U.S. closes part of Arizona to Americans

[ctsketch]

Some of these civilian militias need to put their money where their mouth is and take Southern AZ back from the drug cartels. any of those militias based in AZ?

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[ErnieNWillis]

Our Government will wait until they take over Arizona and put signs around it, then it will be Texas and we'll put signs around it. Perhaps when we get up around North Dakota it will start to sink in!

You seriously under estimate Texas.

[Hopyard]

Some of these civilian militias need to put their money where their mouth is and take Southern AZ back from the drug cartels. any of those militias based in AZ?

Sometime in the 60s or so there was a comedy movie, "The Russians are Coming, The Russians are Coming."

I don't know if it can be found in a DVD makeover, but besides the hoots, there is a message about the effectiveness of local militias.

[yoyomeng]

Sometime in the 60s or so there was a comedy movie, "The Russians are Coming, The Russians are Coming."

I don't know if it can be found in a DVD makeover, but besides the hoots, there is a message about the effectiveness of local militias.

I'm sure they'd stack up fairly again the drug cartels.

I can't believe this if it's true.

[rocky]

Keep the replies civil or the thread gets closed.

[ksholder]

Article IV, Section 4 of the US Constitution

"Republican government

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."

The US Government is obligated to protect any state:
- from invasion
- from domestic violence upon request of the legislature or governor.

It seems to me that we have either an invasion - may be a tough sell as it is not a government-sponsored invasion - or domestic violence above the level which local law enforcement and border patrols (given the current ROE) can address. Anybody know if the AZ legislature or governor has requested assistance?

[mcp1810]

It seems to me that we have either an invasion - may be a tough sell as it is not a government-sponsored invasion -

Pancho Villa's attack on Columbus was not government sponsored but that did not stop us from invading Mexico to hunt him.

[JT]

Pancho Villa's attack on Columbus was not government sponsored but that did not stop us from invading Mexico to hunt him.

Good point. I just read The General and the Jaguar: Pershing's Hunt for Pancho Villa by Eileen Welsome. I highly recommend it. There are a lot of similarities in the state of affairs in Mexico then, and the way things are now.

Amazon.com: The General and the Jaguar: Pershing's Hunt for Pancho Villa: A True Story of Revolution and Revenge…

[Harryball]

I understand your point, but the term used, the accusation flung, ceding to Mexico, has a more sinister meaning than what you have suggested.

There is a park nearby where I live. It has signs that it is closed from 10:00 PM to 5 AM. That doesn't mean the city is ceding the park to
druggies and vagrants. The opposite. It means ordinary folks keep out, police go in and clear it.

I'm sure the same is going on in this US Forrest Service controlled area. People are asked to stay out, but officials-- Border Patrol, Guardsmen, State Troopers, and Sheriffs, do go in. Hardly ceding anything.

I don't doubt that that particular area is too dangerous and that something must be done. But putting up some signs warning people of the danger isn't the same as "ceding territory" to Mexico, as was purported in the initial stories.

If the news story simply stated the truth, that there is an area where it is now too dangerous for ordinary folks to go, I wouldn't have jumped into this discussion.

Dont take this the wrong way, but I think the caption asks a question. Giving Part of U.S. to Mexico? You do see the question mark. Right. Please tell me you do. If it wasnt there then maybe you have a case, but it is, so i dont see your case at all.

[Hopyard]

Dont take this the wrong way, but I think the caption asks a question. Giving Part of U.S. to Mexico? You do see the question mark. Right. Please tell me you do. If it wasnt there then maybe you have a case, but it is, so i dont see your case at all.

Haven't gone back to look, but I want to make a point about the way
propagandists will use language.

Did Harryball work for the Brady Bunch?

See, it really doesn't mean much whether there was a question mark or not. The damage gets done just by making something look as if it might be true; however absurd the question.

So, don't take offense. I'm not saying you work for the Brady Bunch, I just asked a question.

That is the same game FOX played if they asked the question, "US giving land to Mexico?"

It makes something look plausible, if not even true, when the writer or speaker knows full well that the implied assertion is false. (As of course I know Harryball is unlikely to work for the Brady Bunch.)

That is the propagandistic trick which is often seen not just with FOX, but very many headline writers. Often times, if you look carefully at the actual story, it doesn't even contain the information the headline hinted at, or the same subject matter.

