Was your mother a prostitue ???
Michael
Glenn Greenstein
> Good question ???
I give Dez all the credit in the world for not punching him out.
MZ
> Good question ???
Goodell loves throwing punishment around. Is there a fine in Ireland's
future?
Michael
if dez got physical, he would have blown his first round status. you
know how the media would have played it. "troubled college nfl draft
prospect dez bryant attacks dolphin's gm"
Michael
this one is gonna be interesting... how can it be determined that
ireland was out of line ??? after all.. what did old bill parcells
say ??? what do you get when you squeez and orange. you could make a
case that it was a legit tactic to see how a questionable guy will act
when provoked.
Johnctx
After 800 years of oppression by England hasn't Ireland suffered enough?
Oh, never mind.....
Michael
The current Commish is Goodell not Cromwell
Tutor
> Good question ???
Ireland was just trying to find out if Dez had anything in common with
the large majority of Dolphin fans.
Johnctx
You are only a prostitute if you are paid.
Harlan Lachman
<9a53075d-cb54-419d...@v37g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,
Michael <mjd...@verizon.net> wrote:
Michael, if Goodell is not a complete idiot it is easy.
He can compare this question to the HR policies of any major
organization or company. It would not be allowed.
More importantly, I thought the Fish were planning to draft Dez himself,
not his mother. Questions about his Mom or immediate family have no
relevance to an interview.
If his mom were interviewing for a job, there is a way to ask the
question. How is his Mom's drug use, sex life, or business supposed to
influence a grown man?
Give him a personality test if one wants but this was offensive.
And, Ireland deserves a suspension and fine for this or there is truly a
double standard.
harlan
Michael
> In article
> <9a53075d-cb54-419d-ac91-00d3c0924...@v37g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,
ok.... when a coach or player uses profanity at practice or on the
sidelines/field during a game, can Goodell fine them ??? Lots of
people find profanity offensive. What about when Tuna calls Kerry
Glenn "she". Should he be fined ??? What about trash talk on the
field ??? Fine Ray Lewis for trying to intimidate other players ???
MZ
FWIW, Dez wasn't a member of the Miami Dolphins, or the NFL for that matter.
I'm not saying I support a fine, BTW. I just think since the NFL has a
stick up its ass about its "image", it would be consistent to fine him
for this.
Michael
>
> - Show quoted text -
i'd favor a fine if ireland tried to sexually assault dez
papa.carl44
"Harlan Lachman" <har...@eeivt.com> wrote in message
news:harlan-45083D....@news60.forteinc.com...
Dead on...and if somebody in a really decent corporation did this...they
would get fired. Ireland should get the axe. Period.
Ray OHara
"MZ" <ma...@nospam.void> wrote in message
news:3d6dncygBZklfkXW...@giganews.com...
>> ok.... when a coach or player uses profanity at practice or on the
>> sidelines/field during a game, can Goodell fine them ??? Lots of
>> people find profanity offensive. What about when Tuna calls Kerry
>> Glenn "she". Should he be fined ??? What about trash talk on the
>> field ??? Fine Ray Lewis for trying to intimidate other players ???
>
> FWIW, Dez wasn't a member of the Miami Dolphins, or the NFL for that
> matter.
>
> I'm not saying I support a fine, BTW. I just think since the NFL has a
> stick up its ass about its "image", it would be consistent to fine him for
> this.
I doubt there will be any fines.
being ignorant isn't against thr rules.
but I could see the Fish taking action just for PR sake.
and as someone mentioned up thread, Bryant is to be commended for not
twisting the man into a pretzel.
Johnctx
> Dead on...and if somebody in a really decent corporation did this...they
> would get fired. Ireland should get the axe. Period.
Agreed, he is a huge moron. I hope the kid has a great career.
I wonder if teams passed on him hearing he was a "problem" at that
interview. Did this interview cost the guy money?
Remy McSwain
news:9a53075d-cb54-419d...@v37g2000vbv.googlegroups.com,
If that was the case, the GM would've, or at least should've, said
so at the end of the interview. And even then, I think it was
totally out of line. Nah, I think the GM is an idot, plain and
simple.
Remy McSwain
Johnctx
I don't know that. That is why I put it in quotes.
Agents tear down other players they don't represent. I am just
thinking out loud but if Ireland opened his piehole to anyone that thi
skid is bad. He is not only a moron but a bad guy.
Michael
wrote:
> "Harlan Lachman" <har...@eeivt.com> wrote in message
>
> news:harlan-45083D....@news60.forteinc.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ireland is know for being an intelligent and effective manager that
has been a big part in brining the Fish back from basement. There has
never been a single instance of impropriety reported about his
dealings as GM of the Dolphins. Nothing at all off color in his past
either professional or personal. Dez has been reported to be a
distraction, a fool, uneducated, unintelligent, a self important self
aggrandizing distraction of a player that works hard when he feels
like it. This behavior is reported to have been a constant for his
entire college career. Non stop.
Ireland has one questionable moment and you say he should get the
axe. At the same time, the rest of the world sends Dez well wishes
for his career and commends him for not choosing violence.
Consider that Ireland did not ask him something like "Is your mother a
cheap crack whore". May be Ireland had questions about Dez's
character and he wanted to see if Dez had moved on from a very tuff
start in life with balance and dignity. Asking about his Mother's
past including such a hard question as the prostitution thing IMHO is
not off limits nor is it an unfair or question. Remember... The team
that drafts him is paying millions and risking a lot.
Michael
> <9a53075d-cb54-419d-ac91-00d3c0924...@v37g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > On Apr 28, 2:40 pm, MZ <m...@nospam.void> wrote:
> > > Michael wrote:
> > > > Good question ???
>
> > > Goodell loves throwing punishment around. Is there a fine in Ireland's
> > > future?
>
> > this one is gonna be interesting... how can it be determined that
> > ireland was out of line ??? after all.. what did old bill parcells
> > say ??? what do you get when you squeez and orange. you could make a
> > case that it was a legit tactic to see how a questionable guy will act
> > when provoked.
>
> Michael, if Goodell is not a complete idiot it is easy.
>
> He can compare this question to the HR policies of any major
> organization or company. It would not be allowed.
Harlan...
We are talking about football players and the NFL, not Morgan Stanley
and an exec they are interviewing. The expected decorum is a bit
different, no ??? If you bust Ireland using those corporate standards,
than you can beef ANYONE in the NFL for such behavior while on the
job. That means at practice and on the field. Consider the things
that coaches say to players when they are drilling on the field at
practice. Consider the shit talk during a game. If I went to one of
my coworkers now and told him "Hey you mother****R !!!! When I get
back out there I'm gonna kick your F*****G ASS !!!!" I'd say I'd be
in big trouble. If you did that in the NFL, you'd be lauded and get
on the highlights. If Parcells yells at a player at practice "You
piece of chicken shit... He's not a f****ing girl.... Hit Him !!!"
That would make Parcells a tuff and salty coach. If a boss said that
to a guy in a corporate office... He'd be in deep shit. Again... The
NFL is not the corporate world. Dez was not interviewing for an exec
position at Morgan Stanley. No way can you seta precedent to hold the
NFL to those standards. The only ones that would like that are the
lawyers.
MZ
Figures.
Michael
<SNIP>
>Figures.
Can you expand on that ???
Deadmeat
Your mom tell you that?
papa.carl44
"Michael" <mjd...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:e60cdaa5-b1e0-40db...@l32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Learn how to read...I said if he worked for a reputable corporation that
values it's public image he would get fired...and YES...I think he should
get fired if he asked that question. That's just the way I am....I don't
like arrogant assholes.
papa.carl44
Harlan...
Do you realize your double standard is really a "plantation mentality" ?
They are paying him to play football and that has a different set of ethical
standards than if they were going to pay him to be an executive...you can
treat the "player" one way and the "executive caliber" another, and higher
way?
Michael
wrote:
> "Michael" <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote in message
<SNIP>
> Learn how to read...I said if he worked for a reputable corporation that
> values it's public image he would get fired...and YES...I think he should
> get fired if he asked that question. That's just the way I am....I don't
> like arrogant assholes.- Hide quoted text -
The Dolphins are not a reputable organization that values its public
image ??? You are considering that Ireland in an arrogant asshole yet
you did not whiteness the tenor of the interview for yourself ???
Arrogance bothers you, but a self important and self aggrandizing guy
like Dez is reported to be deserves your praise and well wishes ???
You stated in a former post that you would "BE DAMMED" before you
judge and discount a guy like Santonio or another player that commits
questionable acts time and again ??? Such a person as Santonion
deserves a second chance and should get his spot in an NFL team.
We'll understand the game they play and understand that due to
occupational influences, it could help to bring them to violence or
some other questionable act. But Ireland... Quite another story. He
should get the axe huh ??? No mitigating factors. No understand. No
second chances. Just your JUDGMENT that he is an arrogant asshole and
should get the axe. Brilliant.
Michael
wrote:
<SNIP>
> Do you realize your double standard is really a "plantation mentality" ?
> They are paying him to play football and that has a different set of ethical
> standards than if they were going to pay him to be an executive...you can
> treat the "player" one way and the "executive caliber" another, and higher
> way?- Hide quoted text -
As of right now, I'm not convinced the question that Ireland asked was
off base considering the circumstances and the job he was applying
for.
