Readers' Comments
Total Comments: 38
Page 1 of 3
Page 1 of 3
« Previous | Next »
Union's No Confidence Vote Was "Sense of Duty and Devotion to this Country"
Total Comments: 38
Page 1 of 3
Page 1 of 3
« Previous | Next »
Free Email Newsletter
| Close | Change | YTD | |
| G | $12.6959 | +0.0013 | +3.39% |
| F | $11.9530 | -0.0247 | +0.19% |
| C | $9.2824 | -0.6039 | -43.95% |
| S | $10.1934 | -0.8828 | -48.49% |
| I | $12.0957 | -0.7697 | -51.15% |
| Close | Change | YTD | |
| L 2040 | $11.0060 | -0.6167 | -39.66% |
| L 2030 | $11.2839 | -0.5499 | -35.19% |
| L 2020 | $11.6920 | -0.4696 | -29.78% |
| L 2010 | $13.1320 | -0.2608 | -15.06% |
| L Income | $12.3301 | -0.1593 | -8.46% |
Many Word, Little Content
DHS
Sat May 19, 2007 11:33 PM
Post Reply
Your points in order:
1. The opinion really is unanimous. Nope. The undenied fact is that only 100 "top union officers" voted--but we should take it on faith that all 11,000 agents agree. Riiight!
2. Employees of the Executive Branch don't work for the President. So who do they work for---themselves as freelancers who decide on their own what laws and policies mean and how they should be applied.? You've been MIA from the job way too long.
3. It's the union's job to attack immigration policies it doesn't like. Not even close. Take another look at the LR Statute. The union is chartered to represent employees re: their conditions of employment, not to formulate national immigration policy.
4. The attack on Chief Aguilar wasn't malicious. Bobble head doll, flat earther--how could we think that was malicious? After all, I'm sure you'd interpret terms like self-important, attention seeking gas bag as respectful, all-in-good-fun terms if they were applied to you in public, right?
Re: Many Word, Little Content
Self-Employed
Mon May 21, 2007 9:46 AM
Although I doubt I'd like him much, I think two of Mr. Bonner's points are well-made. To wit:
1) He's willing to put his name and face to his attacks. The original author wasn't. I think FedSmith shouldn't publish unattributable anonymous attacks -- even if they do generate buzz. At least Bonner shows up and signs his name. If anyone should quit government, it's those who attack from within -- anonymously.
2) I'm not a big fan of union leaders or politicians, but they have one thing in common -- they're elected. They have to run for office to stay in office. My guess is Mr. Bonner has more support among agents than Mr. Aguilar. Mr. B can be thrown out by his constituents -- and maybe that's what this commenter is angling for. The council's vote of "no confidence" was in their appointed Chief, not their elected leader.
Re: Many Word, Little Content
Navy
Mon May 21, 2007 11:21 AM
You were an LR Specialist on the management side? Really?
Re: Many Word, Little Content
DHS
Mon May 21, 2007 12:29 PM
The second article pointed out questions that were not asked and the likely answers to them. Nowhere in either article was there an "attack" launched on Mr. Bonner or anyone else.
Referring to someone as a "bobble head doll," and speculating that he would cravenly agree that the earth is flat in order to please a superior---now THOSE are attacks. Specifically of the ad hominen variety. And they were launched by Mr. Bonner, not the author of the articles you seem to find so distasteful.
With your focus on who wrote the articles, rather than the points made within them, I would guess your background to be on the union side, rather than management. I would ask why you want to know the author's name---not to pass along good wishes, I'd guess.
Re: Many Word, Little Content
Self-Employed
Mon May 21, 2007 3:48 PM
So... if we (and I used to be one of you) do it, it's blessed. ...and if they do it, it's an unwarranted attack. Mr. Bonner becomes a demon who's out of touch with his constituents and our LR guy (whoever he is) is reasonable and informative.
...and Fox News is "fair and balanced".
Re: Many Word, Little Content
Serf Ville
Mon May 21, 2007 6:01 PM
Re: Many Word, Little Content
Navy
Mon May 21, 2007 8:03 PM
Re: Many Word, Little Content
Border Patrol
Mon May 21, 2007 8:58 PM
Clouseau Strikes Again
None
Sun May 20, 2007 5:32 AM
Post Reply
I've been watching this little drama the last few days and can't held wondering if there's some sort of stupid virus going around in Washington.
First Bush gets annoyed--rightfully so--at Al Qaeda and the Taliban. So he launches an attack on .....Iraq!