Some of this stuff is accidental and due to the complex nature of our language. But, there are plenty of people with great skill at deliberately deceiving through conscious misuse of language.

Take this thread title as an example, what is it again, something like, "US keeps Americans out of Parts of Arizona." The title conveys something which is clearly not true. It is like writing that, "The City of Bryan Texas keeps Texans out of part of Texas," without providing any of the qualifiers about Gang Free Zone Injunctions. The statement is factually correct, but conveys something which is factually incorrect.

[ksholder]

Did Harryball work for the Brady Bunch?

The above is a question. The answer may be "yes", it may be "no", it may be "yes, but only after getting lobotomized". Regardless of the correct answer, it is still just a question. If you choose to read the answer into the question, then you fail to understand how to convey thoughts in English. Questions don't imply the answers, but, rather, suggest a topic of research or discussion to determine the correct answer.

Take this thread title as an example, what is it again, something like, "US keeps Americans out of Parts of Arizona." The title conveys something which is clearly not true.

The actual title is "US closes part of Arizona to Americans". This appears, based on all the factual evidence, to be a true statement.

It is like writing that, "The City of Bryan Texas keeps Texans out of part of Texas," without providing any of the qualifiers about Gang Free Zone Injunctions. The statement is factually correct, but conveys something which is factually incorrect.

Now we have factually correct statements that are factually incorrect?!? Either the US is in fact keeping Americans out of part of Arizona or it is not. This is either true or it is not. You may not like the way it was communicated, but it sounds like you ultimately agree that the US is keeping Americans out of some part of Arizona for whatever reason. Am I reading you right?

[Hopyard]

The above is a question. The answer may be "yes", it may be "no", it may be "yes, but only after getting lobotomized". Regardless of the correct answer, it is still just a question.

But the question is posed for the purpose of accomplishing a smear and implying an untruth, as with the hypothetical example I used for Harryball. A different audience than the one here at DC might take that question about Harryball as an indication that he in fact is suspected of just such activity. And some less astute folks here might too as well.

It may well be that the answer may be yes, but only after getting lobotomized. Or, it may well be that many who have not been lobotomized will still think the answer is yes. That's why the techniques is an effective propagandistic tool.

If you choose to read the answer into the question, then you fail to understand how to convey thoughts in English. Questions don't imply the answers, but, rather, suggest a topic of research or discussion to determine the correct answer.

See above. Questions posed in particular ways and in certain circumstances are not mere invitations to additional research.

The actual title is "US closes part of Arizona to Americans". This appears, based on all the factual evidence, to be a true statement.

Not with the material which followed immediately in textual form. The meaning of language, the interpretation made by the listener or reader, includes context.

Now we have factually correct statements that are factually incorrect?

The example given with regard to injunctive action against gang members explained things. Yes, in the example the statement was factually correct but also factually incorrect. It was factually correct in that it correctly stated that the city was keeping Texans our of an area of the city. It was factually incorrect in that it failed to tell the WHOLE story; that is, only those who are gang members with injunctions against them are being kept out. The point was that how a headline is framed influences how the reader understands the meaning. If an ordinary Texan reads "City keeps Texans out" they react with anger unless they know the famous, "rest of the story."

! ? Either the US is in fact keeping Americans out of part of Arizona or it is not. This is either true or it is not. You may not like the way it was communicated, but it sounds like you ultimately agree that the US is keeping Americans out of some part of Arizona for whatever reason. Am I reading you right?

The USFWS posted advisories. But even if US Citizens were being kept out, that is only part of the story. The propagandist wishes for people to think that the US did something horrid, and ceded land to Mexico. The truth was something different entirely. The propagandist wanted the reader or listener to believe the event was current, when it was a 4 year old event.

Your example statement, "Either the US is in fact keeping Americans out of part of Arizona or it is not," isn't a fully correct representation of the story. Because, the truthful story is more like,

"Four years ago, US urged residents to avoid a dangerous area; Border Patrol and Sheriff have stepping up surveillance; area soon to be declared safe and reopened. "

Of course, that rendering isn't going to provoke outrage or anger or audience attention, aka ratings, and so it isn't used.

Just look at the initial comments in this thread to see the danger in the way language was deliberately misused to convey something false, while appearing to be conveying something truthful.