Glenn Greenstein
Oh I know that but still, it was pretty much an insult for him to say
that.
Deadmeat
http://espn.go.com/blog/afceast/post/_/id/13327/wiley-on-ireland-teams-need-to-know
Wiley agrees with you.
Harlan Lachman
"papa.carl44" <papad...@nospamverizon.net> wrote:
I hope this is facetious. I would want anyone treated like a human
being. Questions about one's family have no bearing in an interview.
Questions about how one would respond to hypothetical comments about
one's family are dubious but at least could be construed as relevant.
This was bogus. Ireland should be suspended.
Michael
I dunno, Glenn. I can understand why a GM or coach would want to ask
about stuff like that. Especially if there are questions flying all
over the place about a given prospect's psyche and behavior. If I was
interviewing a guy that had a reputation for being a head case or came
from a broken home I'd wanna delve into it a bit before I handed them
several million dollars and the kets to the city night life. When I
interviewed for a job once uppon a time I was asked what my favorite
beer was and if I did coke or smoked dope. I was not offended and
given there are a lot of wild party types in sales/advertising, I knew
full well that it was in the contect of the world I was in.
Remy McSwain
I know that it's very important for the team to figure out whether
or not a guy in going to be trouble. But you can choose your
friends, but you can't choose your mother. IOW, it's fair game to
ask about the guys friends because it tells a lot about the choices
he makes. But to ask about his mother, or her background?
Another issue in asking about friends is that the question wouldn't
be about any specific person. To ask 'do you have any drug dealing
friends' is not to ask about the behavior of any specific person.
But to ask about the guys mother is to ask him to reveal something
personal about a very specific person.
If that could possibly be of any relevance at all, then the question
should've been whether or not the kid is regularly exposed, either
through family or friends, to inappropriate life circumstances, or
to ask him to explain his life's circumstances. And even if the
kid's mother WERE a prostitute, it seems to me the responsible thing
for the team, and the NFL to do would be to help them both extricate
themselves from that world, and not essentially banish them to it.
It's just a nutty, nutty question on so many levels that they guy
ought to be severely reprimanded. At least he had the balls to
admit his stupidity, and call the kid directly, and then apologies
publicly. I'll give him a little credit against all of his
discredits for at least that much.
MZ
> I dunno, Glenn. I can understand why a GM or coach would want to ask
> about stuff like that. Especially if there are questions flying all
> over the place about a given prospect's psyche and behavior. If I was
> interviewing a guy that had a reputation for being a head case or came
> from a broken home I'd wanna delve into it a bit before I handed them
> several million dollars and the kets to the city night life. When I
> interviewed for a job once uppon a time I was asked what my favorite
> beer was and if I did coke or smoked dope. I was not offended and
> given there are a lot of wild party types in sales/advertising, I knew
> full well that it was in the contect of the world I was in.
You argue just to argue.
Michael
you post here just to post
Ritchie
>
> - Show quoted text -
I agree with you 100% Micheal but I have refrained from commenting
because this just seems to be too touchy of an issue for the posters
here. My view is if I am going to risk paying that much money then I
want to know if there is something in your background or family
background that can come back at me or my organization. Personally I
think he could have asked it a little better but he wanted to see the
kids reaction and I can understand it. I think waaaay too much is
being made of this whole thing and the kid revealed it for attention
and or sympathy. He is a problem athlete and there is a chance that he
will continue it in the NFL, unless he has truly matured. Sometimes
people make too much out of something or are way too sensitive.
Tutor
Is it true that the great thing about South Florida prostitutes is
that they had a South Florida education, so they can't count to see if
you shorted them on their service fees?
Deadmeat
Obviously, you're speaking from experience, so yes, you are right, we're
just lucky that way.
I guess the NY hookers don't have to worry about change when they can
only get two bits. (That means 25 cents in case you didn't know. And
you didn't.)
papa.carl44
<SNIP>
You assume way too much. I did not say I liked Dez Bryant....from what I
have heard via news media he can be a problem. I don't care if it's Charles
Manson being asked. If I don't understand the entire aspect of the
situation I may change my mind. But I do not think that is an appropriate
question to ask anyone you are interviewing for any job. Calm down.
BTW....are you trying to get those of us who correspond with you into an
argument?
papa.carl44
"Remy McSwain" <Paradi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:n6OdnQmNYJuNmkfW...@giganews.com...
Good response. I also agree that Ireland's apology is in order and to his
credit.
I can't help but thinking the core of this issue has ramifications in other
areas of our current culture.
Such as, "Where are you papers?" Even if the individual has lived here for
their entire life.
Remy McSwain
papa.carl44 <papad...@nospamverizon.net> wrote:
> "Remy McSwain" <Paradi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:n6OdnQmNYJuNmkfW...@giganews.com...
> I can't help but thinking the core of this issue has
> ramifications in other areas of our current culture.
>
> Such as, "Where are you papers?" Even if the individual has
> lived here for their entire life.
I don't see much of any connection between the two issues, but you
DO raise an interesting one. I'm really torn between supporting a
national ID card, or opposing it. I agree that to be forced to
produce papers, or be detained for lack of doing so, seems to be an
erosion of our freedoms, and seems to almost invite racial
profiling. OTOH, national security, and illegal immigration are
very real problems that require very real solutions.
My initial response is that we should try other methods to
accomplish these goals first, but whereas we seem to be too chicken
shit to enact any other measures, and this one seems doable by AZ,
maybe they should go for it. I'm still thinking this one through.
Michael
wrote:
> "Remy McSwain" <Paradis70...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:n6OdnQmNYJuNmkfW...@giganews.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Innews:4bd9f7a7$0$14674$c3e...@news.astraweb.com,
> > Deadmeat <no...@home.com> wrote:
> >> On 4/29/2010 12:55 PM, Michael wrote:
> >>> On Apr 29, 12:34 pm,
> >>> "papa.carl44"<papadotc...@nospamverizon.net> wrote:
>
> >>> <SNIP>
>
> >>>> Do you realize your double standard is really a "plantation
> >>>> mentality" ? They are paying him to play football and that has
> >>>> a different set of ethical standards than if they were going
> >>>> to pay him to be an executive...you can treat the "player" one
> >>>> way and the "executive caliber" another, and higher way?- Hide
> >>>> quoted text -
>
> >>> As of right now, I'm not convinced the question that Ireland
> >>> asked was off base considering the circumstances and the job he
> >>> was applying for.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Papa... I thought you wanted Ireland to get shit-canned. If you are
just questioning his tact, that is fair and understandable. While his
tact can be questioned, I can also understand the motive he had. I
don't think this small matter calls for a foaming at the mouth mob out
to separate Ireland from his livelihood. It looked to me that Dez has
caused his first NFL distraction. He presented this whole thing in a
manner that makes me think he's trying to grab attention with little
or no consideration given to those around him. And yes... I'm trying
to start a constructive argument. Most of these threads are. In the
end, I'd have to hear the interview for myself to know for sure. To
me, it looks like Ireland's mistake was not so much his tact. His
mistake here was a mistake in judgment. He was not enough aware of
the guy he was dealing with.
MZ
Figures. Now it's Dez's fault. Bitch deserved it.
Michael
<SNIP>
> > Papa... I thought you wanted Ireland to get shit-canned. If you are
> > just questioning his tact, that is fair and understandable. While his
> > tact can be questioned, I can also understand the motive he had. I
> > don't think this small matter calls for a foaming at the mouth mob out
> > to separate Ireland from his livelihood. It looked to me that Dez has
> > caused his first NFL distraction. He presented this whole thing in a
> > manner that makes me think he's trying to grab attention with little
> > or no consideration given to those around him. And yes... I'm trying
> > to start a constructive argument. Most of these threads are. In the
> > end, I'd have to hear the interview for myself to know for sure. To
> > me, it looks like Ireland's mistake was not so much his tact. His
> > mistake here was a mistake in judgment. He was not enough aware of
> > the guy he was dealing with.
>
> Figures. Now it's Dez's fault. Bitch deserved it.- Hide quoted text -
I don't know if I would say it is his "fault". Still... It follows
the pattern. Dez is not a team guy or a company guy... He appears to
be a "me guy" to the exclusion of considering consequences.
Honestly Mark...How can you know what kind of connection Ireland and
Dez made ??? May be Dez was being candid and Ireland felt Dez was
giving him the latitude to be open about what was on his mind. How
do you know Ireland did not ask Dez in a sympathetic tone... Something
like this... "Dez... When I think about what you've had to overcome to
get here... Growing up without a strong healthy family unit around
you. Not a lot of money. And I understand your mother might have
been involved in drugs and prostitution. Is that true ??? Did you
have to live through that ??? Was your mother a prostitute ???"
You just never know what unwritten agreements and understandings were
reached in that interview. I'm taking Irelands part in this one
because they sent the mob after him with little substance in what was
sure to be an explosive reaction based on two words "mother" and
"prostitute". You had every commentator out there including Golic on
the Mike and Mike show advocating violence. When they say stuff
like... I would not have held it against him if he bent Ireland into a
pretzel... Heck sake... They were not even there and it is a fair
subject to bring up. Also... Ireland has NEVER been reported to be
anything other than a skilled and accomplished professional. I don't
get it. Flippin' media.
