The Annoyed Man wrote:on my way home from France.
The Annoyed Man wrote:I had not been to ... a communist adversary
(Obviously just kidding)
Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton
The Annoyed Man wrote:on my way home from France.
The Annoyed Man wrote:I had not been to ... a communist adversary
I'll offer you the same reply,from a follow on post, that I made to texanjoker in regards my wife's behavior.The Annoyed Man wrote:Just read your post.....entertainingly written, by the way. One of your respondents described your wife's character in response to that situation as "spirited". I agree. And please understand I am not dumping on her because she indeed sounds "fetching", as you described her.........BUT......."spirited" is not always "wise". Whenever I am personally tempted to get loud and proud in the face of authority, I remind myself of that Biblical injunction to be "quiet as doves, and wise as serpents"Dadtodabone wrote:Such was my experience.
http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=83&t=68698
texanjoker wrote: I can say from working with them they get treated like garbage non stop and the ones working the borders have a tough job as nobody likes them, they often get shot at, yet they are our only line of defense against all that crosses the border. Maybe it's just me but I cut them some slack.
I'm glad you enjoyed my post. I was trying to provide some interesting facts in a manner that was light and enjoyable. The exchange of opinion that followed it, however, forever changed how I view our government and some who serve it.Dadtodabone wrote:If my wife stating in a calm, level voice that the CBP agent had no business inquiring into our activities, is in someway poor treatment of the agent, I beg to differ. Or did my reference to her being possessed influence your view of her statement. That she replied in the negative to an authority figure of any stripe, not once but twice, was the cause for surprise. She wasn't shouting or combative, didn't needlessly repeat her statements ad nauseum, she simply refused to provide information. Perhaps she should just have invoked her 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination, I fail to see how that would have improved the situation though.
When is it okay to refuse to be coerced by anyone acting under color of law? Does a tough job, being shot at or being disliked allow them the usurpation of the rights granted to us by God and protected within our Constitution?
Dadgum bad timing.fickman wrote:The Annoyed Man wrote:on my way home from France.The Annoyed Man wrote:I had not been to ... a communist adversary
(Obviously just kidding)
As did my own experience at DFW.Dadtodabone wrote:I'm glad you enjoyed my post. I was trying to provide some interesting facts in a manner that was light and enjoyable. The exchange of opinion that followed it, however, forever changed how I view our government and some who serve it.
I just saw that. I think it is high time that the world's civilized nations begin moving mountains to crush terrorism. I also think that it is high time that civilized nations stop using the language of diplomacy and call out nations that either host or fund it. Iran wants to support it? Fine. Drop a bomb on their ass.fickman wrote:I normally like to poke at the French, but I want to rescind this joke today and stand with them as they (along with some basic freedoms like speech, the press, expression, and religion) have come under attack.
I hope they see justice done, and I hope the have brave men and women who refuse to cower to these terrorists.
Could CDLs have different expectations? I don't know.Abraham wrote:Some, go ape!
Honestly, that's why I keep bringing up "common sense". Any BP agent worth their salt will know the answer to the question before I'm done with my philosophical soapbox.fickman wrote:Could CDLs have different expectations? I don't know.Abraham wrote:Some, go ape!
The one thing you're missing, though, is that eventually, after 12-15 years of calls to "that's not my department" and "let me forward you to somebody else", you may resort to contacting a news agency or attorney that finds your story interesting, and the Feds just might eventually pay for that window and put a one-sentence reprimand into the file of the "overachiever".
hahahahahaha. . . one more post. . . I just stumbled across this video:Abraham wrote:I just finished watching a number of Youtube videos regarding the principle of U.S. citizens refusing to answer the BP checkpoint question: "Are you a U.S. citizen?
There are a LOT of people refusing to answer that particular question.
Welcome aboard.Abraham wrote:Why are they (BP) bothering us about U.S. citizenship inland, if they sincerely believe we're not citizens?
Because that's a bogus excuse for police state tactics.
This baloney isn't right.
I'm now in the league of those who refuse to answer such ludicrous questions.
(because I was too chicken before...)