Now this Bonner character gets his shorts in a bundle over Bush's amnesty proposal and the jailing of two border patrol guys who shot a drug smuggler---maybe rightfully so---so he goes on TV and launches an attack on......(drumroll please)......his boss, this Chief Aguilar guy! Who has no apparentcontrol over either thing!
These guys would make Inspector Clouseau look like Sherlock Holmes!
Either it's a virus, or neither of these guys is too bright---Bush and Bonner, I mean. Or maybe this Bonner guy figured it wouldn't be a good career move to say nasty stuff about Bush on TV. At least not if he wants to keep collecting a paycheck for NOT doing any actual border patrol work.
In the words of Yakov Smirnov, What a country!
First refuge of a scoundrel
None
Sun May 20, 2007 5:40 AM
Post Reply
There is an old saying that "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel", although for the life of me I can't remember who said it.
But in this situation it looks more like it may be the first refuge of a scoundrel.
To Mr. Bonner: You got up on TV and insulted your boss because you don't like the president's handling of immigration, but you expect us to excuse it because you did it out of a "devotion to duty?"
I heard a lot of lame excuses for bad behavior during my years in the government, but that one takes the cake. It is, as my grandson would say, downright lame. Same on you!
Try to be a man about it
USMC
Sun May 20, 2007 8:34 AM
Post Reply
Bonner: Face it, you screwed up. We all have at one time or another, and yours was a doozy. But the best thing to do is to face up to your mistake, apologize for it and move on.
You went on national TV and said some inappropriate things about a leader who, from what I can tell, didn't propose the border policy you don't like, didn't put those agents in jail, and unlike you, has put his uniform on and come to work to do the job he's been paid to do for about the last 30 years.
You didn't swing at the right guy, and the one you did hit you nailed with a low blow.
OK, as I said, everyone screws up once in awhile, and you sound pretty frustrated, so maybe it's even understandable. But enough with the excuses, already! Nobody but the true believers are buying it, and it's weak.
Try to be a man about it. Go back on Lou Dobbs and admit you made a mistake. And then be big enough to make your apology as public as your attack was. Otherwise, your credibility is shot--as it should be
Re: Try to be a man about it
To Mister USMC
Mon May 21, 2007 6:12 PM
Sa Johnson
USAF
Sun May 20, 2007 10:59 AM
Post Reply
Samuel Johnson said "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel" on April 7, 1775.
Re: Sa Johnson
None
Sun May 20, 2007 1:38 PM
Several Inconvenient Truths
Air Force
Sun May 20, 2007 1:47 PM
Post Reply
Your attempted defense of your indefensible actions can only be described as feeble, Mr. Bonner.
Among the inconvenient truths you attempt to gloss over in your windy dissertation:
1. Although you make much of your "duty to the country" as opposed to your duty to the President, you still fail to point out what unlawful order Mr. Bush has given you or anyone else in the Border Patrol. Unless and until he does, it is the duty of agents working in the chain of command under the President to carry out the lawful directions of their superiors.
2. You've yet to explain just what it was that you expected Mr. Aguilar to do when the two agents were indicted, tried and convicted. Again, much noise, but no substance from you on this point.
3. The Statute authorizes unions to petition congress, true enough---but says nothing about authorizing slanderous statements to the media about one's superiors.
All in all, your behavior is disgraceful, and cannot be explained away that easily.
Chief Aguilar Pack Your Bags
Border Patrol
Sun May 20, 2007 4:20 PM
Post Reply
Mr. Bonner's comments were right on the mark. If our Chief wasn't speaking in support of Amnesty, we would have never been able to pass a vote of No Confidence, but he was. He has been shilling for the President for the past six months or so, it is the only time we hear from him. As for working for a president, we work for the American people, you were thinking of a dictatorship, easy mistake these days. We enforce the law, not political policies. Should the law change then we will have to live with it, as will the American people. However, I will be able to live with myself knowing that I did everything I could to speak out against this Amnesty. Chief Aguilar won't be so lucky. And once again, thank you for speaking out against us, it only angers our employees and causes membership to grow, they know we are representing their interests.
Re: Chief Aguilar Pack Your Bags
SSA
Sun May 20, 2007 7:49 PM
Re: Chief Aguilar Pack Your Bags
Border Patrol
Sun May 20, 2007 11:30 PM
Re: Chief Aguilar Pack Your Bags
SSA
Mon May 21, 2007 6:58 AM
Re: Chief Aguilar Pack Your Bags
Border Patrol
Mon May 21, 2007 1:02 PM
Re: Chief Aguilar Pack Your Bags
SSA
Mon May 21, 2007 2:15 PM
Hope you don't pick up any stones in those shoes. :-)