agreement, though? Fine, I’m pretty sure we can both agree that we need more people on the border, and better training for them.
“For me, and I suspect most people, there’s no tangible difference if someone is picked up 1 millimeter across the border vs. 5 miles inside an uninhabited part of the border.” Do you know what a border is? Why stop at 5 miles inside? How about 25 or 105? Do you know what tangible means or how to use the word correctly? We are supposed to be a sovereign nation that, by law, has manned borders for the purposes of determining who may enter our country with our permission, pursuant to that law. How about if someone decides that while some portion of your property is uninhabited, he pitches a tent on your land, uses your water, and avails himself of whatever else he may need or want? Is that okay with you? If so, the Obama administration has a job for you.
Yes, and as I explained above, to me a border is a (narrow) region, not a two-dimensional infinitely small line.
And as I also already said, I’m all FOR better protection of that border. Patrolling a large area, with the current resources, is pretty difficult, though, so if having our too-few BP agents a few miles inside the region enables them to cover more ground, ground that’s often monitored via technology, I’m fine with that.
How about we illustrate this – let’s say the actual border is the midpoint of, oh, a giant river. Would you want BP officers to stand on an anchored boat in the middle of that river and prevent people from going 50.000001% of the way across, or would preventing them from reaching the other side be adequate? To me, the latter is probably good enough. To you, Mr. Pedantic, it seems it wouldn’t.
Here’s a “tangible” difference:
-If I am 1 mm South of the border I can shout “credible threat” at the top of my lungs, and at the most, I might get a friendly wave or maybe a “STFU!”.
-If, on the other hand, I am 1mm North of the border and I shout “credible threat”, the professional Border Patrol “cadre” are obligated by law to house me, feed me, clothe me, provide medical care for me, and notify me of my hearing date and location… all at taxpayer expense.
I’m no borderline genius (get it?), but I say we ENFORCE our border and take care of fiscal problems within it versus de-facto importing more of them from 1 mm South.
I was talking about a tangible difference between someone 1mm NORTH of the border and someone 5 mi NORTH of the border. I agree, for legal, economic and security purposes, it’s a whole lot better to stop people from crossing. But a fence isn’t going to stop border crossings, and currently there isn’t the manpower to sit someone at every point. Logistically, if you have BP patrol a route, and then more BP a few miles inland with intercept capability, you can catch more people.
I’m also all for enforcing the border – my point was that with the current resources available for border protection, someone crossing the Rio Grande isn’t terribly surprising. They’ve crossed the start of the border region, but they haven’t crossed the entirety of the border region, which has a fair bit more security to go.
The children our are future. Conservatives are the past. Maybe you will like mrs. clinton better when she wins in 2016.
Cankles ain’t gonna make it to Oval Office. Better throw in with Lieawatha, she’s got a better chance.
And stop channeling Randy Watson: http://youtu.be/KzANAr1V82c?t=48s
You are very much correct. The children are our future. However, what kind of a future are we looking at by overloading classrooms with students that don’t speak any English, forcing students to learn math that make math majors in college scratch their heads, teach them history without any actual historical context or content, force-feed them homosexual propaganda in the form of sex ed before they even hit puberty, and allow every teacher to go off on anti-Republican and anti-Conservative rants in the middle of a class that it isn’t even prevalent to?
children are our future
Thanks to knaves and fools such as yourself that’s likely true-http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/are_there_any_more_like_sharrouf_back_home/
Sorry flagwaver-meant that for dumbass above.
No problem. I was in the military, so I have a thick skin. Not to mention, we’re all bothers and sisters here. If anyone actually takes offense at something, then they apparently were either an only child or never really served.
I watch fox to know what the other side is thinking or not thinking. Sun tzu if you know your enemy and yourself you need not fear the outcome of a hundred battles if you know neither like the conservative you will always lose. That is why mrs. clinton 2016 then our first latina democrat president. Happy days are here again!
I swear, if that imbecile vwpissypot had a brain, it would indeed be dangerous.
Hilary RODHAM Clinton is not Latino, shit for brains vwpolesmoker. RODHAM is her maid4en name. That means it was her last name before she married Bill Clinton. Got that part, moron?
And she’s from Park Ridge, IL, an upper middle class white Caucasian suburb, not from Little Village or Pilsen or any of the other Hispanic enclaves in the Chicago area.
Her father, Hugh Ellsworth Rodham (1911–1993), was of Welsh and English descent; he managed a successful small business in the textile industry. Her mother, Dorothy Emma Howell (1919–2011), was a homemaker of English, Scottish, French Canadian, French, and Welsh descent. No Hispanic genes there, stupid.
