posted 01-12-2004 03:13 PM            

Here are highlights from these 2 articles:

"In Mexico this is a very important step forward," the Mexican president said of Bush's proposal, which is designed to provide legal status to millions of undocumented immigrants working in the United States. {I’m sure he would like this whole idea!}

Bush is expected to unveil details of his plan in his State of the Union address on Jan. 20, and it is unclear how they will be received by lawmakers. {Well I sure know what the reaction will be - unfavorable!}

Speaking of Mexico and other countries, he [Bush} said, "Our neighbors will benefit as productive citizens return home with money to invest" and help the economies in their own nations. {OMG! What about our own economy?}

The Bush White House saw the face-to-face meeting not only as a chance to mend ties between the two countries, but also to earn some political capital for a president who wants a second term. {Can someone please explain this to me re: political capital?}

Cuba was not invited.
Argentina's President Nestor Kirchner is upset about recent U.S. criticism over its warming relations with Cuba. U.S. officials privately worry that President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, who warned U.S. officials on Saturday not to "stick their noses" in his nation's affairs, is working with Cuba to oppose pro-American democracies in the region.

"Fox has an opportunity to hail the Bush immigration proposal as a political victory, given that he has been asking for an immigration agreement since day one," said Armand Peschard-Sverdrup, director of the Mexico project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. "I think to some extent, Bush will use it as a photo-op for reaching out to the Hispanic voters."

The United States wants the draft to call for re-emphasizing a 2005 deadline for finishing negotiations on a Free Trade Area of the Americas, a hemisphere-wide trade zone that is one of Bush's top policy goals for Latin America. Brazil and Venezuela say the summit is not the place to discuss it.

The United States also wants to kick corrupt governments out of the Organization of American States, a move opposed by several Latin American nations. {Then I guess our current Administration has no business in the organization either!}

Other discussion topics at the summit, held in Mexico's third largest city, 150 miles south of the Texas border city of Laredo, include strengthening democracy, ending poverty, security and helping small businesses with low-interest loans. {Who is lending this money?}

Some Latin American leaders accuse America of being heavy-handed. They argue that the United States has neglected social issues, such as raising the standard of living for some 200 million people — nearly one-half the region's population — who live in poverty. [Why is this our responsibility?}

posted 01-12-2004 03:14 PM            

Hundreds of Mexican workers march as they take part in an anti-American and free trade protest as leaders arrive for the Summit of the Americas in Monterrey, Mexico January 11, 2004. Leaders from the Western Hemisphere are taking part in discussions on social development and equality during meetings January 12-13.

Members of the political party Partido de Trabajo (Workers Party) join a protest against the war in Iraq and the US government's focus on terrorism during a march in Monterrey, Mexico, Sunday, Jan. 11, 2004. The Special Summit of the Americas, where more than 20 heads of state wil be attending, begins Monday, Jan. 12, 2004.

posted 01-12-2004 10:07 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by JerseyBluEyz:
While Bush and Fox had their pow wow, the opposition wanted to be heard.

---

I live in Monterrey Mexico where Bush, Fox, and dozens of other presidents are in town for today and tomorrow.

Let me help put some of this in perspective...

quote:

---

Hundreds of Mexican workers march as they take part in an anti-American and free trade protest as leaders arrive for the Summit of the Americas in Monterrey, Mexico January 11, 2004.

---

The little sign in the corner "Basta de impuestos injustos" is a complaint to Fox "Enough of unfair taxes!" Nothing to do with the summit, the U.S., or free trade.

"No al ALCA" means no to the Free Trade Area of the Americas. Yes, they are against free trade, and are just as silly as the people who oppose free trade in the U.S. Many of these people are foreigners that come into town for these types of things and many others are PAID to participate (see below).

quote:

---

Members of the political party Partido de Trabajo (Workers Party) join a protest against the war in Iraq and the US government's focus on terrorism during a march in Monterrey, Mexico, Sunday, Jan. 11, 2004.

---

The only thing the PT does is protest. Technically, they are communists. In reality, they are a group of houdlims that protest everything. In fact, most of the people that participate in PT events are actually PAID to participate, usually a few dollars or a free breakfast. This is especially common in Mexico City, we don't usually see it much in Monterrey that has a higher level of education and a higher standard of living.