Michael
> Innews:OeydnWMh9cibwEfW...@giganews.com,
>
> papa.carl44 <papadotc...@nospamverizon.net> wrote:
> > "Remy McSwain" <Paradis70...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:n6OdnQmNYJuNmkfW...@giganews.com...
> > I can't help but thinking the core of this issue has
> > ramifications in other areas of our current culture.
>
> > Such as, "Where are you papers?" Even if the individual has
> > lived here for their entire life.
>
> I don't see much of any connection between the two issues, but you
> DO raise an interesting one. I'm really torn between supporting a
> national ID card, or opposing it. I agree that to be forced to
> produce papers, or be detained for lack of doing so, seems to be an
> erosion of our freedoms, and seems to almost invite racial
> profiling. OTOH, national security, and illegal immigration are
> very real problems that require very real solutions.
>
> My initial response is that we should try other methods to
> accomplish these goals first, but whereas we seem to be too chicken
> shit to enact any other measures, and this one seems doable by AZ,
> maybe they should go for it. I'm still thinking this one through.
Remy... Whole new ball game with this subject. If a national ID card
was implemented to prevent things like illegal immigration or to
protect against hostile agents from getting into the country, I'd be
all for it. BUT... A national ID card will only be packaged that
way. That will be the bull shit pretext. The real use of such a
security devise will be to keep all of us little surfs in line. If
the people who are really pulling the strings in this day and age
really wanted to close the boarders, it could be done in in short
order and without Gestapo ID cars for the rest of us. It is most
interesting to see which people say that it can be done, and who foams
at the mouth saying that it is impossible. It was done economically
and successfully during WW II. It can be done again. It can be
privatized and create jobs.
MZ
Dez was angry. Ireland admitted wrongdoing. Both parties seem to
agree. Yet you take the opposite stance. Like I said, figures.
MZ
> If
> the people who are really pulling the strings in this day and age
> really wanted to close the boarders, it could be done in in short
> order and without Gestapo ID cars for the rest of us.
We don't have the money for that. To TRULY close the borders would be
one of the greatest expenditures in human history. And even then its
effectiveness would be questionable. Border patrol is probably the most
corrupt department that the federal government oversees, and that's
saying a lot.
Michael
>
> - Show quoted text -
Mark... Dez was angry, but Dez appears to be unstable. Dez might get
angry if you don't use enough superlatives about his skills. Ireland
reacted to what had to be terrifying pressure being all of a sudden
put on him by the media mob. He issued the obligatory response to get
the hot poker pulled out of his ass.
Michael
Mark.... I'm not just saying this to argue or to piss you off But
this time, you are being ignorant. I think you and I have gone over
this boarder crap before. It can be done. It was done before it can
be done again. It needs to be taken out of the hands of the
government. It needs to be privatized. Twenty knuckle heads with
radios, binoculars and cheap wooden towers could work 100 miles of
boarder. It has been proven. The money that you would need to do it
would not be in the least bit problematic. It would create jobs.
MZ
Dez has a history of having his mother called a whore.
MZ
So, can I take the above (the "unstable" part) to mean that you think
that this never took place and that he's making the whole thing up? If
not, care to elaborate how "unstable" fits?
MZ
> On Apr 30, 10:42 am, MZ <m...@nospam.void> wrote:
>> Michael wrote:
>>> If
>>> the people who are really pulling the strings in this day and age
>>> really wanted to close the boarders, it could be done in in short
>>> order and without Gestapo ID cars for the rest of us.
>> We don't have the money for that. To TRULY close the borders would be
>> one of the greatest expenditures in human history. And even then its
>> effectiveness would be questionable. Border patrol is probably the most
>> corrupt department that the federal government oversees, and that's
>> saying a lot.
>
> Mark.... I'm not just saying this to argue or to piss you off But
> this time, you are being ignorant. I think you and I have gone over
> this boarder crap before. It can be done. It was done before it can
> be done again.
When was it done before?
> It needs to be taken out of the hands of the
> government. It needs to be privatized. Twenty knuckle heads with
> radios, binoculars and cheap wooden towers could work 100 miles of
> boarder. It has been proven.
When has it been proven?
> The money that you would need to do it
> would not be in the least bit problematic. It would create jobs.
Spending is not good for the economy. Digging holes and filling them in
is no longer considered a sound theory of economics. "Creating jobs"
through such tactics is what's gotten this country into the fiscal mess
it's in.
Michael
>
> - Show quoted text -
Mark... That is a very interesting tid-bit. How does Dez react to
that ??? Can you get inside his head, break his concentration and take
him out of his game ??? No one is gonna cry foul for Dez if DB's bark
in his face about his mother being a "whore". Would you say that you
would be impressed if you found out Dez worked it out with himself and
was in control and confident ??? Just a thought.
Remy McSwain
news:ec9c3d51-4ab1-4a46...@d12g2000vbr.googlegroups.com,
I guess that either I'm not as suspicious as you about the motives
of the politicians, or I really don't care much about their motives
at all. The bottom line for me is whether or not it would achieve
those results regardless of motivation, and, as of now, I haven't
come to any conclusion about that.
Michael
> Michael wrote:
> > On Apr 30, 10:42 am, MZ <m...@nospam.void> wrote:
> >> Michael wrote:
> >>> If
> >>> the people who are really pulling the strings in this day and age
> >>> really wanted to close the boarders, it could be done in in short
> >>> order and without Gestapo ID cars for the rest of us.
> >> We don't have the money for that. To TRULY close the borders would be
> >> one of the greatest expenditures in human history. And even then its
> >> effectiveness would be questionable. Border patrol is probably the most
> >> corrupt department that the federal government oversees, and that's
> >> saying a lot.
>
> > Mark.... I'm not just saying this to argue or to piss you off But
> > this time, you are being ignorant. I think you and I have gone over
> > this boarder crap before. It can be done. It was done before it can
> > be done again.
>
> When was it done before?
During WW II
> > It needs to be taken out of the hands of the
> > government. It needs to be privatized. Twenty knuckle heads with
> > radios, binoculars and cheap wooden towers could work 100 miles of
> > boarder. It has been proven.
>
> When has it been proven?
TOOOO many times to list. Google the "minute men" and you will find
documented examples of a few people closing down several miles of
boarder for days at a time. And no... This is not an endorcement of
the minue men.
> > The money that you would need to do it
> > would not be in the least bit problematic. It would create jobs.
>
> Spending is not good for the economy. Digging holes and filling them in
> is no longer considered a sound theory of economics. "Creating jobs"
> through such tactics is what's gotten this country into the fiscal mess
> it's in.- Hide quoted text -
No one is suggesting that holes be dug and filled in Chicago style.
Remy McSwain
MZ <ma...@nospam.void> wrote:
> Michael wrote:
>> On Apr 30, 10:42 am, MZ <m...@nospam.void> wrote:
>>> Michael wrote:
>>>> If
>>>> the people who are really pulling the strings in this day and
>>>> age really wanted to close the boarders, it could be done in
>>>> in short order and without Gestapo ID cars for the rest of us.
>>> We don't have the money for that. To TRULY close the borders
>>> would be one of the greatest expenditures in human history. And
>>> even then its effectiveness would be questionable. Border
>>> patrol is probably the most corrupt department that the
>>> federal government oversees, and that's saying a lot.
>>
>> Mark.... I'm not just saying this to argue or to piss you off But
>> this time, you are being ignorant. I think you and I have
>> gone over this boarder crap before. It can be done. It was
>> done before it can be done again.
>
> When was it done before?
And just as significantly, where is the evidence that it would be
the greatest expenditure in human history. I guess it depends upon
the definition of "closing the border", though.
>> It needs to be taken out of the hands of the
>> government. It needs to be privatized. Twenty knuckle heads
>> with radios, binoculars and cheap wooden towers could work 100
>> miles of boarder. It has been proven.
>
> When has it been proven?
>
>> The money that you would need to do it
>> would not be in the least bit problematic. It would create
>> jobs.
>
> Spending is not good for the economy. Digging holes and filling
> them in is no longer considered a sound theory of economics.
> "Creating jobs" through such tactics is what's gotten this
> country into the fiscal mess it's in.
I fully agree with that.
Michael
> I guess that either I'm not as suspicious as you about the motives
> of the politicians, or I really don't care much about their motives
> at all. The bottom line for me is whether or not it would achieve
> those results regardless of motivation, and, as of now, I haven't
> come to any conclusion about that.
Remy... The politicians are not pulling the strings. Big money and
special interest with global ambitions are pulling their strings.
There is no one corrupt person or administration to topple. No "evil"
snake head to chop off. Somthing new is going on.
Remy McSwain
news:cb245e57-21b7-42a9...@n15g2000yqf.googlegroups.com,
Michael <mjd...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Papa... I thought you wanted Ireland to get shit-canned. If you
> are just questioning his tact, that is fair and understandable.
> While his tact can be questioned, I can also understand the
> motive he had. I don't think this small matter calls for a
> foaming at the mouth mob out to separate Ireland from his
> livelihood. It looked to me that Dez has caused his first NFL
> distraction.
Certainly, he's involved in the distraction, but I hardly think it's
fair to say that he caused it. I guess that depends upon whether or
not you regard the question as justified. If you do, then I guess
you could say the player is causing it. If you don't, then I guess
you could say that Ireland caused it. Therefore, I think the issue
of 'causing a distraction' is a bit of a red-herring.
