Posted on 04/10/2006 5:52:04 AM PDT by IrishMike
When the Minutemen set up shop at the Arizona border last year to call attention to the illegal alien loophole in US Homeland Security, President Bush foolishly chided these brave patriots by calling them vigilantes. Although chagrined at being deserted by the man who has the constitutional responsibility and authority to defend our borders, the Minutemen dug in their heels and persisted. And persisted.
Their Yankee determination to do the right thing was rewarded when President Bush finally sent additional border patrol agents to Arizona. Even the Mexican government was motivated to pay greater attention, at least temporarily, because of the due diligence of heroic Minutemen.
Before the Minuteman took their courageous stand, open border advocates and anti-American liberals insisted it was “impossible” to stop illegal immigration. Best to just accept reality, learn Spanish, and switch to rice and beans as food stables, according to the leftists and Hispanic racists.
Thank God, the Minutemen PROVED illegal aliens CAN be stopped, thereby delivering a great victory on behalf of all American citizens.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbyus.com ...
Travis is an imprudent man who verbally "stepped on his reproductive appendage" once too often.
Jim has made his own decision and this is his site. I respect his right to do so as the owner even if I do not agree with it. I have simply attempted, and will continue to do so when asked, to defend a freind and set the record straight regarding that friend from my own perspective.
Second, one can agree with someone on most issues and disagree on a few. That has been the basis of many pro-lifers getting elected by "moderates" over the years, namely that their one disagreement was not as important as, say, the WOT.
Bush's phenomenal strength has been a vision for how to defeat Islamofascism, and his blind spot has been the borders/illegals. No president is perfect. Name me one ELECTABLE candidate who is for 100% deportation and I'll vote for him and, no, it would not be Tancredo nationally.
In short...the guy tipped over the edge. He openly violated rule after rule and basically dared anyone to do anything about it. And now that the owner of this site has enforced his own rules, you think Travis is getting unfair treatment?!? Hardly.
We clearly disagree regarding Matt's intentions and his motivations. Others will have to decide for themselves.
So why weren't the rules enforced before?
Could it be because Travis was a resource and commentator with few peers on this forum?
Could it be Travis tangling with Tony Snow last week had more to do with it than the things you mention that were obviously overlooked for a very long time?
It might be because Travis has made some valuable contributions to this site. I used to enjoy his posts. But like I said, the guy tipped over the edge. A quick look at his recent posting history confirms that. He flipped out. He was given every chance to reign himself in. To stop the spamming. To stop the repeated posts about hanging thousands. But he didn't. So regretfully, he was shown the door.
Perhaps the one thing everyone agrees on in the current immigration debate is that our nation's current rules need to be enforced. Even though they haven't been in the past. But the time has long since come. And on this site, so has Travis'.
Last time I moved, I registered with a utility bill that proved I lived at a given address and signed a form that "affirmed" I was a US citizen. No actual proof was required.
When I voted, I verbally gave my name and they confirmed that name was on the precinct list.
Are we in fact becoming a nation of lemmings who will blindly follow someone who merely wears the banner of conservative?
Good question.
Bump ... I can imagine RAGE being the primary emotion brought forth
This forum is full of military men. Some who are still serving. That does not excuse Travis' recent posting history and his active violation of almost every posting rule listed. Above all, military men learn how to achieve an objective while adhering to specific rules of engagement. When they don't, they know the consequences. There is no rule on FreeRepublic that says conversation must be polite, and Travis' posts went a LONG way beyond polite conversation. For the most part, they weren't even conversation at all. They were nothing but spam.
Your concluding statement strongly indicates you have never served in the military. Our military is trained to kill, not execute. And hanging men from trees is called "lynching". Not "capital punishment". Big difference.
thank you, Rebelbase.
Oh yea I get it you mean like General William T. Sherman USA. Yes his march to the sea was very civilized indeed...../sarcasm
Virtually none of which having the accomplishments he has achieved. He is an effective communicator, and a competent analyst, all in the context of someone who has "been there, and done that."
That does not excuse Travis' recent posting history and his active violation of almost every posting rule listed.
No, but his long time posting history does. I've been here long enough to know he hasn't posted anything here that wasn't posted before without repercussion.
The only irregularity I can see is the Tony Snow dust-up, last week. (And for the record, I don't agree with Travis on that point. I think Tony Snow's membership in the CFR is as significant as belonging to a Masonic Lodge.)
If his history does not excuse his recent performance, then neither does other past cooperation excuse current intransigence, and I'm not talking about posters, either.
Goodwill is NOT a one way concept for a party that wishes to stay in power.
Above all, military men learn how to achieve an objective while adhering to specific rules of engagement.
Wrong. Above all is "the objective." The rest is a dog and pony show. If one officer can not achieve the objective under the rules of engagement, he will be replaced by one that can circumvent those rules more effectively.
Wars are not fought by "outhouse attorneys," but they are sometimes lost by them.
Your concluding statement strongly indicates you have never served in the military. Our military is trained to kill, not execute. And hanging men from trees is called "lynching". Not "capital punishment". Big difference.
Your concluding statement strongly indicates questionable understanding. It was an analogy. The point of which was if you want a job done, but can't do it for yourself, leave the man that can do it to do it.
There is little more noxious than people trying to simultaneously give orders and ask for help.
As for your nuanced appreciation of "capital punishment" as opposed to "lynching" in the context of an actual civil war, I can only ask "Are you a journalist?"
Jim, you can add my name to that list. I have had major disagreements with Travis and he has always been a gentleman in stating his position. He has always provided facts to support his conclusions and been willing to listen to another point of view. There has never been any evidence of holding a grudge or personal vendetta. He has never resorted to personal attacks.
After your rant on McCain, it looks like a little morale equivalence on your part.
I'm worried that you are packing water for someone. I hope not.
I will put my thoughts together and post them later.
:)Easy Does It:)
call us wetbacks or beaners que son puros ruidos you can't calm us down you can't keep us quiet you pass H.R. 4437 I swear to god we will riot. we may be humble we may be poor but go against our people we won't hesitate to start civil war. we may not have papers but we still pay our taxes without our feria the pinche U.S collapses! I call out to mi gente to stick up for the brown, you ain't kicking us out, we're sticking around!!!
THEY are advocating civil war. We are silenced when confronting the issue.
Yeah that makes a lot of sense doesn't it brilliant move if you ask me /s
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.