The picture above has NOTHING to do with the Iraq war. The banner in front reads "Coalicion PEMEX, comite laborales, Jornada de Lucha... ??? economico." This is a coalition of workers of PEMEX, Mexico's nationalized petroleum company, complainig about labor issues within the company. NOTHING to do with anything but domestic issues, and certainly not anti-US, not anti-free-trade.

And regarding protesters in an article in the local newspaper (unfortunately, paid subscription required), it reads: "Los simpatizantes del movimiento avanzaron por la Calle Juárez haciendo pintas y graffitis en un negocio y en bancos de procedencia extranjera, principalmente de Estados Unidos" Translation: "The symptahizers of the movement advanced to Juarez Street drawing pictures and graffiti on businesses and banks owned by foreigners, principally American" Considering that if the Americans (and other foreigners) hadn't bought their banks the Mexican banking system would have completely failed about 6 years ago it's amazing they complain about this.

quote:

---

Anti-globalization protesters tear down a sign for the Summit of the Americas in Monterrey, Mexico, January 12, 2004.

---

This is from the same group of people that was vandalizing various businesses and buildings in downtown Monterrey. More than anything this is a chance for rebellious folks to get away with whatever they want (and maybe earn a few pesos) because Mexico is afraid to use force in the face of public disturbances due to a problem they had back in 1968 with the excessive use of force. Now they don't ever use force which is just as bad.

posted 01-12-2004 10:40 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by JerseyBluEyz:
Yes, please. Let’s keep this in perspective. Just who exactly do you think is pushing FTAA? Bush!

---

And the presidents of 34 other countries in the American continents. Not just Bush.

quote:

---

The demonstrators obviously came out for VARIOUS reasons.

---

Most of them domestic, although there was obviously some "globafobicos" (as they're called down here) making noise. But, really, most of the people that participate in marches down here just take their marching orders from the leaders of unions. They do what they tell them to do, they vote like they tell them to. I don't doubt that many unions actually arranged to get workers the day off if they'd participate in the march.

quote:

---

Bush was in their neck of the woods, and they simply wanted to be heard. You can’t tell me that ALL the protestors were bought with a breakfast or a couple of pesos – no way!

---

If it was any other party that sponsored it I'd concede that possibility, but when it comes to the PT you'd be amazed at just how many people are really paid to be there. It happens all the time in Mexico City. They've even had reporters try to interview PT participants and ask them their point of view and they just reply, "Hey, I was given a free breakfast and bussed in. That's all I know."

Really! The PT is a joke here. There's the PRI (=Democrats), the PAN (=Republicans), PRD (further left than Democrats)... and then there's the PT (punks, literally).

quote:

---

And how do you know it’s the same group of vandals? Please!

---

Monterrey is not a huge city and we don't have many demonstrations. There was a single march that went down the "main drag" of downtown Monterrey. I heard it live on the radio when I was driving and trying to avoid that kind of congestion and road closures to make it easy for the presidents to move between the meeting place and their hotels.

That's the only demonstration that happened today.

quote:

---

This is the same propaganda that was fed to the U.S. during the Miami protest re: the FTAA – same bull$hit, different country!

---

Well then that would tend to lend credibility to the "propaganda" from Miami rather than what you're saying, because I'm here and was out in the city today and know what I saw and heard! Believe me, you're talking to a first-hand witness! And, yes, traffic was a b*ch today, but there were not a multitude of protests. Just that one going down the main street of downtown Monterrey.

posted 01-12-2004 11:05 PM            

So-called "free trade" is actually organized CRIME. Nuke US laws to favor corporations.
Its called Crony Capitalism.

posted 01-12-2004 11:13 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mech:
Yeah..ol' Bushie was discussing with that CRIMINAL dictator Vincente Fox

---

You know, this isn't meant as mud-slinging, but... you really do make yourself look STUPID when you call Fox a criminal dictator. You obviously have absolutely no knowledge of Mexican history or even recent Mexican politics. Fox is much more open and democratic than any other Mexican president in the last hundred years, literally. He has gone to extreme efforts to make sure there is truly a free press, unlike previous presidents where it was literally NOT allowed to criticize the president until AFTER he was no longer president. Fox has made an effort to work with all parties willing to work with him, yet the Mexican Congress has interpreted this as "weakness" and has completely sandbagged everything Fox has wanted to do.

