Posted on 11/18/2007 2:24:12 PM PST by dit_xi
That is a lie.
Pissant was banned for ARGUING WITH JIM and calling Fred Thompson pro-choice.
Sometimes you really have to live on the border to have a feel for what goes on here. I know it sounds far-fetched, and of course it’s not as simple as your sarcasm suggests- but policy from the top has been discouraging enforcement of immigration laws. Policy filters down and it is pretty well known that President Bush is for open borders. That knowledge is really all an overzealous prosecutor needs to get carried away. Add to that mix the drive that prosecutors have to win and it’s not that hard to think some shennanigans went on with this trial.
I wasn’t there when this incident happened so I have no idea what really happened- I do live on the border and will take the word of BP over smugglers any day of the week. I also know Sutton is not popular here, and I am close to El Paso as the crow fles. The El Paso radio DJs make fun of Sutton on air- regularly- and I suspect they know their audience agrees with them or they wouldn’t get away with that. FYI El Paso population is largely Hispanic with close ties to Mexico; you would think if anyone loved Sutton it would be El Paso- not the case.
‘Incompetent’ referred to Sutton, not to Winter...Go back please and read my post carefully.
But if dereliction of duty/ political croneyism applies, then...if the shoe fits...
I know I don't live there so how could I know, but there are more obvious reasons for that statement to be true.
an incompetent nincompoop of which POTUS seems to have appointed a few—such as: Secretary of the Navy-Donald C.Winter, former CEO FATCAT of Northrup-Grummon with ties to Murtha- mentioned here the other night in re the Haditha Trial thread...The sentence fragment clearly says that POTUS appointed a few incompetent nincompoops, and that the Secretary of the Nave was an example of one -- that's what "such as" means.
I don't believe there is any other valid way to read that.
Well Thank you...I’m glad that you agree with my basic premise now- about incompetent nincompoops- and i will work on my grammar and syntax too.
Firstly, I don't lie. You may have a differing opinion than mine but I don't lie. That said...
Here is the last thread Pissant posted in before getting banned. Perhaps you have a different definition of the word argue but Pissant was not arguing with Jim. In fact, it's clear he was polite and was respecful of Jim's wishes. And I see nowhere in that thread where he said fred was pro-choice. If you think I am wrong in any way please point to any Pissant post in that thread that you think supports your position. You've called me a liar, prove it.
I have no desire to try and supress your right to your opinion. I’m merely astonished that any clear-thinking American given the facts would think these bogus convictions are warranted. You’ve had this entire thrread to give reason why you think so and all you’ve put forth is the assertion that they did not properly report the incident. That’s extremely weak when the lives of two public servents who put ther lives on the line to protect our borders are being destroyed. My guess is you’re a bush-bot that thinks his boy can do no wrong. Well he can and he has. These prosecutions never should have happend. And, considering the US attorney responsible is a bush lackey, bush himself bears the blame.
The thread Pissant was banned in was deleted. That deleted all his posts in it. He was attacking Fred in several threads at the same time, apparently.
Jim warned him. He warned him repeatedly. It was a FRED thread. The banning had nothing to do with supporting Hunter.
Jim likes Hunter, just like most FRed supporters do. The vitriol spewing from some Hunter supporters is really a disgusting sight.
And I did a search of Jim's posts to Pissant, that's how I found that thread I provided you. There were no other posts from Jim to Pissant in any other threads at or near the time Pissant was banned. There may have been private messages between them that we're not privy to but I doubt Jim deleted his own posts.
I support Hunter because, based on his political experience I feel he is the best man for the job. I don't support Fred because I think a man who resigns his job in government after only 8 years (less than 1/3 that of Hunter) to take a job in liberal Hollywood is not the best man.
You called me a liar without a shread of evidence that I lied. Moreover, you've failed to provide proof of your assertion when asked. That is typical behavior of a fred supporter. Thanks.
I accepted your explanation that you were not calling the former CEO of Northrup-Grumman incompetent. I’ve not expressed my opinion of your underlying premise.
The reasons a person might believe the two agents belong in jail can be found in the evidence, their own statements, the statements of others, the trial testimony, and the jury verdict.
Since I personally was not involved in ANY aspect of the case, that is all I can base any speculation on. If the appeals court determines there was a miscarriage of justice, I will believe them, as they have access to every piece of real evidence, and have the knowledge, training, and experience to properly evaluate the circumstances and the law regarding this case.
‘’Just a reminder that Ramos and Compean aren’t his only victims.’’
You are right....here is the story of another Sutton victim...Gary Brugman
http://www.americanfreedomriders.com/HelpGary.html
And Another victim...Gilmer Hernandez
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTl99AN2xwg&feature=related
Freepers, THIS IS THE MAN!!
Fred is pro-choice...that is, unless he’s running for President. I’ve posted FRed’s own words on the subject many times, not that you’d evern comprehend them since you’ll bend over backwards making excuses on “what Fred really meant”.
A few quotes from your precious FRed....
“When you get back to the states, I think the states should have some leeway” (That one’s already been punted to the tyrants in black robes on the Supreme Court...the states have already SURRENDERED)
“The ultimate decision must be made by the woman. Government should treat its citizens as adults capable of making moral decisions on their own.” (Right to murder is not a moral decision...Fred is PRO-CHOICE)
“The very idea that we could even have a debate over whether or not that atrocious activity, uh, should be, uh, allowable, uh, is, uh, is very unfortunate, to say the least”. (UNFORTUNATE??? Not a strong position to take)
“I wouldn’t be too concerned about Christians and conservatives…Christianity has to do with saving souls and uplifting people, and not raising large amounts of soft money to run attack campaigns on folks.”
There is no doubt that one of the thin-skinned FRaudbots hit abuse, just like they ALWAYS do. It’s what comes natural to you people.
The software deletes posts from the post lists when a thread or post is deleted.
Unlike any other sort of LEO engagement with an armed perp, Ramos and Compean had no option of pursuit to prove their case. Anywhere else in the US an incident like this has LEOs closing in on the perp from all directions and the proof of of the officer's contention will be proved. In this instance, it would have been the agents' word against the smuggler's word and naturally Mexico would side with the smuggler and demand prosecution so basically you are saying that the agents should have reported something that they had no way of proving for the purpose of guaranteeing themselves a trial with all the same circumstances of the trial that did occur and did convict them. They would be facing Bush, Mexico and an El Pasoan jury with a soft spot in their heart for Mexican smugglers. It would have been foolish to report it knowing what would follow.
If Ramos and Compean were purposely firing upon an unarmed drug smuggler escaping to Mexico ( and personally, I wouldn't mind if they did ) then the implication is that they expected that unarmed body to have been stopped on US soil. Had they killed Davila right then and there and the body wasn't armed, they would have gone to jail for life and these respected family men would have condemned themselves to a life in prison on purpose. That is why the DHS invented the motive "They wanted to shoot some Mexicans". The implication being that the agents felt it was worth it to spend their lives in jail for the pleasure of shooting some Mexicans. Both agents are Mexican. They had to invent the motive of rogue cops out to shoot Mexicans without being concerned about leaving smoking gun evidence and no escape route for themselves.
>>Ignoring the “framed” part for a moment, can you name TWO other BP agents that have been prosecuted by Sutton? I can think of one, Sipes.<<
I might be mistaken, but I think I remember that Sutton did not prosecute Sipes, whose case I believe was in another Texas jurisdiction. The Sipes conviction was overturned on appeal because the prosecution (not Sutton) withheld exculpatory evidence.
Noe Aleman and Gary Brugman? Not sure about who prosecuted them.
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.