|
| Posted by: Perm Dude
- [321041921] Wed, Nov 19, 2008, 23:13
Here's a sample:
-Truck drivers can stay on the road longer
-EPA doesn't have to regulate a rocket fuel contaminant in drinking water
-even more expansion of domestic surveillance
-the opening up of more parkland for oil leases (without the benefit of Park Service comment)
More here and here.
The Bush Administration long ago became that which it criticized. And it is going out the same way.
Politico asks if the rules are reversible (the answer: Maybe, but some might be hard to do). |
| | |
| | | 2 | Building 7
ID: 1103028 Thu, Nov 20, 2008, 00:05
|
Executive Orders are unconstitutional. Congress passes the laws, and the President signs them or vetoes them. The Executive branch is not authorized to create laws.
|
|
| | | 3 | Baldwin
ID: 1110431822 Thu, Nov 20, 2008, 02:25
|
Nerve can ask himself why Bush wants to hand a marxist enhanced domestic serveillance capability.
|
|
| | | 4 | nerveclinic
ID: 26107108 Fri, Nov 21, 2008, 07:07
|
Who is the Marxist Baldwin? What is your specific evidence besides the hysteria in your head?
Socialist I can go along with. That would be one socialist handing it to another.
|
|
| | | 5 | Boldwin
ID: 541042014 Fri, Nov 21, 2008, 10:34
|
He and his mother deliberately surrounded him with hardcore marxists from the womb on. Find any evidence he's ever veered a single degree from the trajectory his mother put him on. Really the evidence is overwhelming, Nerve. This is just willfill blindness and blind hope on your part.
|
|
| | | 6 | Perm Dude
ID: 331032110 Fri, Nov 21, 2008, 11:06
|
LOL. Define "evidence" Baldwin. Because you won't find a single "hardcore marxist" law that he's proposed as a legislator. Nothing in his books. Nothing in his speeches.
There is, in fact, nothing you would accept as evidence at all. You've decided what he is and you won't be dissuaded from that.
I can see why you were such a cheerleader for the Bush Administration for so long (despite your efforts, now, to pull yourself away from their teat). You've got their "not own own best interest, no apologies, attack as unAmerican the other side" patter down cold.
|
|
| | | 7 | Tree
ID: 51011420 Fri, Nov 21, 2008, 11:37
|
He and his mother deliberately surrounded him with hardcore marxists from the womb on. Find any evidence he's ever veered a single degree from the trajectory his mother put him on. Really the evidence is overwhelming, Nerve. This is just willfill blindness and blind hope on your part.
heh. the ravings of a madman. poor poor baldwin.
there is no evidence he's a marxist, but that name or any other. but your fear of a black planet blinds you so much, you have no concept of what reality is anymore.
maybe you never did, always seeming to bash Bush a tiny bit, to hide the fact you supported his nearly every move.
the burden of proof is on you - saying someone's parents are something is not proof. my parents are orthodox jews. raised five boys. only one of them is orthodox.
|
|
| | | 8 | Boldwin
ID: 541042014 Fri, Nov 21, 2008, 18:17
|
He and his mother...
His own autobiography says he only hung out with marxist professors. Why is that, do you suppose?
|
|
| | | 9 | Perm Dude
ID: 331032110 Fri, Nov 21, 2008, 18:24
|
I strongly suspect that you believe anyone who works on rural development, third world grassroots development, or microbanking is a "hardcore marxist."
Don't forget those marxist weavers.
|
|
| | | 10 | Boldwin
ID: 541042014 Fri, Nov 21, 2008, 19:04
|
He thot they were marxists.
|
|
| | | 11 | Razor
ID: 181051618 Fri, Nov 21, 2008, 21:35
|
Baldwin, can you please stop ruining this board with this BS? It's bullshit, plain and simple, without an ounce of truth.
|
|
| | | 12 | Boldwin
ID: 541042014 Fri, Nov 21, 2008, 22:11
|
Are you saying he didn't say that in his autobiography? Of course he did.
|
|
| | | 13 | Boldwin
ID: 541042014 Fri, Nov 21, 2008, 22:13
|
I can give a long list of hardcore marxist close friends and associates. How does that equate to not an ounce of truth? This board truly sucks. No tolerance or recognition of the plain truth in front of their faces.
|
|
| | | 14 | Perm Dude
ID: 331032110 Sat, Nov 22, 2008, 00:33
|
...hardcore marxist...