> He presented this whole thing in a manner that
> makes me think he's trying to grab attention with little or no
> consideration given to those around him. And yes... I'm trying
> to start a constructive argument. Most of these threads are. In
> the end, I'd have to hear the interview for myself to know for
> sure. To me, it looks like Ireland's mistake was not so much
> his tact. His mistake here was a mistake in judgment. He was
> not enough aware of the guy he was dealing with.
I disagree, and, apparently, so does Ireland if we take him at face
value. He called the kid to apologize, and he then did so publicly.
Maybe we could speculate that he was forced to do it somehow, and
that he's not being sincere, but that would be sheer speculation.
If you don't want to speculate about the exact context of the
interview, then you can't very well now speculate about what went
into the apology.
Inquiring into the very personal background of a specific person who
is not at all involved in the agreement to be reached between an
employer and employee is very well outside the bounds of
reasonableness, IMO. It also says nothing about the kid anyway.
It's not like he chose his mother, or chose what she's does or has
done. If the team has questions about the_kid's_character, or his
decision making process, then look at_those_factors instead of
judging him by an association he played no role in having. Unless,
of course, you want to make the case that the kid should've
estranged his own mother for the sake of an NFL contract.
Remy McSwain
MZ
> On Apr 30, 10:57 am, MZ <m...@nospam.void> wrote:
>> Michael wrote:
>>> On Apr 30, 10:42 am, MZ <m...@nospam.void> wrote:
>>>> Michael wrote:
>>>>> If
>>>>> the people who are really pulling the strings in this day and age
>>>>> really wanted to close the boarders, it could be done in in short
>>>>> order and without Gestapo ID cars for the rest of us.
>>>> We don't have the money for that. To TRULY close the borders would be
>>>> one of the greatest expenditures in human history. And even then its
>>>> effectiveness would be questionable. Border patrol is probably the most
>>>> corrupt department that the federal government oversees, and that's
>>>> saying a lot.
>>> Mark.... I'm not just saying this to argue or to piss you off But
>>> this time, you are being ignorant. I think you and I have gone over
>>> this boarder crap before. It can be done. It was done before it can
>>> be done again.
>> When was it done before?
>
> During WW II
Well, you're right that they were able to turn away a significant number
of immigrants, including jewish refugees seeking asylum. Yet mexicans
still entered the country over the border, and in many cases were
allowed to do so because the powers that be saw them as essential
workers during wartime.
>>> It needs to be taken out of the hands of the
>>> government. It needs to be privatized. Twenty knuckle heads with
>>> radios, binoculars and cheap wooden towers could work 100 miles of
>>> boarder. It has been proven.
>> When has it been proven?
>
> TOOOO many times to list. Google the "minute men" and you will find
> documented examples of a few people closing down several miles of
> boarder for days at a time. And no... This is not an endorcement of
> the minue men.
"Several miles" and "days at a time" are hardly good enough to achieve
what you think needs to be achieved.
>>> The money that you would need to do it
>>> would not be in the least bit problematic. It would create jobs.
>> Spending is not good for the economy. Digging holes and filling them in
>> is no longer considered a sound theory of economics. "Creating jobs"
>> through such tactics is what's gotten this country into the fiscal mess
>> it's in.- Hide quoted text -
>
> No one is suggesting that holes be dug and filled in Chicago style.
Your entire argument that it would be good for the economy is predicated
on that notion. Creating unproductive (the economic definition of the
word, not the common usage one) jobs is bad for the economy. In fact, I
wish someone had told Bush and Obama that.
MZ
> In news:jMednboNkppJckfW...@giganews.com,
> MZ <ma...@nospam.void> wrote:
>> Michael wrote:
>>> On Apr 30, 10:42 am, MZ <m...@nospam.void> wrote:
>>>> Michael wrote:
>>>>> If
>>>>> the people who are really pulling the strings in this day and
>>>>> age really wanted to close the boarders, it could be done in
>>>>> in short order and without Gestapo ID cars for the rest of us.
>>>> We don't have the money for that. To TRULY close the borders
>>>> would be one of the greatest expenditures in human history. And
>>>> even then its effectiveness would be questionable. Border
>>>> patrol is probably the most corrupt department that the
>>>> federal government oversees, and that's saying a lot.
>>> Mark.... I'm not just saying this to argue or to piss you off But
>>> this time, you are being ignorant. I think you and I have
>>> gone over this boarder crap before. It can be done. It was
>>> done before it can be done again.
>> When was it done before?
>
> And just as significantly, where is the evidence that it would be
> the greatest expenditure in human history. I guess it depends upon
> the definition of "closing the border", though.
I assumed that "closing the border" meant effectively keeping the
majority of illegal immigrants out of the country, and probably included
rounding up the ones already here and shipping them out.
I have no evidence to support my assertion. I considered it common
sense based on how endemic the "problem" is, and the current levels of
expenditure and those policies' complete and utter failure.
The only way I see it actually working is by deploying the military
along both borders and the seaports. Doing things to american citizens,
like severely penalizing companies or individuals for hiring
undocumented workers, might help in deterring them in the first place.
Although, maybe not, when you consider that the current unemployment
problems haven't deterred them either (probably because of what's going
on recently in the border towns).
Michael
> Innews:166d7029-373e-4d32...@o12g2000vba.googlegroups.com,
LOLZ... Remy... No black helecopter stuff... Of course polticians
still have plenty of power to change and shape things... But,
honestly... The political mechinisms in this country have never been
so compromised as the are now. Teddy Roosevelt is turning in his
grave. I think we really need a third party.
Michael
Mark... That is just a sample. If 100 miles can be shut down by
twenty amatures than you can make the case that you dont need BILLIONS
of dollars and MILLIONS of men to cover CA, AZ, NM, TX effectivly.
Not at all
> >>> The money that you would need to do it
> >>> would not be in the least bit problematic. It would create jobs.
> >> Spending is not good for the economy. Digging holes and filling them in
> >> is no longer considered a sound theory of economics. "Creating jobs"
> >> through such tactics is what's gotten this country into the fiscal mess
> >> it's in.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > No one is suggesting that holes be dug and filled in Chicago style.
>
> Your entire argument that it would be good for the economy is predicated
> on that notion. Creating unproductive (the economic definition of the
> word, not the common usage one) jobs is bad for the economy. In fact, I
> wish someone had told Bush and Obama that.- Hide quoted text -
Mark.. I'm not introducing somthing new about economics here,
relaly.... I'm just using some good old fassione direct response
advertising teqniques. You can privatize it, you have have a partial
voulenteer force, you can have the state governments control it, a few
new jobs would be created. I am in NO way suggesting wholesale
Chicago publick works horse shit. I'm with you 100 % that sort of
economic thinking in the end is a drain and not a help.
MZ
Michael, you're assuming linearity. Let me use an analogy to illustrate
what I mean by that.
In a small town, the principal of a school calls all the shots and
things work fine. In a slightly larger town, a school board is put
together to call the shots, and things work fine. In a large town,
several school boards are elected for each school, some of the members
have political ambitions, and things often still seem to work. At the
state level, in addition to those school boards, large departments that
oversee these schools are put together to help things work fine. At the
federal level, the department of education is one of the largest
government agencies, has ties to the US banking cartel, is run by
politicians, and is full of corruption and everything else, to help the
states help the school boards make things work fine. And things don't
work fine.
Catch my drift?
If we hire 20 guys to build a road from one point to another, there's a
reasonable expectation that it will get built fairly close to budget.
If we hire thousands of guys to take on a huge public works project,
like the big dig in Boston, things often get ugly and expensive pretty
quick. In theory, 1000 guys hired for a road project should get exactly
50x more work done than 20 guys, but it never works out that way.
If what you say is true, that 20 guys can police a large section of the
border, then theoretically the US is presently equipped to handle the
border in its entirety. But it's clearly not working. And that's where
this nonlinearity comes in.
>>>>> The money that you would need to do it
>>>>> would not be in the least bit problematic. It would create jobs.
>>>> Spending is not good for the economy. Digging holes and filling them in
>>>> is no longer considered a sound theory of economics. "Creating jobs"
>>>> through such tactics is what's gotten this country into the fiscal mess
>>>> it's in.- Hide quoted text -
>>> No one is suggesting that holes be dug and filled in Chicago style.
>> Your entire argument that it would be good for the economy is predicated
>> on that notion. Creating unproductive (the economic definition of the
>> word, not the common usage one) jobs is bad for the economy. In fact, I
>> wish someone had told Bush and Obama that.- Hide quoted text -
>
> Mark.. I'm not introducing somthing new about economics here,
> relaly.... I'm just using some good old fassione direct response
> advertising teqniques. You can privatize it, you have have a partial
> voulenteer force, you can have the state governments control it, a few
> new jobs would be created. I am in NO way suggesting wholesale
> Chicago publick works horse shit. I'm with you 100 % that sort of
> economic thinking in the end is a drain and not a help.
Ok, well my point then is that by increasing expenditures it's bad for
the economy. That was my first point too -- in this day of economic
uncertainty (or, rather, certainty that it will collapse), the US
government can't afford it. In fact, we should be talking about ways
they should be scaling things back.