Fox is one of the most democratic, open presidents Mexico has seen in its history. His openness and eagerness to get every party into the political process of his administration is exactly why he has been able to get virtually nothing done. Two-bit politicians from the PRD and PRI are more interested in slamming the president than actually getting anything done within the framework of the democracy. Whereas past PRI presidents were essentially dictators and the Congress did whaterver the president said to do, this is the first president where the Congress actually has any real voice.

That you think otherwise is either evidence of a lack of knowledge on your part or an agenda... or both.

posted 01-13-2004 12:11 AM            

Handing out awards to Texas city officials when he was in Austin for looking the other way at illegal immigration.

posted 01-13-2004 01:31 AM            

Mexico President Fox has, on and off the record, made serious demands for concessions, favoring Mexico, from the George W. Bush White House. Some legal scholars assert that some of those arm-twistings border on being, if not actually, unlawful and unconstitutional. That illegal Mexicans in the U.S. be permitted to prevail on U.S. authorities with documents, issued within the U.S., by Mexican officials officed in the U.S. That such otherwise undocumented persons be issued state drivers licenses. That they collect U.S. Social Security, Medicare, and other U.S. and state benefits, the same as U.S. citizens.

Beyond that, Fox is demanding of the Bush White House guarantees as to Mexico and Fox, that Mexico have certain rights as to southern California, New Mexico, Arizona, and parts of Texas. Not identical---would they blatantly dare?---but similar to those areas being somehow returned or annexed to Mexico, nullifying and reversing the results of past wars between the U.S. and Mexico, which would be unconstitutional and beyond the Bush White House authority.

As a horrendous blackmail and diversion, Fox and company are threatening to steer up a big Texas secret, just to trouble Americans who may oppose the demands of Fox/Mexico. Texas was the only territory that entered the Union with provisions. Texas, through their State Legislature, has been granted the proviso, that they can, if they so wish, divide Texas into five separate states, each with Two U.S. Senators to sit in the U.S. Senate. The power to do so has for generations been quietly carried over, from session to session of the Texas State Assembly. It is a legal political nuclear bomb that can be triggered off, at any time, or more openly referred to, by way of strong-arming certain positions.

posted 01-13-2004 09:43 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mech:
Handing out awards to Texas city officials when he was in Austin for looking the other way at illegal immigration.

---

Can you provide a link? In either case, even if he did it it would not make him a criminal or a dictator.

quote:

---

He is a Trojan horse to illegally Mexicanize the West US.

---

You know, living in Mexico and talking to Mexicans on a daily basis makes what you say just that much more funny. You are truly out to lunch on this...

Mexicans are concerned about the AMERICANIZATION of their country. They're concerned about all the American franchises opening up down here. They're worried about their culture and music taking a backseat to that of the U.S. They're afraid that their movie industry is being overrun by Hollywood (it is... only about 1 out of every 20 movies in a Mexican movie theater are Mexican... and virtually no-one goes to see them anyway).

Mexicanization of the Western U.S.? Heheheh, no, the issue is Americanization of Mexico and it has ALREADY happened.

quote:

---

Mexico President Fox has, on and off the record, made serious demands for concessions, favoring Mexico, from the George W. Bush White House.

---

News flash: Mexico doesn't make "demands" of the U.S., the U.S. makes demands of Mexico. Mexico is in no position to demand anything. Mexico's requests are usually ignored, especially in the last two years. That's why there's so much buzz around this summit--hopefully Mexico and the U.S. can get back on the same page again.

quote:

---

That illegal Mexicans in the U.S. be permitted to prevail on U.S. authorities with documents, issued within the U.S., by Mexican officials officed in the U.S.