[21bubba]

But the question is posed for the purpose of accomplishing a smear and implying an untruth, as with the hypothetical example I used for Harryball. A different audience than the one here at DC might take that question about Harryball as an indication that he in fact is suspected of just such activity. And some less astute folks here might too as well.

It may well be that the answer may be yes, but only after getting lobotomized. Or, it may well be that many who have not been lobotomized will still think the answer is yes. That's why the techniques is an effective propagandistic tool.



See above. Questions posed in particular ways and in certain circumstances are not mere invitations to additional research.



Not with the material which followed immediately in textual form. The meaning of language, the interpretation made by the listener or reader, includes context.



The example given with regard to injunctive action against gang members explained things. Yes, in the example the statement was factually correct but also factually incorrect. It was factually correct in that it correctly stated that the city was keeping Texans our of an area of the city. It was factually incorrect in that it failed to tell the WHOLE story; that is, only those who are gang members with injunctions against them are being kept out. The point was that how a headline is framed influences how the reader understands the meaning. If an ordinary Texan reads "City keeps Texans out" they react with anger unless they know the famous, "rest of the story."



The USFWS posted advisories. But even if US Citizens were being kept out, that is only part of the story. The propagandist wishes for people to think that the US did something horrid, and ceded land to Mexico. The truth was something different entirely. The propagandist wanted the reader or listener to believe the event was current, when it was a 4 year old event.

Your example statement, "Either the US is in fact keeping Americans out of part of Arizona or it is not," isn't a fully correct representation of the story. Because, the truthful story is more like,

"Four years ago, US urged residents to avoid a dangerous area; Border Patrol and Sheriff have stepping up surveillance; area soon to be declared safe and reopened. "

Of course, that rendering isn't going to provoke outrage or anger or audience attention, aka ratings, and so it isn't used.

Just look at the initial comments in this thread to see the danger in the way language was deliberately misused to convey something false, while appearing to be conveying something truthful.

Phrase it how ever you like this situation is wrong.

You guys who apparently live in Nerf world want to argue grammer and syntax, and all that other stuff I've forgotten, stop. This is about a problem that DOES exsist and needs to be corrected. No media outlet caused the problem,Mexicans did. Notice I didn't say mexico. I wouldn't care if these ******** came from Mars, what is happening is wrong and it shouldn't be aloud to continue. If advocating a violent cause of action somehow offends you I suggest that you don't read this thread.

Why do you want to blame the press? Why do you try to minimize the problem? You can't compare this to anything else than what it is, no fancy words here, It's a INVASION OF YOUR COUNTRY.

[Hopyard]

Phrase it how ever you like this situation is wrong.

We only know if the situation is "wrong" if we are actually getting accurate information.

No one here that I am aware of is unconcerned about the unlawful in-migration from Mexico and elsewhere. But, we can not expect our officials to make (or us voters) to make good decisions if the reporters
fail to tell us a truthful story.

The discussion with ksholder isn't about academics. It is about the way a story's presentation can and does influence the audience reaction.

In this thread there has been very strong reaction to the Fox News story, but that is because of two things: the story was misrepresented, and a sheriff who probably should know better, participated in propagating the false claim that the problem extended beyond the 5.3 square mile area.

How can anyone make sound decisions about what to do if we don't have the decently honest information about what actually has happened?

[21bubba]

We only know if the situation is "wrong" if we are actually getting accurate information.

No one here that I am aware of is unconcerned about the unlawful in-migration from Mexico and elsewhere. But, we can not expect our officials to make (or us voters) to make good decisions if the reporters
fail to tell us a truthful story.

The discussion with ksholder isn't about academics. It is about the way a story's presentation can and does influence the audience reaction.

In this thread there has been very strong reaction to the Fox News story, but that is because of two things: the story was misrepresented, and a sheriff who probably should no better, participated in propagating the false claim that the problem extended beyond the 5.3 square mile area.

How can anyone make sound decisions about what to do if we don't have the decently honest information about what actually has happened?

God you're giving me a headache. You don't believe the news,fine. You don't believe local, on the ground law enforcement, fine. How about I give you a prepaid phone card and you call a random group of people in the area. Would that satisfy any lingering doubt you might have? What do you think their answers are going to sound like? Surely that would satisfy even you.