It's for the same reason why I'm pissed that Obama selected NOW as the
time to initiate certain (expensive) "green" measures. I'm as "green"
as anybody, but in this economic climate I think he went too far. Of
course, the Paul Krugmans of the world don't think so, because they have
a nonsensical view of economics.
Michael
Mark... This is kinda silly. Here is another example for you. Do you
know how the freight system works ??? Lets just consider rail and
truck. Any idea how may freight trains and tractor trailers there are
on the road now ??? How may different items having to get to a
destination. And, for the most part, little gets lost and little does
not make it on time. To say that a boarder patrol would be impossible
to administrate properly because there would be more than twenty
people involved is an opinion that has been based on obervations of
open ended government opperations.
> >>>>> The money that you would need to do it
> >>>>> would not be in the least bit problematic. It would create jobs.
> >>>> Spending is not good for the economy. Digging holes and filling them in
> >>>> is no longer considered a sound theory of economics. "Creating jobs"
> >>>> through such tactics is what's gotten this country into the fiscal mess
> >>>> it's in.- Hide quoted text -
> >>> No one is suggesting that holes be dug and filled in Chicago style.
> >> Your entire argument that it would be good for the economy is predicated
> >> on that notion. Creating unproductive (the economic definition of the
> >> word, not the common usage one) jobs is bad for the economy. In fact, I
> >> wish someone had told Bush and Obama that.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > Mark.. I'm not introducing somthing new about economics here,
> > relaly.... I'm just using some good old fassione direct response
> > advertising teqniques. You can privatize it, you have have a partial
> > voulenteer force, you can have the state governments control it, a few
> > new jobs would be created. I am in NO way suggesting wholesale
> > Chicago publick works horse shit. I'm with you 100 % that sort of
> > economic thinking in the end is a drain and not a help.
>
> Ok, well my point then is that by increasing expenditures it's bad for
> the economy. That was my first point too -- in this day of economic
> uncertainty (or, rather, certainty that it will collapse), the US
> government can't afford it. In fact, we should be talking about ways
> they should be scaling things back.
In the main, yes.. I agree... But... Would it be good for the economy
if we disbanded the military ??? We'd shure cut down on expenditures.
How about local and state. Lets get rid of the cops. As a big fan of
SMALL government, I'm never in favor of over spending or double
dipping. Still... We need some spending.
> It's for the same reason why I'm pissed that Obama selected NOW as the
> time to initiate certain (expensive) "green" measures. I'm as "green"
> as anybody, but in this economic climate I think he went too far. Of
> course, the Paul Krugmans of the world don't think so, because they have
> a nonsensical view of economics.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Glenn Greenstein
> On 4/29/2010 7:48 PM, Tutor wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 29, 12:12 pm, Deadmeat<no...@home.com> wrote:
> >> On 4/28/2010 5:03 PM, Johnctx wrote:
>
> >>> Tutor wrote:
> >>>> On Apr 28, 12:22 pm, Michael<mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >>>>> Good question ???
>
> >>>> Ireland was just trying to find out if Dez had anything in common with
> >>>> the large majority of Dolphin fans.
>
> >>> You are only a prostitute if you are paid.
>
> >> Your mom tell you that?
>
> > Is it true that the great thing about South Florida prostitutes is
> > that they had a South Florida education, so they can't count to see if
> > you shorted them on their service fees?
>
> Obviously, you're speaking from experience, so yes, you are right, we're
> just lucky that way.
>
> I guess the NY hookers don't have to worry about change when they can
> only get two bits. (That means 25 cents in case you didn't know. And
> you didn't.)
Really? Spitzer only paid 25 cents for his flings? What was the big
deal?
MZ
Michael, the difference between what I'm saying and what you're saying
is that you're talking in "woulds" and I'm talking in "is". Border
patrol is what it is. To think that you can change that by electing
different people, or giving it more money, is in my view too utopian.
You've heard of "too big to fail". I think it's "too big to succeed."
Yes, it would be good for the economy, unless the ramifications of those
things got in the way of economic growth. For example, not having cops
would be good for the economy, UNLESS people went out and started
destroying everything because there aren't any cops. [Although Obama's
logic would state that destruction of property would be good for the
economy because it would "create jobs" to repair those things.]
So, obviously, from purely an economic perspective, the right balance
must be struck between having enough cops to ensure protection of
property and commerce, and having few enough cops to do it at the lowest
possible cost.
Extending this to immigration ... first you have to demonstrate that
immigration is detrimental to the economy, and I don't think it is.
Then you have to figure out the most efficient way to implement border
patrol, seaport patrol, and whatever else would be necessary to close
the borders. I would argue that this system is already too big and
needs to be scaled back.
Michael
Mark... How do millions of products wind up on store shelves ??? How
do tens of thousands of aircraft fill the skies and not bump into each
other ??? Why cant you see what I am saying here. Boarder patrol is
no where near as big or as complicated as distribution or passenger
travel, yet both of those things are pulled off every day to near
perfection. The problem is the government runs it poorly. That does
not mean it is doomed.
I'm talking about scrapping the current methods and building a whole
new institution.
Preferably, a privately run organization. It would be soooo simple in
practice to run it. Especially with today's communications
technology. Politicaly, it is problematic to bring that about, but as
far as making a system that works, it would not be very hard.
If you had national ID cards, it would not do one bloody thing to stem
the tide of illegals getting over the boarder. The dont check
documentation now, they wont check it if there are national ID cards.
They will of course, want to check your ID every time you leave your
house.
If we had no cops, you can bet goods would be changing hands at an
alarming rate. LOLZ !
>UNLESS people went out and started
> destroying everything because there aren't any cops. [Although Obama's
> logic would state that destruction of property would be good for the
> economy because it would "create jobs" to repair those things.]
>
> So, obviously, from purely an economic perspective, the right balance
> must be struck between having enough cops to ensure protection of
> property and commerce, and having few enough cops to do it at the lowest
> possible cost.
Yep... I agree. A ballance. And armed forces that are slimed down
and designed for this day and age. Not bloated on weapons systems and
manpower designed to fight the Soviet Block
> Extending this to immigration ... first you have to demonstrate that
> immigration is detrimental to the economy, and I don't think it is.
> Then you have to figure out the most efficient way to implement border
> patrol, seaport patrol, and whatever else would be necessary to close
> the borders. I would argue that this system is already too big and
> needs to be scaled back.- Hide quoted text -
MZ
I guess we'll have to disagree on this point. It doesn't work because
rounding up human beings escaping a shitty country is not as easy as
transporting product. The forces involved are much greater. $$$ is why
there are so many crooked border patrol agents and a ton of gang
activity in the process. Transporting product isn't immune to those
things either, but there's obviously a lower incidence.
Privatizing things won't help either. It never helps because the money
is still coming out of our pockets. Privatization of goods and services
only works when there's a demand ($$$) for those goods or services and
they can operate without government funding. Privatization, in the
sense that you describe, is different because it's contracting out a
service on the fed's dime. That never ever ends well and is prone to
the same crap that the government service is prone to, sometimes worse
because you have another layer of ripoff.
papa.carl44
"Remy McSwain" <Paradi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:74ydnXdDQfkQJEfW...@giganews.com...
> In news:OeydnWMh9cibwEfW...@giganews.com,
> papa.carl44 <papad...@nospamverizon.net> wrote:
>> "Remy McSwain" <Paradi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:n6OdnQmNYJuNmkfW...@giganews.com...
>
>> I can't help but thinking the core of this issue has
>> ramifications in other areas of our current culture.
>>
>> Such as, "Where are you papers?" Even if the individual has
>> lived here for their entire life.
>
> I don't see much of any connection between the two issues, but you DO
> raise an interesting one. I'm really torn between supporting a national
> ID card, or opposing it. I agree that to be forced to produce papers, or
> be detained for lack of doing so, seems to be an erosion of our freedoms,
> and seems to almost invite racial profiling. OTOH, national security, and
> illegal immigration are very real problems that require very real
> solutions.
>
> My initial response is that we should try other methods to accomplish
> these goals first, but whereas we seem to be too chicken shit to enact any
> other measures, and this one seems doable by AZ, maybe they should go for
> it. I'm still thinking this one through.
North and South Korea have no problem securing their border....and they
speak the same language. There are many borders worldwide that are very
secure. People fail to remember the 911 connections who were in Canada...no
worries about that border and they have an extremely lax immigration policy.
So....what is it? What's going on? As long as you don't want to pay $5 to
$10 for a single tomato and you still have a meat packing industry that
survives on employing illegal immigrants who will work in horrendous
conditions for low wages you will have the problem. The silent power
players on this one do not want a secure border. Arrogant, brash self
serving politicos at a state level in Arizona want to crow....as do most of
the tea party types. Most have little understanding of the dynamics that
drive these situations. I wonder if there are any Chinese Resteraunts in
Arizona???? Hmmmmmm....will they be "doing their duty" in those places too?
I do see a connection....are you an American because you are born here and
as a result get treated with certain rights? Or do you have to continually
prove that you are an American, be subjected to insults at the whim of who
may want to take advantage of your skills and actually be a lesser class of
citizen?
papa.carl44
"MZ" <ma...@nospam.void> wrote in message
news:rrednXbIUpfDcUfW...@giganews.com...
The Division is corrupt????? Or the people who have the political power to
manipulate the Division??? Are you saying the actual agents in harms way,
on the border are corrupt?????
