Posted on 10/17/2011 6:38:46 PM PDT by smoothsailing
By JERI CLAUSING and PAUL DAVENPORT Associated Press
October 17,2011
"It was a joke," Cain said emphatically. "I apologize if I offended anyone. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea culpa."
(Excerpt) Read more at kttc.com ...
Don’t worry. Cain peaked too early. He’ll be history by the end of the month.
I am no fool for backing Perry. Just you watch, buddy. Perry is going all the way!
“Perry is going all the way!”
...back to Texas.
ROTFLMAO. Now that was funny. Really needed. I spit some of my cookie out on the screen. I think you might just be the most delusional person in America. The only place he is going to back to Texas. You Texans can have him. Don't infest the rest of the country with his stench. You guys like him so much, why have him run for President. I guarantee you have tons more aliens in Texas than when he was first Governor. That is fine if you Texans want those aliens walking all over the place in Texas but the rest of the country don't want that at all.
But you don’t answer the question. Can we shoot all illegals on sight?
Your argument SEEMS to be yes, because a few of them will commit violent acts, we can kill them all and let God sort it out. But I don’t want to put words in your mouth.
I believe we should secure our border, both physically and legally (a major part of our illegal problem is people who legally cross into our country, and then overstay their legal term). Perry is rated “good” on border security by NumbersUsa, because he ahs actually SECURED borders — the only candidate who can say that. Cain has never secured a single inch of a border.
I believe we should deport illegals. I support any plan that deports illegals. There are illegals who are americanized, and if someone wants to put a plan together that finds them, fines them, and gives them work permits, I don’t really care. It would be loads better than what we have now, and frankly, I’m not concerned about the illegals who have assimilated into our country and culture. If we can get the votes to pass a law to kick them ALL out, it’s fine with me — I’m not saying americanized illegals have any right to stay. I’m saying that as a matter of policy, I don’t see that million or so assimilated illegals as being a significant problem.
I agree with Palin, who said that once we secure our border and take care of the worst of the illegal problem, we can consider a plan that grants the best of them some sort of legal status. And for that reason, I don’t mind that Perry has allowed the best and brightest of these americanized illegals to get a college degree, so when we inevitably grant the best of them work permits (and appropriately fine them for their trespass), we will improve America’s competitive position in the world.
Killing random mexicans at the border will do nothing to stop random illegals already in our country from committing violent acts. We need to get a conservative in the presidency who is committed to deporting illegals when we catch them.
That is Perry — the only candidate in the race who has actually JAILED illegals, and requested that the federal government deport those jailed illegals, and asked for money to pay for their incarceration.
Herman Cain has never had a single illegal immigrant jailed. And so far as I can tell by a google search, he never had a single illegal immigrant fired from his company.
But back to the topic — are you saying that we should kill the 14 million illegal immigrants in the country, in order to prevent the thousands of criminal acts that the thousands of them will commit?
If not, what IS your point? We can build a fence and post guards and keep them out without killing all of them. We can capture and deport them to keep them from commiting crimes, without killing them.
So your argument is moot. Your facts are meaningless, because you have forgotten to actually MAKE the argument. “Some illegals commit Crimes, SO we should kill them all”. That is the argument you appear to want to make, I want to see you actually say the words.
I hope you didn’t throw up on your keyboard.
Can you read?
Applause!!!
A single killing by US law enforcement along the Mexican border makes headlines. There is not one Western nation that has a shoot-to-kill policy on their border. We do not have the right to use lethal force except to protect life. It is a violation of Article 3 of the 4th Geneva Convention:
Article 3 states that even where there is not a conflict of international character the parties must as a minimum adhere to minimal protections described as: noncombatants, members of armed forces who have laid down their arms, and combatants who are hors de combat (out of the fight) due to wounds, detention, or any other cause shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, with the following prohibitions:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
Once we have secured our border, we can then take on the illegals in our country.
Kudos to this great man and his family for living and believing in the American Dream and American Sovereignty. I'm on the Cain Team and we're going exceed expectations!
I actually ANSWERED your question, you are just too stupid to read apparently. You are like a broken record, writing stupid things and ignoring responses, not explaining your position, and resorting to name-calling as if it’s a debating tactic.
I’m not surprised — your position is devoid of sense, decensy, or moral standing. You ask if it is OK to kill people for crossing the border, we all tell you NO, and you refuse to take NO as an answer.
