Do we close the borders?

When the Presbyterian terrorists invade your country,  you'll be the first to go.

 

Judging by this post and the other thread, looks like I had the wrong target today.

Boom, I refuse to dignify your inflammatory bullshit with an answer. Go grasp your gun in fear somewhere else.

 

After reading your posts on the topic, I presume you wouldn't think of this man as a terrorist...

 

No. We don't.

We're the United States of America, not fucking Red China.

 

Closing the borders and making us live in fear or hostility towards our neighbors is what the terrorists want.

It would also be damn near impossible. There is no wall along the Canadian border; in fact, in many areas, you can just waltz across and it will be hard for anyone to know the difference.

And even the walls and barbed wire along the Mexican border don't stop people from trying to cross illegally. And the border patrol can't catch them all.

 

Bubbler / HB you are both being intellectually dishonest if you think we are standing in line at airports because of Jeffery Mcveigh.

 

I have a Borders story from today, and my head's still spinning:

Go in there for coffee. A guy I see in there all the time, the father of a local baseball player, says hi and we chit-chat for a few seconds. Then he asks if the story my part-timer wrote will be in the paper this week. I say no, that it was written last week and that I posted it on our Web site. All of a sudden this guy, already a bit sketchy though I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, acts like I've just taken a hot steaming crap in his coffee. I tell him that we didn't have room and that a story being on the Web site is the same as being in the paper.

"Is it really?" he said with a look in his eyes telling me to fuck off.

"Yes it is. The words are the same," I say.

He gets dewy-eyed almost and says how he'll have to tell his wife that the story won't be in the paper even though they've been waiting a week for it to be in the paper.

"What's the issue?" I ask him. "The story was written last week and posted on our Web site. It's the same thing as being in the paper."

"Is it really?" he repeats and slaps me on the left shoulder, again his eyes telling me to fuck off and go suck donkey balls.

And I'm standing there incredulous that he's taking this personally. He mumbles something, collects his shit and leaves.

I sat down, took a few sips of coffee and started to wonder about the situation. Is it really not the same having a story on the Web site but not in the paper? For some, the power of the newspaper remains strong, a social status. We wrote a mid-summer story on his son. Long story short, one of the local legion teams disbanded, so this kid wanted to join the other legion team. That team was booked full, so the kid went 15 miles away to join that legion team. He's a decent player. So aside from the mid-summer update, we wrote a season-ending recount of the final few games, with quotes. That's the one I posted on our Web site.

This is the second local guy who said reading a story on a Web site isn't as good as reading the story in the paper.

Any thoughts?

 

Boom, I would like to congratulate you. That is the most egregious, awkward misspelling in the history of SportsJournalists.com.

 

look blame the muslims - ok

 

It's not the same.

 

Closing the borders is impractical -- UNLESS -- we take over Canada and Mexico. We could put up a hefty fence across Panama for a song, and no one is going to be slipping in through the artic circle.

If conquering Mexico and Canada is the price we need to pay to feel safe, I'm all for it.

 

I'd agree with that. It goes in the paper, all the subscribers would get a chance to at least see it. Not everyone of your readers would check out your paper's web site. A lot would think it's just the same stories that they see in the paper that day.

And of course we don't write for someone's scrapbook, but it does look better to readers having a newspaper clipping instead of a laser-printed clipping.