Remy McSwain
I suspect that the amount of presence combined with surveillance required to
keep illegal entry to a minimum would be a whole lot less than the Afghan
war is costing. A lot more. I also think that imposing severe penalties on
companies and people who commit crimes that lead to sever problems would
also be warrented.
MZ
Yeah, it's a huge problem down there.
People tend to forget that drug mules also tend to be illegal
immigrants. Granted, those aren't the kinds of people we're talking
about here, but agents on the take are agents on the take. The mexican
cartels are extremely powerful. So much so that they completely
overpower the local mexican governments. It's like the friggin wild
west down there, and US border patrol is being dragged into it.
On a related note, I found this recent article interesting.
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/articles/mcallen-109590-agents-mexican.html
Deadmeat
Don't know. I don't really pay attention to what goes on in NY.
MZ
I think if you're just talking about surveillance at the borders, yeah
it might cost less although I don't think so. But if you also include a
nationwide effort to root out illegal immigrants presently in the
country, we're talking astronomical proportions. They already do that,
of course, to the tune of several million dollars and it's almost a
worthless venture. A tiny fraction of the actual illegals in this
country are discovered and processed. And we're talking millions of
bucks there, and I'm not even counting the costs associated with local
law enforcement also getting in on the action.
Another thing to keep in mind is that "border patrol" doesn't consist of
patrolling along the one-dimensional line that is the US-mexican border.
There are several layers of border patrol. If you head from
Brownsville up towards Corpus Christi, for example, you're likely to get
stopped by border patrol agents at the 50 mile mark. So there are two
dimensions here, and therefore the actual area covered begins to
approach thousands of square miles for even a small 50-mile stretch of
border.
I really can't underscore enough how big a project this is.
Michael
I'm not witout undersanding and compassion. They have a LOT of work
to do in Mexico. But "escaping" as you would say, once they get on
the other side of the boarder becomes "infultrating" and "invading".
>The forces involved are much greater. $$$ is why
> there are so many crooked border patrol agents and a ton of gang
> activity in the process. Transporting product isn't immune to those
> things either, but there's obviously a lower incidence.
>
> Privatizing things won't help either. It never helps because the money
> is still coming out of our pockets. Privatization of goods and services
> only works when there's a demand ($$$) for those goods or services and
> they can operate without government funding. Privatization, in the
> sense that you describe, is different because it's contracting out a
> service on the fed's dime. That never ever ends well and is prone to
> the same crap that the government service is prone to, sometimes worse
> because you have another layer of ripoff.- Hide quoted text -
Mark... What would you say to a boarder security organization that was
professionally run but had a large staff of voulenteers ??? Did you
read about the Minute Men ??? They dont get a dime. And there are
plenty of 'em. Just an idea.
And you know what... I agree that the military could be put to the
task. They are already getting paid, no ?
MZ
?? Not by any common sense definition of those words.
>> The forces involved are much greater. $$$ is why
>> there are so many crooked border patrol agents and a ton of gang
>> activity in the process. Transporting product isn't immune to those
>> things either, but there's obviously a lower incidence.
>>
>> Privatizing things won't help either. It never helps because the money
>> is still coming out of our pockets. Privatization of goods and services
>> only works when there's a demand ($$$) for those goods or services and
>> they can operate without government funding. Privatization, in the
>> sense that you describe, is different because it's contracting out a
>> service on the fed's dime. That never ever ends well and is prone to
>> the same crap that the government service is prone to, sometimes worse
>> because you have another layer of ripoff.- Hide quoted text -
>
> Mark... What would you say to a boarder security organization that was
> professionally run but had a large staff of voulenteers ??? Did you
> read about the Minute Men ??? They dont get a dime. And there are
> plenty of 'em. Just an idea.
> And you know what... I agree that the military could be put to the
> task. They are already getting paid, no ?
Yeah, I think it's the only way you pull it off, but you'd need massive
recruitment and you'd have to pull a lot of them away from overseas.
Deployment costs a lot of money. Like I said, it would be the largest
project in human history. IMO, the MIC has already been a primary
player in bankrupting this nation, and this would multiply that problem
a zillion times over.
Michael
wrote:
<SNIP>
> North and South Korea have no problem securing their border....and they
> speak the same language. There are many borders worldwide that are very
> secure. People fail to remember the 911 connections who were in Canada...no
> worries about that border and they have an extremely lax immigration policy.
> So....what is it? What's going on? As long as you don't want to pay $5 to
> $10 for a single tomato and you still have a meat packing industry that
> survives on employing illegal immigrants who will work in horrendous
> conditions for low wages you will have the problem. The silent power
> players on this one do not want a secure border. Arrogant, brash self
> serving politicos at a state level in Arizona want to crow....as do most of
> the tea party types. Most have little understanding of the dynamics that
> drive these situations.
Papa... That is the heart of the matter. Not wheather or not boarder
security can be extablished. Of course it can. It is just like I was
saying previously in this thread. The federa political edifice here
in this country is not at the top of the food chain. Their strings
are being pulled by big business and special interest. Democrat vs.
Rebublican is just one of the distractions. Dealing with this
current problem is perplexing. It is not like the simple task to
topple an evil dictator or vote an administration out of office. You
might as well oust me from power because I went to Home Depot
yesterday.
Michael
<SNIP>
> Yeah, I think it's the only way you pull it off, but you'd need massive
> recruitment and you'd have to pull a lot of them away from overseas.
> Deployment costs a lot of money. Like I said, it would be the largest
> project in human history. IMO, the MIC has already been a primary
> player in bankrupting this nation, and this would multiply that problem
> a zillion times over.
Well... I think you are grossly overestimating things. Not a zillion
times over. Lets do our own crude study and cost estimate. How long
is the boarder from Southern Cal to the bottom of Texas at the
gulf ??? Figure this first. Lets call 100 miles of boarder a
"century post". We'll afford say, 20 observers in towers, ten armed
guys driving in cars, one dispatcher, one "combat intelegence center
guy" to look at an electronic map of the entire boarder for
"happenings" and to communicate with other posts and one singe
"century" manager to over see the his century post. Now.. Lets figure
the salary and benifits for those 33 people in a century. Well give
40k a year to the observers, 60k to the armed men, 40k a year to the
dispatcher, 50k a year to the CIC guy and 100 a year to the head
"Centurion" guy. So... $1,590,000 in moneys paid for each 100 miles.
Just man power. Not for the patrol cars, training, buildings,
electroinic stuff like computers and networks. We can do that next.
So... Lets take $1,590,000 and x's it by how many "century posts"
would be needed. This should shed a bit of light on things. I'll
look into the boarder lengts when I het home from work. I'm too busy
to do it now :-)
Remy McSwain
I think the OP was talking about only sealing the borders, and to
that end, I don't think the combination of surveillance and human
presence would be to astronomical proportions. It might be somewhat
expensive, but not unreasonable so, IMO.
As to "rooting out" all existing illegal, I'm not sure that anyone
has raised that issue except you, but it seems to me that a
combination of a) making it very difficult for them to get jobs; b)
letting them come to us (i.e., nabbing them as they attempt to
secure social services); and, c) time; they'd be "rooted out"
effectively enough.
> Another thing to keep in mind is that "border patrol" doesn't
> consist of patrolling along the one-dimensional line that is the
> US-mexican border. There are several layers of border patrol. If
> you head from Brownsville up towards Corpus Christi, for
> example, you're likely to get stopped by border patrol agents at
> the 50 mile mark. So there are two dimensions here, and
> therefore the actual area covered begins to approach thousands
> of square miles for even a small 50-mile stretch of border.
>
> I really can't underscore enough how big a project this is.
I know that this is your suspicion or opinion of the issue, but I've
looked into it a little bit, and I disagree with you. The line is a
one-dimensional line wherein a combination of modern surveillance
techniques, rapid response teams, and, most importantly, penalties
severe enough to make the decision to attempt a crossing more
difficult in the first place would probably be somewhat effective.
Remy McSwain
news:552295d1-94dd-4eb9...@z17g2000vbd.googlegroups.com,
Actually, that's a myth. Politics has always been very dirty, and
very corrupt. For some reason, we seem to have come to the
understanding that all of our dead political leaders were relatively
clean, honest people. Au contraire. In fact, I think we're as
clean as we've ever been (which isn't high praise for the dead).
So democracy is dirty. It is what it is, and that's human nature.
But again, you're talking about motives here, and I really don't
care about motives in judging the actual policy.
Michael
> Innews:552295d1-94dd-4eb9...@z17g2000vbd.googlegroups.com,
>
> - Show quoted text -
Remmy... When I mentioned Teddy Roosevelt, I want not touting him or
his administration for its lack of political corruption although he
did indeed run a fairly clean ship. I was referring to Teddy
Roosevelt "THE TRUST BUSTER". He fought those bitter battles with big
money because he knew that it would be the end of our republic if big
money ever got a hold of the political mechanism. And, he was exactly
just right.
Michael
OK.. Forget about work.... It's Friday...