Let's do a little exercise here: Name a moderate marxist. Anyone at all--you seem to have your pulse on this just-under-the-surface marxism that is all around us like the Matrix.
You throw around "hardcore marxist" like the word "nazi." It no longer has any meaning. And since you can't point to any actual policy proposals by Obama (nor any past hardcore marxist legislation which Obama worked for) you are back to playing the association game.
|
|
| | | 15 | tree on the treo
ID: 361053417 Sat, Nov 22, 2008, 00:42
|
baldwin...to you, this board sucks because we don't blindly accept your bullsh!t logic. you have zero proof for anything you claim, and resort to people obama knew or knows, as proof, instead of anything he's done, or says he will do.
|
|
| | | 16 | Boldwin
ID: 541042014 Sat, Nov 22, 2008, 06:35
|
My distinction would be that some are useful idiot socialists who don't realize that socialism is just a slow road to tyrany, and hardcore are those who consciously are in a hurry to get to tyrany.
They are all functioning operational class warfare marxists but there is a difference.
|
|
| | | 17 | Boldwin
ID: 541042014 Sat, Nov 22, 2008, 06:41
|
And the reason debating with liberals is less and less fun is that we are sliding down the Orwellian deconstructionist memory hole where words no longer have meaning, truth doesn't exist to these people and there is no longer any sense of objective reality. In such an environment evidence can gain no traction and proof is impossible.
That is why you can hit them on the head with a ten pound sledgehammer of truth. You can lay the proof on day after day and they will sit there obliviously calling you a liar.
|
|
| | | 18 | Mith
ID: 148402816 Sat, Nov 22, 2008, 08:59
|
where words no longer have meaning i.e.: "marxism"
truth doesn't exist to these people and there is no longer any sense of objective reality i.e.: those who whould have you believe President-elect Obama: was not born in the US; is a muslim; is a cousin, supporter and financier of Raila Odinga; is a racist; is a black liberation theologist; is the anti-christ; is a terrorism supporter and/or appeaser; is a terrorist; seeks the destruction of Israel and should be defined by only the worst assumptions about the most questionable characters he can be in any way connected to.
Remember when Baldwin used to whine about obstructionist Democrats? Get yourself some popcorn.
|
|
| | | 19 | Boldwin
ID: 541042014 Sat, Nov 22, 2008, 10:18
|
Yes, like marxism. Despite Obama's own words that he only hung out with marxist professors, that flies over your head without registering. Not quite sure who was Obama's intended audience because his words were lost on you.
|
|
| | | 20 | Perm Dude
ID: 36100229 Sat, Nov 22, 2008, 10:33
|
And other than here, who do you hand out with, Baldwin? How should we judge you?
Based upon the crap you bring in here, I doubt you'd want us to know...
|
|
| | | 21 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313 Sat, Nov 22, 2008, 12:32
|
It's well established that in Dreams From My Father, Obama expressed regret for the wayward college years he described in that book and explained his awakening from that period in his life. But you don't get that side of the story from the hate-media that B advances here.
Obama also admitted his use of narcotics in that book. Does B also believe Obama spends his days coked up?
|
|
| | | 22 | Boldwin
ID: 541042014 Sat, Nov 22, 2008, 17:43
|
He is disturbed that people go off into the real world, buy a suit and go make money while losing their zeal from their radical studies college courses. Which tells me he is still the same radical he always was. As if his Acorn career left any room for doubt.
|
|
| | | 23 | Mith
ID: 148402816 Sun, Nov 23, 2008, 06:53
|
He is disturbed that people go off into the real world, buy a suit and go make money while losing their zeal from their radical studies college courses.
Oh my goodness. Where do you get this idea? Was it written in on the back of a campaign contribution to some African despot signed by "Friend of Seantor BHO"?
|
|
| | | 24 | Perm Dude
ID: 531027238 Sun, Nov 23, 2008, 09:27
|
And he shows this disturbing how, exactly? by making you feel uncomfortable?
|
|
| | | 25 | Boldwin
ID: 541042014 Sun, Nov 23, 2008, 09:59
|
I've already posted the you-tube of him saying it.
|
|
| | | 26 | jedman Dude
ID: 315192219 Sun, Nov 23, 2008, 10:02
|
I think my feelings about Obama are similar to many who are more on the conservative side. I am scared that he MIGHT be part or some of the things that Baldwin talks about so much. I don't know and I hope I am wrong and I am willing to wait and see. Guys like Rush say they know what he his and it will become obvious when he takes office. I don't agree with that. I am going to hold my tongue on any of those accusations until he takes office and starts to govern. I do believe he is very smart and his administration will see that we are in such bad shape economically that he is going to have to wait on some of his promises. I cut out a piece from the Investor's Business Daily a couple weeks ago that detailed about 30-40 promises Obama made during the campaign. It will be interesting in 4 years to see how he did. I want him to succeed and turn things around. I love this country and am scared for it right now. I think we are in uncharted territory and there is no clear way out. It will take the brightest and smartest to get us back on track, from both sides of the aisle.
|
|
| | | 27 | bibA
ID: 2810231718 Sun, Nov 23, 2008, 11:13
|
On a scale of 1 to 10, 1 being a Marxist, 3 quite left wing, 5 being centrist, 9 being the right as represented by Coulter, Rush and Hannity, and 10 would be Baldwin.
If Obama ruled anywhere from 4 to 7, none of those mentioned at 9 or 10 would give him the slightest credit for attempting find a fair balance and satisfy as many of his citizens as possible.
I will have to give Bush credit. It seems that during the waning months of his terms, he is finally attempting to go beyond his base and attack some problems with solutions that are somewhat more centrist, as opposed to continually and stubbornly attempt to satisfy just his right wing conservative base.
Obama has stressed that he would attempt to reach across the aisle and attempt to find solutions that would satisfy most of us. Even if he governs to the left or right of my personal beliefs, I will be content if he does try to work with and for us all.
It gives me hope to see the likes of jedman and Boxman assert that they will give him the opportunity to do some good without attacking him from an automatic and negative preset stance.
|
|
| | | 28 | Boxman
ID: 571114225 Sun, Nov 23, 2008, 11:55
|
It gives me hope to see the likes of jedman and Boxman assert that they will give him the opportunity to do some good without attacking him from an automatic and negative preset stance.
I plan on affording Obama the respect that losers like Sarge, Tree, Zen, and millions of others failed to give Bush; a fair chance to govern. Bush was hated the moment the 2000 election was over by a significant portion of this country and they embarked on a classless pursuit of him until he was out of office because he defeated their beloved Algore.
|
|
| | | 29 | tree on the treo
ID: 361053417 Sun, Nov 23, 2008, 13:05
|
well, considering a majority voted for gore, it makes sense a majority didn't like bush.
nonetheless, its a nice bit of revisionist history you've just invented....for me, bush had a fair chance.
but the minute he began using 9/11 as an excuse to take away freedoms, go to war, and allow torture, he lost all that...
|
|
| | | 30 | WiddleAvi
ID: 710271316 Sun, Nov 23, 2008, 13:14
|
Boxman - I disagree. Bush's approval rating right after 9/11 was very high. It was the Iraq war that started his downward spiral.
|
|
| | | 31 | Perm Dude
ID: 531027238 Sun, Nov 23, 2008, 13:52
|
Widdle: That's absolutely true. Most people were fine going forward from when Bush took office, despite the distaste of Bush v Gore. And that distrust was wiped away after 9/11, when Bush enjoyed unprecedented support among the country, Democrats and Republicans.
The difference between Obama and Bush right now is that the distrust of Bush has been earned by him, by a failure of leadership, his incompetence, and political wavering in which being resolute stood in for actual leadership.
Obama hasn't even had one day in office and he's already hated by the Right. Apparently it is bad for the Left to hate the President from "the moment the election is over" but this is acceptable behavior (in fact, cheered on) by the Right.
|
|
| | | 32 | Razor
ID: 181051618 Sun, Nov 23, 2008, 18:22
|
As has already been stated, Bush was not reviled after being elected. He was disliked by some, but he had approval ratings above 55% up until 9/11 when it jumped to nearly 90%. Boxman is misinformed on this issue.
|
|
| | | 33 | Boldwin
ID: 541042014 Sun, Nov 23, 2008, 18:34
|
I'd like to see a weekly retrospective of Sarge's posts to back that up. That would be a riot.
|
|
| | | 34 | Taxman
ID: 3985420 Sun, Nov 23, 2008, 21:13
|
"In such an environment evidence can gain no traction and proof is impossible.'
From the same side of the isle that "discovered" creationism as a science.
|
|
| | | 35 | Boldwin
ID: 541042014 Mon, Nov 24, 2008, 04:04
|
Oh please. I don't defend creationism. You want me to tar your side with college professor black supremacists who claim everything was invented by blacks in Africa?
Plenty of people not terribly rigorous about their proof on both sides.
|
|
| | | 36 | Tree
ID: 12938521 Mon, Nov 24, 2008, 09:13
|
I'd like to see a weekly retrospective of Sarge's posts to back that up. That would be a riot.
well, you just had FOUR people come up and tell you that boxman was wrong. there's a difference between disliking a president, and not giving that president a chance.
Bush had that chance. he blew it. and no amount of revisionist claims from people like you or Boxman is going to change it.
|
|
| | | 37 | sarge33rd
ID: 2810452218 Mon, Nov 24, 2008, 09:22
|
re 28.....shrub had my respect Box. Then he lost it thru his actions. If judging someone on their actions constitutes in your mind a "loser"; then I will gladly accept the label.
|
|
| | | 38 | sarge33rd
ID: 2810452218 Mon, Nov 24, 2008, 09:35
|
re 33: katie could back me up Boldy. My disdain for bush, came after his failure to pursue OBL and change course to Iraq. More importantly; I started out against the Iraqi invasion and was swayed by what turned out to be misleading reports from the Admin, into supporting the Iraqi invasion. My disgust for shrub, came about with the knowledge that insufficient personnel were tasked for the invasion; leaving munition sites unsecured and unmonitored. When it became apparent, that no plan existed for what to do after Saddam was ousted. When US military personnels deaths, began to mount in a so called green-zone. When he had the audacity, to declare "mission accomplished", SO many years before it would be "accomplished". (As from where I sit, it still isnt accomplished.)
|
|
| | | 39 | walk
ID: 181472714 Mon, Nov 24, 2008, 10:01
|
I never wanted Bush, and did not really respect him when he won the election. So, I'll take the hit here for not giving the guy much of a chance. Did that affect his ability to govern effectively...? Likely not.
After 9/11 and his quick decision to go after Al Quaida and the Taliban folks who harbored them, I thought he did good, and I was starting to feel more positively about his leadership. But, after the run-up to Iraq and everything Tree outlined above in the context of a post 9/11 world (taking away of civil liberties thing, etc.), I again had a very negative view of him.
The partisanship he espoused, the incompetence, the groupthink, the cronyism, the failures such as Iraq, Iraq, the US Attorneys thing, along with an utter lack of humility, modesty, public relations, outreach, common sense, and willingness to work cooperatively with our allies really cemented things. The firm lack of accountability (the press conference where he could not admit one mistake...Oliver Stone ends W. with that one) and the overreach of the exec branch and deference to Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz...awful leadership. And then the black & white, us vs. them, nationalism propaganda to bolster support, reject criticism, and exclude outside thinking kept all the bad feelings going.
I hope Obama does what he says he is going to do and basically leads in an opposite manner. That's essentially what I see in him, the opposite. A smart, inclusive, open to disagreement, learner of a leader who realizes that we need to work effectively with others to succeed, and one who thinks that having dissenting opinion is a good thing, not an unpatriotic thing. And one who will reverse many of the exec decisions the Bush admin made. I hope for this. To be fair, it remains to be seen. The only basis for evaluation thus far is his platform and his cabinet choices.
|
|
| | | 40 | Seattle Zen
ID: 91172012 Sat, Dec 20, 2008, 13:48
|
This picture certainly encapsulates the Bush Misadministration far better than a thousand words.

With the failure of San Francisco to name a waste water treatment plant after W, I fear there won't be a single thing named after him that he did not build himself, like his library. What do you think his library will be like? Filled with children's books, like his favorite, The Very Hungry Caterpillar or the book he was reading to the Floridian school kids on September 11th, 2001? