Posted on 10/10/2007 1:21:47 PM PDT by processing please hold
Edited on 10/10/2007 1:23:57 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
The U.S. Supreme Court's hearing of the case, Medellin v. Texas, has reminded the American people of President Bush's terrible tendency to put the foreign interests of Mexico above those of the United States. But the case, being heard on October 10, is significant for another reason. It demonstrates the dangers of passing global treaties and getting involved with international courts and tribunals. The Senate should remember this lesson as it ponders ratification of the U.N.'s Law of the Sea Treaty, which creates an International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and various "dispute resolution panels" that will inevitably rule and act against the U.S. The Senate could vote on this treaty shortly and the odds are that it will pass unless the American people voice their objections immediately and vociferously.
(Excerpt) Read more at gopusa.com ...
Is this one of your cases. Is there a President Hillary Clinton now or in the past? That is false. Did a President Hillary Clinton present a soliticitation to the Supreme Court in defense of a "bank robber"? This is not a false choice?
Now listen punk, I explained myself. There is no need for you to go unstable and get pissy with me. I tried to give you an honest opinion, and you go postal on me and call me all manner of ugly names. You have no idea who I am nor what I do nor what I have done to assess my courage or imagination.
Just saw yet another feat of ledgerdemain that Bush is attempting to sneak thru- makes me wonder if this entire sh!tstorm hasn't been engineered in order to sneak this "Law Of The Sea Treaty" through the senate that he is conspiring with Biden about. This L.O.S.T. thing is being discussed (and cussed) on WND, Eagle Forum, Townhall, and even on FR. Is this what he is up to? Have we had enough?
“To: shankbear
This is NOT the guy I voted for twice for president and every time elected as governor.”
“He’s not the same man I voted for in ‘04 and I sure do miss that one. Oh well, no use crying over spilled milk I guess.”
Who said MK Ultra planted a chip in him during one of those colonoscopys?
.
No joke.
I've been a big supporter of Bush. And I get that the relationship with Turkey has some strategic value. And that there are plenty of traitors in Congress who would do anything to subvert Bush's policies. But calling the Armenian genocide anything other that what it was is more re-writing of history that we cannot afford to forget. Many on this forum complained of Iran's denail of the Holocaust, and rightly so. The story of a Holocaust against the Armenians a generation earlier has not been as widely know.
"Like the genocide of the Armenians before it, and the genocide of the Cambodians which followed it, . . . the lessons of the Holocaust must never be forgotten." --US President Ronald Reagan - April 22, 1981, proclamation.
This useless, needless, completely symbolic legislation only brings about potential difficulties (especially to those we currently have down range in a war). Of course it allows those in the safety of CONUS, to puff their chests out with pride and pat themselves on the back for what great, caring people they see themselves as (for passing useless, symbolic legislation).
Those down range are actually stopping atrocities, facing evil.....and not with symbolism, but with risking their very lives! Big F'ing difference.
On that we surely agree.
Is this one of your cases. Is there a President Hillary Clinton now or in the past? That is false. Did a President Hillary Clinton present a soliticitation to the Supreme Court in defense of a "bank robber"? This is not a false choice?
It was laid out as an alternative path that a future case MIGHT have taken had President Bush not done what he has done.
It does require imagination to consider that such a future event might occur. I'm sorry to have troubled you with something that is beyond your capabilities to comprehend.
Anymore? Except for the occassional photo-op, or when he needs to make a speech in front of an approving crowd (usually, an orchestrated military crowd), I haven't seen any evidence in six years that he cares for any American citizen. I've seen evidence that he cares for Mexicans, Indians, Iraqis, Chinese, Afghanis, etc.
He lost me the day after 911 when common sense dictated that our border needed to be protected. He not only refused, he did -- and has done -- everything he could do to make the country more accessible and encourage more illegals to come. By word and deed. The saddest thing I've seen is his embrace of Islam, the "Religion of Peace," whilst the ruins of the World Trade Center were still smoldering, and we had not yet realized that there were not many bodies (only body fragments) to recover.
These two fundamentals (which he has maintained consistently since 2001) are not "Oopses," and "lapses in judgement." They are not "coincidences." They are an arrogant slap in the face, and demonstrate a consistent contempt for America and Americans... as well as a disregard for our sovereignty and safety.
It was laid out as an alternative path that a future case MIGHT have taken had President Bush not done what he has done.
In my hypothetical
It was laid out as an alternative path that a future case MIGHT takeUnder President Hillary!
, who chose to have a case of a bank robbery committed by an illegal?
The lack of courage by so many Freepers, including yourself, to look into the mouth of the lion on so many of issues is very disappointing and shows a real lack of courage and imagination.
I didn’t give any false choises. As the facts exist, it IS in front of SCOTUS.
My comments to you were reality based on what happened. Your fantasy about a fictitious bank robber, under an as yet unknown president, provided as a fact according to your statement, then as a hypothetical, then as not false, then what might happen, and finally an editorial comment on me and other freepers imagination and courage. My first answer remains. Your imagination is unrestrained in the extreme. What I comprehend is that you live in a pretend world which most of us do not.
My comment that the Bush administration solicitor general would provide amicus briefs on behalf of a supranational judicial body in violation to his Constitutional oath of office does violence now to the Constitution of the United States of Amlerica. The act of that solicitation does violence to our sovereignty. The act of solititation sets a presidence, not a fictionalized 'woulda, coulda, shoulda". That is reality. Yours is imagined and absolute fiction, which you stated was fact. It was not. In all probability it will never be. There may be a future case of solititation before the court on behalf of a supranational judiciary, but when and by whom is simply conjecture and is therefore meaningless at this time. That was my point. YOur creating fiction to remove criticism of Bush was clearly your point. He is not above being criticized. That is simpy the process of being informed on issues and having opinions of the actions of the government. I like Bush at many levels, but at several levels he has failed. I do not think the Constitution is something up for grabs by Bush or any other president. To excuse a flagrant attack on the Constitution like this is irresponsible of any citizen. It is no more or less eggregious if Clinton had done this same thing. For those who raise their hand and take an oath to uphold the constitution, then attack its very underpinnings is something every citizen should take very seriously in reality, not in a fantasy world.
Hillary! as President extreme? Rush puts it a 80% likelyhood.
Mexican illegal as a bank robber?
Well you've got me there. I can't think of a single case of an illegal robbing a bank. Dang.
I fold, my whole argument is rendered useless, and all over my foolish pick of bank robbing as a crime that an illegal might commit.
DAMN!
Let this serve as a warning to others before they engage you................do research FIRST!
I must have misread your statement. I thought you said an illegal immigrant bank robber for whom a future president becomes advocate at the Supreme Court in solicitation for a supranational judiciary and against the Constitution of the United States. Now you assert the possibility of a bank robber who is illegal.....no mention of presidential solicitation at the Supreme Court. Your qualifiers and description keep changing, much like your imagination.
You also said what you put before me were only facts....'hypothetical facts'. Read your own posts.
It is good that you fold. Your imagination is as deep as the Marianas Abyss but your reality base is ankle deep. Make up your pathetic mind as to what your "hypothetical facts" are and try to be accurate for once in your freeping life.
He’s also a brother in the Lord and all these ‘word curses’ that everyone is tossing his way are really dangerous spiritually, for them and for him. We need to be praying for him, not continually complaining and whining about him. God is the one who put in in authority over us and when we continually complain, we slap GOD in the face, like He didn’t know what he was doing.
So true. I’m sick of politics too. The libs are losers and the pubbies and conservatives aren’t too far behind these days.
Yes, it is sad. I remember the days when I first logged on to FR and the great posts by folks like JohnHuang 2 and others who had a lot to say and said it well. I’m no debater but I sure loved reading a good one.
OK, for sake of expediency, let me begin afresh.
Would you prefer to have the case tried in front of SCOTUS just as it is, with a illegal who is a brutal rapist and sadistic killer?
OR (and this next is ALL hypothetical)
Under a different President, a strong Leftist, who would be supporting the idea of a new trial for an illegal who committed a crime that didn’t involve the injury or killing of anyone. The only thing the police did wrong was the same as with the rapist/murder above, no notice of the right to contact the Mexican Consulate. To describe the crime the illegal Mexican was found guilty of: It was a crime that very few cared about, no national attention when it occurred, nor when the guilty verdict was returned.
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.