The US-Mexico boarder is 3,169 miles long. That would mean you need
32 "century posts". So, $1,590,000 bucks for manpower at each post
would be $50,880,000. Not a daunting number. Now.. I forgot one
thing. We'll need three shifts for each post. Tripple that to
$152,640,000. That's peanuts. Now, I know there are a lot of other
expense as mentioned before, but as you can see, we are not talking
about the zillions of people and zillions of dollars that you think it
would take. Just good organization of a well thought out system. I
got my inspiration for this with the great economy and management that
British fighter command used in WWII Battle Or Brittian
Remy McSwain
news:8e49595d-8669-43f5...@h11g2000vbo.googlegroups.com,
I agree that he was right on this, although I'm quickly losing track
of your point.
Remy McSwain
news:de4ff5f5-0e98-458d...@f14g2000vbn.googlegroups.com,
Actually, that would take four shifts to go 24/7, and with benefits
and other expenses, that brings us to approximately $265MM.
Now, I'll just assume that you're off by a factor of ten. So that's
$2.650 billion dollars. Add in another $350MM per year in
depreciation costs for other equipment, and we'll round it off to a
whopping $3 Billion dollars. Now, divided by each person on the US,
and that's $11.33 per person, per year. I think we spend much more
tax money on much less important things each year. And it's
certainly not the greatest expenditure know to mankind, by a long
shot.
Michael
> Innews:8e49595d-8669-43f5...@h11g2000vbo.googlegroups.com,
>
> - Show quoted text -
There are about twenty or more points to this thread. It has taken on
a life of its own.
MZ
Again, linearity is your problem. Things in the real world don't work
as you describe. You speak in shoulds and coulds. I speak in 'is'.
Also, the canadian border is much longer. As are the coasts. If we
count "coast guard" as military, maybe the military isn't so great at
this either...
MZ
BTW, you grossly underestimate the salaries of deployed soldiers. Hell,
toll booth collectors make more than your guys. :)
Michael
> Innews:de4ff5f5-0e98-458d...@f14g2000vbn.googlegroups.com,
>
> - Show quoted text -
Remy... It woud not be off by a factor of ten unless it was the
federal government that was running it. You would not have to spend
more than 500 million a year in human resources to get the job done.
If you want to tighten up the security and double up the century
posts, you'd have to spend about a billion dollars a year in
manpower. Thats about it. I dont know why pundits think it would
cost tens of billons of dollars a year or why Mark thinks it would be
even more still than that.
MZ
Since it's *already* very costly, and all sides on the issue seem to
agree that it's not working very well, then I don't think your estimate
of the cost is realistic.
> As to "rooting out" all existing illegal, I'm not sure that anyone
> has raised that issue except you, but it seems to me that a
> combination of a) making it very difficult for them to get jobs; b)
> letting them come to us (i.e., nabbing them as they attempt to
> secure social services); and, c) time; they'd be "rooted out"
> effectively enough.
But they haven't. It's already very difficult for many of them to get
jobs. And the unemployment problem hasn't seemed to stop the wave.
There are parts of mexico that are just plain terrible.
Also, it's not cheap for the US government to make it *more* difficult
for them to get jobs. So, although nobody explicitly mentioned rounding
them up once inside the country, it's a necessary component even by
doing what you propose.
>
>> Another thing to keep in mind is that "border patrol" doesn't
>> consist of patrolling along the one-dimensional line that is the
>> US-mexican border. There are several layers of border patrol. If
>> you head from Brownsville up towards Corpus Christi, for
>> example, you're likely to get stopped by border patrol agents at
>> the 50 mile mark. So there are two dimensions here, and
>> therefore the actual area covered begins to approach thousands
>> of square miles for even a small 50-mile stretch of border.
>>
>> I really can't underscore enough how big a project this is.
>
> I know that this is your suspicion or opinion of the issue, but I've
> looked into it a little bit, and I disagree with you. The line is a
> one-dimensional line wherein a combination of modern surveillance
> techniques, rapid response teams, and, most importantly, penalties
> severe enough to make the decision to attempt a crossing more
> difficult in the first place would probably be somewhat effective.
Have you spent much time near the border? It's not one-dimensional. If
you mean you would treat it as a one-dimensional problem if you were in
charge, then fine. What I'm telling you is that it's PRESENTLY treated
as a two-dimensional problem. They nab most of the illegals several
miles away from the border.
Treating it like a one-dimensional problem is like saying you're going
to stop a team's running game by instituting a 9 man defensive line. :)
MZ
hahahaha do you know how long a mile is?
> So, $1,590,000 bucks for manpower at each post
> would be $50,880,000. Not a daunting number. Now.. I forgot one
> thing. We'll need three shifts for each post. Tripple that to
> $152,640,000. That's peanuts. Now, I know there are a lot of other
> expense as mentioned before, but as you can see, we are not talking
> about the zillions of people and zillions of dollars that you think it
> would take. Just good organization of a well thought out system. I
> got my inspiration for this with the great economy and management that
> British fighter command used in WWII Battle Or Brittian
Michael, you live in la la land.
MZ
$3B dollars would be a huge DECREASE in the current rate of funding,
forcing them to lay off a significant number of border patrol agents.
And the system is already not even close to working.
BTW, the above is true even if you don't factor in the costs associated
with local law enforcement, which is also huge. And I'm not even
talking about technology or structure, which most proponents of keeping
them out believe should be the #1 thing addressed.
IMO, I think to address the southern border effectively you'd probably
have to increase funding by an order of magnitude. The northern border
is also a problem, although far fewer illegals are estimated to have
crossed there. The ports are, supposedly, a huge problem but I don't
know much about that. Illegals also flow in (literally) from the ocean,
particularly from places like Haiti and Cuba.
None of this takes into account domestic costs which I think would dwarf
the costs associated with border patrol.
Sadly, I think all such measures are doomed for failure for many of the
same reasons that they PRESENTLY fail. Corruption, incompetence, and
inefficiency among them. As I said to Michael, the military would
probably do a much better job, but they'd need a civilian support system
as well.
Honestly, altogether, I think it would exceed the costs associated with
the Iraq war and may even exceed the war on drugs. The Iraq war is
relatively easy to get a handle on the cost, whereas the war on drugs is
much much more difficult because of how ingrained it is in the system
and permeates the local levels all the way to the MIC.
MZ
Michael, 500M / 200,000 = 2500. You're going to pay each border
patrolman $2,500 a year to do what they're doing now?
Of course you don't think this is going to cost much. You have
absolutely no handle on the costs associated with the immigration issue.
MZ
Correction, I saw a more reliable estimate at 122,000. Still,
$500M/122,000 is roughly $4k/yr each.
Remy McSwain
I think it's vry realistic, and so we'll agree that there's a gulf
between us until I do more research.
>> As to "rooting out" all existing illegal, I'm not sure that
>> anyone has raised that issue except you, but it seems to me
>> that a combination of a) making it very difficult for them to
>> get jobs; b) letting them come to us (i.e., nabbing them as
>> they attempt to secure social services); and, c) time; they'd
>> be "rooted out" effectively enough.
>
> But they haven't. It's already very difficult for many of them
> to get jobs. And the unemployment problem hasn't seemed to stop
> the wave. There are parts of mexico that are just plain terrible.
>
> Also, it's not cheap for the US government to make it *more*
> difficult for them to get jobs. So, although nobody explicitly
> mentioned rounding them up once inside the country, it's a
> necessary component even by doing what you propose.
Again, we funadmentally disagee. First of all, you're talking about
jobs as though it's not part of an overall strategy instead of being
only one component. Nowhere have I suggested that this would be the
sole solution. Secondly, it's not all difficult that difficult for
them to get jobs, not would it be grossly expensive to do so. One
of the many problems with government projections is the assumption
that whatever condition exists now would still exist in the same
numbers even after remedial measures are put in place. IOW, if we
had no laws against shoplifting now, it's happen on a wholesale
level. So if we were then to talk about make it illegal, and
arresting those who commit it, simplisitc projects would show that
we'd be arresting people by the millions for the crime.
That's not how it works. If we severly punished emplyers at any
level for the crime, in short order, the number of people cimitting
it would drop significanty. So as more and more illegals are driven
to government services, and we caught them at that entry point, more
and more of them could be deported. Moreover, no matter how bad
things are there, they'd be just as bad here if there were no chance
of getting either a job, or social services.
>>> Another thing to keep in mind is that "border patrol" doesn't
>>> consist of patrolling along the one-dimensional line that is
>>> the US-mexican border. There are several layers of border
>>> patrol. If you head from Brownsville up towards Corpus
>>> Christi, for example, you're likely to get stopped by border
>>> patrol agents at the 50 mile mark. So there are two
>>> dimensions here, and therefore the actual area covered begins
>>> to approach thousands of square miles for even a small 50-mile
>>> stretch of border. I really can't underscore enough how big a
>>> project this is.
>>
>> I know that this is your suspicion or opinion of the issue, but
>> I've looked into it a little bit, and I disagree with you. The
>> line is a one-dimensional line wherein a combination of modern
>> surveillance techniques, rapid response teams, and, most
>> importantly, penalties severe enough to make the decision to
>> attempt a crossing more difficult in the first place would
>> probably be somewhat effective.
>
> Have you spent much time near the border? It's not
> one-dimensional. If you mean you would treat it as a
> one-dimensional problem if you were in charge, then fine. What
> I'm telling you is that it's PRESENTLY treated as a
> two-dimensional problem. They nab most of the illegals several
> miles away from the border.
I know that you're looking at the proposed solution through the
present implementation. IMO, that's faulty logic. The reason it's
a two dimensional problem now is because the one dimensional line is
a sieve because we cannot secure it.
> Treating it like a one-dimensional problem is like saying you're
> going to stop a team's running game by instituting a 9 man
> defensive line. :)
Only if you play by the current rules, and don't change the rules of
the game accordingly.
Remy McSwain
papa.carl44
"MZ" <ma...@nospam.void> wrote in message
My only question to you would be, have you been there to observe this for
yourself? My son is a federal agent and works to get rid of corruption,
that's been part of his job...works with those people you are talkiing
about. He has a very different view on things and what has gone on. He
tells me they are grossly understaffed, and many underpaid for what they do
too. My only point is the "woo woo" people ( my new description of a lot of
the idiots who shoot their mouths off to make themselves appear important )
have no clue what the on the ground conditions are. If we wanted to control
the border, and it really was a priority it could and would get done. If
they legalized pot, licensed the growers and treated it like alcohol and
tobacco they could make enough money to pay for the whole deal. I do not
think pot is a harmless substance, but I also know it is not as dangerous as
alcohol in terms of health issues. On top of that, my professional
experience taught me that it is ingrained in our culture to such and extent
that it is not going to be eliminated and they fortune being spent on
dealing with it is a waste of time and money. That effort would also stop
some of the smuggling. If we can not secure that border, we have NO freakin
business being in Afghanistan or anywhere else telling peopel we are going
to secure places like that....that is pure logic and I don't think you can
refute that. It is simple....if we can not even secure our own border we
need to get the Hell out of a distant, foreign region with impossible
terrain...how could we possibly secure that??????
MZ
> In news:sa2dnRuPA6GLoUbW...@giganews.com,
I understand. You're talking about it becoming a deterrent. But,
again, there's a major cost associated with having enough feet on the
ground to be able to do the investigations necessary to actually make it
an *effective* deterrent. The savings you'd get from having fewer
illegal immigrants doing these things is minimal because you'd still
have to have a broad sweeping investigation. The more cost effective
(but less effective) way would be to implement an audit system of some
sort. Random sweeps and targeted raids. That's similar to what's in
place now. So I don't think there's any real advantage in this proposal
unless you put more feet on the ground.
The better approach, from the standpoint of cost and efficiency, would
be to simply make the penalties stiffer. That makes all the sense in
the world, but you always have to weigh that with rights and such.
>> Have you spent much time near the border? It's not
>> one-dimensional. If you mean you would treat it as a
>> one-dimensional problem if you were in charge, then fine. What
>> I'm telling you is that it's PRESENTLY treated as a
>> two-dimensional problem. They nab most of the illegals several
>> miles away from the border.
>
> I know that you're looking at the proposed solution through the
> present implementation. IMO, that's faulty logic. The reason it's
> a two dimensional problem now is because the one dimensional line is
> a sieve because we cannot secure it.
>
>> Treating it like a one-dimensional problem is like saying you're
>> going to stop a team's running game by instituting a 9 man
>> defensive line. :)
>
> Only if you play by the current rules, and don't change the rules of
> the game accordingly.
All you need is one breach in a dam and you're gonna get a lot of water
coming through. The government clearly feels that, given their current
workforce, it would be a mistake to concentrate all of their manpower at
the border. They probably realize how much corruption and incompetence
there is at the level of single patrol agents. And if you don't have
that second tier, then you need to operate at a 100% mistake-free level.
papa.carl44
"Michael" <mjd...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:955c6029-6291-4cc7...@a21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 30, 10:54 am, MZ <m...@nospam.void> wrote:
> Michael wrote:
> >> Michael wrote:
> >>> <SNIP>
> >>>>> Papa... I thought you wanted Ireland to get shit-canned. If you are
> >>>>> just questioning his tact, that is fair and understandable. While
> >>>>> his
> >>>>> tact can be questioned, I can also understand the motive he had. I
> >>>>> don't think this small matter calls for a foaming at the mouth mob
> >>>>> out
> >>>>> to separate Ireland from his livelihood. It looked to me that Dez
> >>>>> has
> >>>>> caused his first NFL distraction. He presented this whole thing in a
> >>>>> manner that makes me think he's trying to grab attention with little
> >>>>> or no consideration given to those around him. And yes... I'm trying
> >>>>> to start a constructive argument. Most of these threads are. In the
> >>>>> end, I'd have to hear the interview for myself to know for sure. To
> >>>>> me, it looks like Ireland's mistake was not so much his tact. His
> >>>>> mistake here was a mistake in judgment. He was not enough aware of
> >>>>> the guy he was dealing with.
> >>>> Figures. Now it's Dez's fault. Bitch deserved it.- Hide quoted text -
> >>> I don't know if I would say it is his "fault". Still... It follows
> >>> the pattern. Dez is not a team guy or a company guy... He appears to
> >>> be a "me guy" to the exclusion of considering consequences.
> >>> Honestly Mark...How can you know what kind of connection Ireland and
> >>> Dez made ??? May be Dez was being candid and Ireland felt Dez was
> >>> giving him the latitude to be open about what was on his mind. How
> >>> do you know Ireland did not ask Dez in a sympathetic tone... Something
> >>> like this... "Dez... When I think about what you've had to overcome to
> >>> get here... Growing up without a strong healthy family unit around
> >>> you. Not a lot of money. And I understand your mother might have
> >>> been involved in drugs and prostitution. Is that true ??? Did you
> >>> have to live through that ??? Was your mother a prostitute ???"
> >>> You just never know what unwritten agreements and understandings were
> >>> reached in that interview. I'm taking Irelands part in this one
> >>> because they sent the mob after him with little substance in what was
> >>> sure to be an explosive reaction based on two words "mother" and
> >>> "prostitute". You had every commentator out there including Golic on
> >>> the Mike and Mike show advocating violence. When they say stuff
> >>> like... I would not have held it against him if he bent Ireland into a
> >>> pretzel... Heck sake... They were not even there and it is a fair
> >>> subject to bring up. Also... Ireland has NEVER been reported to be
> >>> anything other than a skilled and accomplished professional. I don't
> >>> get it. Flippin' media.
> >> Dez was angry. Ireland admitted wrongdoing. Both parties seem to
> >> agree. Yet you take the opposite stance. Like I said, figures.- Hide
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > angry if you don't use enough superlatives about his skills. Ireland
> > reacted to what had to be terrifying pressure being all of a sudden
> > put on him by the media mob. He issued the obligatory response to get
> > the hot poker pulled out of his ass.
>
> Dez has a history of having his mother called a whore.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Mark... That is a very interesting tid-bit. How does Dez react to
that ??? Can you get inside his head, break his concentration and take
him out of his game ??? No one is gonna cry foul for Dez if DB's bark
in his face about his mother being a "whore". Would you say that you
would be impressed if you found out Dez worked it out with himself and
was in control and confident ??? Just a thought.
You need to think before you say some of this stuff?????? Do you think it's
OK to trash talk that way??? Can I come to your office and ask you stuff
like that? In a game you can pop the guy and make his words come out his
ass....YOU are the guy who said you didn't want that behavior taken from the
game to the rest of life.
papa.carl44
"Remy McSwain" <Paradi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:JuednQilE7CUakfW...@giganews.com...
> In news:cb245e57-21b7-42a9...@n15g2000yqf.googlegroups.com,
> Michael <mjd...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> Papa... I thought you wanted Ireland to get shit-canned. If you
>> are just questioning his tact, that is fair and understandable.
>> While his tact can be questioned, I can also understand the
>> motive he had. I don't think this small matter calls for a
>> foaming at the mouth mob out to separate Ireland from his
>> livelihood. It looked to me that Dez has caused his first NFL
>> distraction.
>
> to say that he caused it. I guess that depends upon whether or not you
> regard the question as justified. If you do, then I guess you could say
> the player is causing it. If you don't, then I guess you could say that
> Ireland caused it. Therefore, I think the issue of 'causing a
> distraction' is a bit of a red-herring.
>
>> He presented this whole thing in a manner that
>> makes me think he's trying to grab attention with little or no
>> consideration given to those around him. And yes... I'm trying
>> to start a constructive argument. Most of these threads are. In
>> the end, I'd have to hear the interview for myself to know for
>> sure. To me, it looks like Ireland's mistake was not so much
>> his tact. His mistake here was a mistake in judgment. He was
>> not enough aware of the guy he was dealing with.
>
> He called the kid to apologize, and he then did so publicly. Maybe we
> could speculate that he was forced to do it somehow, and that he's not
> being sincere, but that would be sheer speculation. If you don't want to
> speculate about the exact context of the interview, then you can't very
> well now speculate about what went into the apology.
>
> Inquiring into the very personal background of a specific person who is
> not at all involved in the agreement to be reached between an employer and
> employee is very well outside the bounds of reasonableness, IMO.
EXACTLY
>It also says nothing about the kid anyway.
And it does say a lot about the person who asked it and how he truly views
the people who make money for him.
> It's not like he chose his mother, or chose what she's does or has done.
> If the team has questions about the_kid's_character, or his decision
> making process, then look at_those_factors instead of judging him by an
> association he played no role in having. Unless, of course, you want to
> make the case that the kid should've estranged his own mother for the sake
> of an NFL contract.
>