Don’t get too close to the fire, vwpissedinyourpants. That meth you’re dragging around in your vest pocket might melt and set your idiot ass on fire.
Harsh. Next you’ll be telling him Bill Clinton isn’t really black and Barney isn’t a real talking dinosaur.
Barney is a T. Rex. He would likely view vwpisspot as anything other than sandwich filler.
PH2, Does not matter anyway. Hispanic or Latino is not a race anyway. Its a culture. Hispanics and Latinos are considered Caucasian. Though many from South America have Indian blood.
Just like Obama trying to obfuscate the truth. He is less than 6% black, mostly white and Arab.
VWPussy is however 100% pedophile as evidenced by his constant fixation on children.
“Sun tzu if you know your enemy and yourself you need not fear the outcome of a hundred battles if you know neither like the conservative you will always lose.”
Funny how a peacenik pussy like you is quoting Sun Tzu. By the way, you don’t even know your own party, you colossal moron. Pant Suit isn’t even gonna win the Dummycrat Primary. Also, your obsession with children is pretty disturbing. Whatever you do on your own time is your business, but TAH is a pedophile free zone. In closing, eat shit and kill yourself.
I reallize despise this little shit which styles itself vwpwhatever. It’s made worse by the fact that it misunderstands and misquotes this author.
The correct quote is:
‘If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.’
– Sun Tzu
You can’t misquote someone and add your own crap to it and pretend it’s the real thing. You’re as phony as your name, shithead. Go play in the traffic.
Why don’t you just go suck-start a 9mm, vwpisspot?
First of all, you’re an idiot. Second of all, you should try reading Sun Tzu before you actually attempt to quote him. Third of all, you should at least get the quote correct if you are planning to quote it, even if you wish to adlib like some eleven year old with his daddy’s newspaper. Finally, you’re an idiot.
“It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.”
Because of President 0bama and his policies, the chances of a Democrat being elected are slim to none. Unfortunately, this trend may also carry over to any minority candidate that might wish to run. It’s not necessarily because of racism, but because of trending thought. It’s the same reason that a Democrat has a better chance of being elected after a reportedly bad Republican. Not because the next guy is better, but the trending thought is that the next Republican will make the same mistakes as the last.
Hillary Clinton doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of being President. First, people will immediately be reminded of the difficulties with the last Clinton in the White House. Second, she has made too many political faux pas. The worst of these missteps, of course, was during the Bengazi debacle.
As for the chances of a female Hispanic Democrat President… I am unsure what gender or race has to do with who will best run the country. Do you believe that women are different from men in their ability to lead? Do you feel that one race or another is superior to others? If so, perhaps you should seek to correct your problems before you compound them further.
Concur on the idiot, but question whether you’re correct on Clinton’s chances. Despite my liberal leanings, I have no love for Mrs. Clinton but I still think she has a fairly decent chance at winning an election. Quantifying ‘decent’ at this point is difficult because we’re so far out, but let’s put it in the 40-60% chance now as a random guess? Pretty far from the proverbial snowball’s chance in hell numbers.
Maybe it USED to be people looked at the party currently in office and chose the opposite, but these days the polarized lines are drawn fairly strongly already. It’s mostly about who doesn’t say asinine things and who gets out the vote. And for every bad thing about former President Clinton that Republicans loathe, there are things that Democrats love. And the economy did pretty well during his time. Not because of him, but correlation works decently well when causation is hard to see.
That’s how I see it, anyway.
While I would normally agree with you about Mrs. Clinton’s chances, there are other factors at play. 0bama has withdrawn his support from her and thrown it behind Biden. At the same time, he has begun to throw a smear campaign against Mrs. Clinton. While this doesn’t mean much for the majority of voting America, 0bama still has some sycophants that will run with it. She also isn’t making many friends with the pro-woman crowd because of her stance shifts toward Monica and Bill.
She had a great legacy to run on before 0bama came on the scene, to the point that many authors named her as president because nobody gave the freshman senator from Chicago a second thought. Since that time, her credibility has been waning and is approaching morbidity.
Unless the Republicans throw up the most braid-dead moron their party has (calling Rand Paul), they are almost guaranteed to win against a Clinton ticket. Otherwise, depending on party politics, we might even see a third party candidate with a legitimate shot at the White House. Then, we can suffer through moron-moaning from both sides of the aisle.