Posted on 02/01/2007 6:44:05 PM PST by tfelice
There was someone in the gallery during President George W. Bush’s State of the Union speech that he would not dare publicly recognize. Even though he knew she was there, I’m confident he never even bothered to look up at Gallery 5, Row B, Seat 9, because sitting in that seat was Monica Ramos, the wife of imprisoned former Border Patrol agent Ignacio Ramos. She was the invited guest of Republican California Congressman Dana Rohrabacher.
(Excerpt) Read more at constitutionparty.com ...
To me, this was the bigger outrage.
As with the Schaivo matter, everyone wants the President to fix it!
I don't believe it's the President's job to fix every ill that befalls various private citizens.
Evidently, states' rights, individual responsibility, laws that have been enacted in various states....become nothing more than fodder for the bashers and the so called 'elite' talkers.
They run their mouths and sheeple get all excited.
Exactly right. The fact that the ILLEGAL DRUG DEALER was given immunity to testify against border agents is not something I agree with.
Of course not. Find where that was stated in this discussion. The President IS responsible for directing the AG to enforce our laws ... or not. And, the President does have the power to pardon.
Get off your fake high horse, Charles "Fake John Wayne," cut to the chase and admit you have a personal vested interest in an open border... or, you're a political operative for the opposition.
If these agents, or any LE, betrayed the public trust, that would be another matter. But, THEY DID NOT, and in fact they did exactly what I would want them to. They protected our border and, frankly, protected themselves. They supposedly got caught on a procedural error, which is a DEPARTMENTAL MATTER, AND NOT A LEGAL ONE. It should and could have ended with internal discipline within the department.
What I find sleazy is the conduct of the prosecutor's office, which sought a "victim" in another country, retrieved that person --- a known career criminal ---, offered him immunity, gave him medical care at OUR expense and used him in order to pillory and punish our UNITED STATES border guards. It all stinks of underhand international politics.
So, yes, let's be clear. I am on the side of these two Border Patrol agents and of everything that they did. Live with it. I'm an American, they defended MY COUNTRY and that's good enough for me. I do not accept that MY COUNTRY is imprisoning them for doing their job.
You, on the other hand, have gone way out of your way to continue the crucifixition of these two men. You've said repeatedly you believe in sticking to the facts, yet now you admit that ALL YOU HAVE is an OPINION.
You can look at the terminology used by the posters on YOUR (anti-Border Patrol) SIDE of the issue for slander and the "straying from the merits" that you describe.
Correct, raybbr. Where is the outrage among the OBLs at the criminal behavior of over 20 million who have entered our country illegally, not to mention their criminal activities while here? Where is THAT outrage?
Every dam one of the OBLs is Democrat/ACLU operative.
FR - Whose Side Is Bush On? | "Ah...do you mean in our state? I'm actually from the east side, same as you." |
I had the idea you were on the West Side from the Washington FR Groups' postings. That was some time ago. I was flying the Washington State Flag on my FR profile at that time.
Posted: 02/02/2007
The problem is that you assert the facts that are in dispute.
Then you claim that your opponents are arguing that, given THOSE facts, the BP agents should be in jail.
But the truth is, for most of us, if the facts were as you assert, we would be fighting for the BP agent's release. I would further argue that, if the facts were as you assert, the jury would not have convicted.
Then, you further obsfucate by attributing motives to your opponents based on asserting your version of the facts.
I don't know why you ignore that there is an actual dispute about the facts you seem to take as gospel truth. I don't know why there IS a dispute on some of the points, as there is no evidence I can see supporting the defense, but I'm willing to assume that the defense has only pure motives, and has evidence to present. I'm listening for some testimony, looking for some evidence, to back up the outlandish claims of the defense.
I have no vested interest -- personally, I wish the evidence supported the BP agent's innocence, I have no desire for any BP agents to go to jail, certainly not for a decade.
But it pains me to see so many elected republicans being pushed for political reasons to act in the absense of evidence. I completely support Bush's review of the case, and if the preponderence of the evidence he can muster shows a miscarriage of justice, I will support a pardon or a reduction of sentence.
I don't see that happening -- the evidence, while not "bullet-proof" (we don't have film of the incident), weighs heavily against the agents.
ping
Funny, you're aping the Union line on this issue.
Bush has made it quite clear whose side he's on, and it's not ours. He has sold America out - and that's unforgivable!
I will be shocked if the GOP survives him.
Talk amongst yourself, CWT. Your posts put me to sleep.
And, funny, you have no argument to support your anti-Border Patrol position...
Nice fake argument, typical Union tactic.
I am not "anti-Border Patrol". I am anti-felonious Border Patrol Agent...you?
No, I'm anti-YOU. I think you should go pound sand.
So...why did you ping me to this thread with your Union graphic and false accusations?
Not very smart, which is also typical of union thugs and Felon defenders.
What is it that makes you say the Border Patrol logo is a union symbol? Is the depiction of the U.S. flag superimposed on the United States upsetting to you somehow? Your type seems be be easily aggravated by displays of American patriotism.
Well, if you want to keep posting and revealing what you are, go right ahead. I'm busy.
No. You?
Your type seems be be easily aggravated by displays of American patriotism.
I respect the jury's felony convictions and the Appeal process. You?
Well, if you want to keep posting and revealing what you are, go right ahead. I'm busy.
Not busy enough to make a fool of yourself.
Please stop pinging me to threads you don't want to discuss.
Gosh, Dita, I hope I haven't said anything to sound like I'm anti-Border Patrol... I am 1000% in their corner.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.