You apparently think that because we all would support shooting an armed thug threatening the life of a border agent, that this means we should all support killing every illegal who tries to cross the border. We don’t, your candidate doesn’t, and your unlikely to find more than a fringe group who would agree with that principle.
Heck, I don’t even know if YOU agree with it, since you REFUSE to answer your OWN question, or anybody elses questions.
And lest you missed it, or maybe you have a mental deficiency of some sort and can’t remember things after you read other things — NO. NO NO NO.
It is NOT all right to shoot people for simply crossing our border. NO. There is no rational, moral, or ethical basis for killing a human being for trespassing. NO.
Now, can you anser, do you think it IS OK to shoot other human beings for crossing a border?
I don’t know if you know this, because you seem pretty clueless, but by your standard, we should all be dead, and this country should still be the territory of the indian tribes. Columbus should have been shot on sight, for invading their territory.
And I hope you are never on an international flight that has to land in a different country, because by your apparent argument, that country has every right to blow your plane out of the sky, since you didn’t get legal passage to land in those countries.
Your basic flaw in your argument is that you want to take a specific, justifiable instance where it would be OK to use deadly force to defend a border, and use that to argue that every person crossing a border without permission should be killed.
But it is so much easier for those of us who disagree to provide NUMBEROUS counter-examples of people who illegally cross borders who NOBODY would support being killed. And since your argument APPEARS to be that all illegal crossers can be shot on sight, you have to prove that EVERY one of the illegals deserves and can rightfully be shot. We only have to present ONE counterexample where you are wrong, and your argument falls.
The sad thing is that I think you actually believe you are winning an argument because we would use troops to defend our border from a military invasion, as if that is somehow equivalent to people crossing our borders to try to earn a living.
And then you mistakenly think that if we don’t want to kill people, we want them to get away with their illegal behavior. But since most people don’t support the type of sharia law where every minor offense is punishable by death, your argument falls flat.
And lest you are distracted again by my vain attempts to educate you, NO NO NO NO NO. You cannot shoot people simply for crossing your border. It is a violation of accepted international practice, probably a treaty violation with Mexico, certainly will be an international incident and will be roundly and rightfully condemned by hte world community. NO, we do not support other countries shooting americans on sight for illegally crossing their borders, and we cannot shoot people for illegally crossing our borders. NO.
Are you so clueless to try to claim I still haven’t answered your question?
John, we have a Constitutional mandate to protect our border and Geneva does not override that. Period.
If someone wants to violate our border, they should get whatever level of force, lead electricity or sharks with friggin lazer beams on their heads required to keep them the hell out. Period.
You want to coddle them? Be my guest. If we ever elect a President with the huevos to do his/her job as the law of the land mandates, you exercise your right to picket the Full length armed fence and support the illegals there too.
We are being invaded by a non uniformed army. Millions are here now. THat is an invasion.
Answer this. If we arm the fence and the illegals clearly see that, whose fault is it if they die trying to cross?
Canadians are not overrunning our States and their resources. Canadians actually have a cohesive society and are quite happy with that. Mexico is the cradle of corruption from the Government to the Cartels. They need to get their own house in order instead of trying to co-opt ours.
Methinks you called it yes... liberal... spot on.
You cannot read. And you are a liberal making excuses,, shifting blame and ducking the issues.
Good night Charles. Give your illegal pals a smooch for me.
For the people reading this, Charles is what liberals really look like when they play conservative on the internet. You all know that...I know that...But chuck just ain’t got the ability to see it.
The chuckle head kids weren’t drawing AFDC, WIC, Medicaid nor any other kind of giveaway. Fact is Iran doesn’t offer any giveaways! What do you know???? Wow... not too many are beating down their doors.
Do you agree with the other poster that we should give the Rio Grande to Mexico?
And you think it takes courage to ask someone else to kill people for you?
I am not willing to give up the Rio Grande for the illusion of security, or waste our money on useless fencing, or to kill human beings for trespassing.
And I have the courage to say so. And your belief that the “courageous” thing ia to give away our territory does not paint a flattering picture for your position.
You are full of cr@p as a Christmas goose! I have family in BP in Cali and yes the fence has worked. Problem is, it has driven the crossings to areas where we HAVE NO FENCE OR ANY OTHER CREDIBLE BARRIER!!! You are a PUTZ! ...or maybe just love to push RAT border policy.
You cannot read. Should have taken English instead of LIBERAL arts in school.
Some here would suspend enforcing our LAWS and our SOVEREIGN BORDER.. just as long as their GUY gets elected.
; ~ )
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.