---

Can you indicate where this was approved? I know it was desired by Fox (because he wants Mexicans in Mexico to feel he's doing something to help their family members in the U.S.) but my understanding is that it was rejected by the U.S.

quote:

---

That such otherwise undocumented persons be issued state drivers licenses.

---

This is an issue for the state. I understand our friendly neighborhood governor in California has repealed that. I know that in the 90's an illegal alien could get a drivers license in Colorado because my girlfriend at the time got one and she was not legal. All they required was proof of residency--i.e., that you lived in Colorado.

So complain to your state legislature if you are not happy with the requirements to get a driver's license. But don't blame it on Fox. That's silly.

quote:

---

That they collect U.S. Social Security, Medicare, and other U.S. and state benefits, the same as U.S. citizens.

---

Illegals do? Can you provide a link. My girlfriend in the 90's paid taxes (because it was deducted from her paycheck) but never couldo or would draw any benefits whatsoever.

quote:

---

Beyond that, Fox is demanding of the Bush White House guarantees as to Mexico and Fox, that Mexico have certain rights as to southern California, New Mexico, Arizona, and parts of Texas. Not identical---would they blatantly dare?---but similar to those areas being somehow returned or annexed to Mexico, nullifying and reversing the results of past wars between the U.S. and Mexico, which would be unconstitutional and beyond the Bush White House authority.

---

WTF?????? HAHAHAH! LINK PLEASE!!! That's laughable. And linking back to Chemtrails forum is pointless. Please give me a real link to something that really backs that insane claim up.

Let me tell you something: Back in the 1990's when Clinton extended a loan guarantee to Mexico to stabilize its currency, there was very real talk in this part of Mexico (Monterrey) that Mexico didn't have the money to pay back the loans and that there was a very real possibility that Mexico would CEDE the state of Nuevo Leon (with Monterrey) to the U.S. to settle its debt. Many Mexicans here in Monterrey were truly worried about that!

So, you see... there are "sky is falling" conspiracists on both sides of the border and they're often equally out to lunch. But at least they scare people, and that's what it's all about.

Oh, in case you didn't know: Mexico never ceded the state to the U.S. just as the U.S. will never cede any state to Mexico. What a laugh.

quote:

---

As a horrendous blackmail and diversion, Fox and company are threatening to steer up a big Texas secret, just to trouble Americans who may oppose the demands of Fox/Mexico. Texas was the only territory that entered the Union with provisions. Texas, through their State Legislature, has been granted the proviso, that they can, if they so wish, divide Texas into five separate states, each with Two U.S. Senators to sit in the U.S. Senate. The power to do so has for generations been quietly carried over, from session to session of the Texas State Assembly.

---

I've never heard about this. I've heard that Texas is the only state that can legally sucede from the Union, but I've never heard of it having the option to become 5 states. Can you please provide a link where that option was granted by the U.S. Congress or where the Texas government alledges it has that option?

Anyway... you went off-topic. You originally said that Fox was a "CRIMINAL dictator" and even if everything you said in your post were true (which it sure doesn't seem to be), you have provided absolutely no evidence to suggest he is actually a criminal or a dictator. In fact, every one of his predecessors were more criminal and more dictators than Fox (with the possible exception of the previous president, Zedillo, which truly made Mexico a functioning democracy).

posted 01-13-2004 10:05 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by letxa2000:
Well then that would tend to lend credibility to the "propaganda" from Miami rather than what you're saying, because I'm here and was out in the city today and know what I saw and heard! Believe me, you're talking to a first-hand witness! And, yes, traffic was a b*ch today, but there were not a multitude of protests. Just that one going down the main street of downtown Monterrey.

Sorry if that disappoints you or clashes with your view of what constitutes reality and what constitutes propaganda, but that is what happened today here in Monterrey.

---

First, no one said anything about a multitude of protestors. You used that terminology yourself.

Second, you have got to be kidding me re: you propaganda statement? The propaganda from Miami has NO credibility whatsoever – although they did a fine job in feeding it to the public as truth! I’m not rehashing things previously discussed – I don’t have the time. For the real story - read here. This is what they DON’T want you to know! This is what was NOT covered in the news media!

http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/Forum6/HTML/001615.html

http://emfx13.proboards17.com/index.cgi?board=boova&action=display&num=1069386418

posted 01-13-2004 10:06 AM            

Joint Resolution for Annexing Texas to the United States

Of course, the clause was not as advertised in your post:

"Third. New States of convenient size, not exceeding four in number, in addition to said State of Texas, and having sufficient population, may hereafter, by consent of said State, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the federal constitution; and such States as may be formed out of that portion of said territory lying south of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north latitude, commonly known as the Missouri compromise line, shall be admitted into the Union, with or without slavery, as the people of each State asking admission may desire; and in such State or States as shall be formed out of said territory north of said Missouri compromise line, slavery, or involuntary servitude, (except for crime,) shall be prohibited:"

Read in context it is clear that Texas doesn't have the option of breaking itself up into 5 states, but rather the U.S. Congress has the option (with consent of the State of Texas) of breaking it up into 5 smaller states. It also appears the main reason for that clause was to make it clear that even if the state was broken up into multiple states, the clause already settled the question of whether or not they'd be slave states.

So, no, it doesn't appear that Texas can break itself up into smaller states at its discretion. Nor would they want to. I don't know any Texan that would favor breaking up the State of Texas and everyone would want the area he lives in to be THE Texas if it did break up.

So you're talking about something that Congress, not Texas, has the option of doing and talking about something that no-one in modern-day Texas would approve of.

posted 01-13-2004 10:16 AM            

Do you have to preface everything with derogatory descriptions?

Please state your position or opinion, and be done with it.

As a high quantity poster, I find it annoying that you call everyone who disagrees with your stances "Silly, Stupid, Idiots, and know nothings"

posted 01-13-2004 10:43 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by swamp gas:
Do you have to preface everything with derogatory descriptions? Please state your position or opinion, and be done with it.

---

I'd ask the same of others here, especially Mech. In this thread he called Fox a "criminal dictator." Granted, I'm not Fox so the slam wasn't aimed at me, but it's still "derogatory descriptions" and it does inflame those that are privy to reality to see someone like Fox called a criminal dictator. And my comments stand that when Mech makes comments like that, he betrays his complete and utter lack of knowledge of Mexico and Mexican politics. Please replace "stupid" in my previous post with "uninformed."

I'll try to keep my comments in check. But it'd be nice if others would do the same--and that includes just stating their opinion on Fox, Bush, or whatever without calling them criminal dictators. Or calling an amnesty program "illegal" when it isn't--it's just unpopular.

There's a lot of extra adjectives being thrown around this forum and I'm not the only one guilty of it. Check out most typical posts from Mech and see how many derogatory adjectives he uses. Ask yourself whether his post would be just fine and convey the same information if he just left the inflammatory, derogatory adjectives out and just let his posts speak for themselves as a matter of content, not as a matter of insults.

quote:

---

As a high quantity poster, I find it annoying that you call everyone who disagrees with your stances "Silly, Stupid, Idiots, and know nothings"

---

I don't call everyone such things. I did call Mech as "looking stupid" for his comments on Mexico and Fox. And I stand by that. He may be an intelligent man, but he sure does look stupid or at least uninformed on Mexican issues when he makes the comments he has made in this thread. Which is fine--he's American and lives in the U.S. I don't expect him to be an expert on Mexico. But he should at least recognize that he might not be as well-informed as others when it comes to Mexico.

The problem here is that everyone thinks they are experts on everything. Aviation, national defense, immigration topics, demolition, uncontrolled building collapses, chemicals in the sky, contrails. You name it, the people here supposedly are experts on it.

But now we've ventured into the topic of Mexico and it's exceedingly easy and apparent to me who does and doesn't know what they're talking about. I've only lived here in Monterrey for the last 8 years and prior to that I dated an illegal alien for 3. Maybe, just maybe, I know a little more about these topics than Mech.

posted 01-13-2004 12:03 PM            

You will have to ask Sherman Skolnick who wrote the article.

I'll trust Skolnicks writings before i'll decide what is "truth" or "facts" out of the mainstream media.

You have NO IDEA what is going on behind the scene Lex...nor do you care to find out.

Mexico IS one of the most corrupt countries in the Northwestern hemisphere.

I certainly won't be going there.

Personally...I think the borders should be 100% SHUT TIGHTLY to illegals.

Apparently it seems you take a more liberal stance.

posted 01-13-2004 12:34 PM            

Letxa, Thanks for considering what I asked. I feel that when you write or speak to a person directly, you should be at least polite. If someone calls you hideous names or ridicules you, then everything is fair. The many people who were thrown off this forum would call people the most horrible things, directly to them. It reminds me of back in the mid 60's, when people would get together in coffee house to discuss the war. There were a group of people known as Jocks or Rah-Rahs, that would come into the meeting place, and talk very loud, and even start fights and overturn tables, and claim "Freedom of Speech". They had a dress code to them. Tight, stove pipe pants, white socks, and large brown shoes. In fact, Frank Zappa and The Mother's "Brown Shoes don't make it" was based on experiences with such people.

If you are a white man, you don't go into a bar in the South Bronx and yell "Stupid Niggers". Likewise a black man does not go into a bar in Lubbock, Texas and yell "A**hole white rednecks".

What happened on CTC was likened to the Brown Shoes. Th people were here just to overturn tables.

posted 01-13-2004 12:44 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mech:
I don't know.... Uou will have to ask Sherman Skolnick who wrote the article. I'll trust Skolnicks writings before i'll decide what is "truth" or "facts" out of the mainstream media.

---

I'm not trusting the mainstream media. I'm trusting what I see and live on a daily basis in Mexico. And I'll trust myself since I'm knee-deep in this Mexico issue. I live here. Does Skolnick live in Mexico?

Do you choose to listen to Skolnick who probably doesn't live in Mexico? Or would you be willing to hear first-hand testimony from someone who has lived in Monterrey for 8 years and is writing this very message from approximately 3 miles away from where the Summit is occuring in the city's convention center?

If you choose Skolnick or your "anternative news sources" over someone who is HERE that's just because you are more interested in the message (i.e. "spin") that Skolnick and your news sources provide rather than getting the story straight from someone who you are talking to one on one. The only difference is that I'm here on-site and my testimony doesn't agree with your preconceptions. Skolnick and others aren't here but their message agrees with you, so you prefer to pay attention to them.

Sad, but listen to whoever you feel like.

quote:

---

You have NO IDEA what is going on behind the scene Lex...nor do you care to find out.

---

What goes on "behind the scene" is, by definition, speculation. I keep my eyes and ears open but, no, I don't believe every story that comes out about something sinister. I require verification. At least two independent sources--and that doesn't include two sources citing the same reference.

quote:

---

Mexico IS one of the most corrupt countries in the Northwestern hemisphere. I certainly won't be going there.

---

Northwestern "hemisphere?" Didn't even know there was such a hemisphere. And if it exists it probably consists of Mexico, U.S., and Canada making up about 95% of the population so, yeah, no arguing with you... Mexico is more corrupt than either the U.S. or Mexico.

But it wasn't Fox that made it that way. It's 70+ years under REAL former dictators--past presidents of the PRI--that made it that way (please read up on Mexican history if you are interested in becoming educated on the issue). It's now engrained in the culture and it is very hard to stop. But Fox certainly didn't cause it. And most Mexicans agree that things are less corrupt under Fox, if at the very least marginally so. You can't stop 70+ years of corruption in 3 years of a Fox administration, especially with a Congress that refuses to cooperate simply to burn Fox.

By the way, the "opposition" in Mexico (PRD and PRI) have a stranglehold on Congress. Good, you might say? Let me say that Congress in Mexico is the source of much laughter and embarrasment. Many Mexican lawmakers don't even show up. Of those that do, many literally SIT IN THEIR SEAT AND GO TO SLEEP! (That was one of the major news stories summer before last) One fat lawmaker (PRD, if I'm not mistaken) has actually gone out and become a porn star while still serving as a lawmaker. Most of the lawmakers are doing what they do just to draw a paycheck and don't give a single hoot about what's good for Mexico--how would they even know if they're literally falling asleep in the Congressional chambers during debate!

These are the people in Mexico that oppose Fox. Feel free to side with them if you like.

quote:

---

Personally...I think the borders should be 100% SHUT TIGHTLY to illegals.

---

I agree with you.

quote:

---

Apparently it seems you take a more liberal stance.

---

posted 01-13-2004 01:08 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by letxa2000:
If you choose Skolnick or your "anternative news sources" over someone who is HERE that's just because you are more interested in the message (i.e. "spin") that Skolnick and your news sources provide rather than getting the story straight from someone who you are talking to one on one. The only difference is that I'm here on-site and my testimony doesn't agree with your preconceptions. Skolnick and others aren't here but their message agrees with you, so you prefer to pay attention to them.

---

Yes Letxa, it is YOUR credibility that is being questioned. We see your track record.

I can ask you the same regarding the FTAA Miami incident. Did you believe the stories posted by the actual participants (some journalists) or did you believe what you heard only in the news? Did you even refer to those links I posted for you?

posted 01-13-2004 01:12 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by letxa2000:
I think the border should be shut tight. And I'm not sure I even agree with the current immigration proposal. I just know it has nothing to do with Bush looking for votes since the proposal doesn't make voting citizens out of any of the illegals.

---

posted 01-13-2004 01:36 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by JerseyBluEyz:
Yes Letxa, it is YOUR credibility that is being questioned. We see your track record.

---

You see the track record of my opposition to your beliefs. And that's the problem--you refuse to consider alternatives. Only what you already believe even if facts contradict it.

quote:

---

I can ask you the same regarding the FTAA Miami incident. Did you believe the stories posted by the actual participants (some journalists) or did you believe what you heard only in the news?

---

I didn't even know anything happened in Miami regarding the FTAA, nor do I particularly care. I'm talking about what happened here in Monterrey, and it was NOT as-advertised by stories posted on this site. I can attest to that first-hand.

I was not in Miami, were you? I cannot speak to what happened there.

My point was simply... if you guys believe the spin that was posted regarding what has happened in Monterrey, then I must be suspect of whatever spin you might happen to put on whatever it was that happened in Miami, or anything else for that matter. Because what has happened in Monterrey is not as was portrayed by folks here.

posted 01-13-2004 03:06 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by letxa2000:
You see the track record of my opposition to your beliefs. And that's the problem--you refuse to consider alternatives. Only what you already believe even if facts contradict it.

---

posted 01-13-2004 09:44 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by JerseyBluEyz:
Not true. I love hearing other viewpoints – even if I disagree with them.

---

Great! Me too. Otherwise I obviously wouldn't be here.

quote:

---

What I do have an aversion to is when someone sneaks in underhanded comments directed at me or others (in just about every post!). That is a no-no and turns me off – makes me want to NOT engage in further contact.

---

I understand. And initially I tried to restrain myself. But constant derogatory adjectives used by by Mech instead of intelligent opinions gave me an idea of the level of discussion here.

I'll be completely frank: The one that has driven me to these kinds of attack is Mech. Everyone else here is tolerable. Mech's responses are very frustrating and inflamatory. His extra use of adjectives to describe any number of persons or proposals rather than simply stating facts is downright annoying, especially when they aren't backed up with any links himself. In fact, the person who posts the fewest links to back up his or her comments seems to be Mech. So, yes, it's frustrating.

quote:

---

If your thoughts are in opposition, then you must be prepared to present yourself in an intellectual and open minded manner.

---

I will try to ignore Mech and respond to the rest of you in the manner you are requesting.

quote:

---

Provide the articles or links that support your views. Have an open discussion

---

I have tried to do so, although my most recent remarks are based on my own experience here in Monterrey during the America's Summit. I did post a couple of articles from the local newspaper and corrected the misrepresentation of some pictures that were presented from Monterrey yesterday. But when it comes right down to it my contribution to this is based on first-hand knowledge and reporting what I saw in first person in Monterrey. To that there are no links.

quote:

---

but please – STOP with those snide remarks. All it accomplishes is to put people on the defense and ultimately distracts everyone from the subject at hand. Maybe you don’t even realize it when you do it – I don’t know!?!

---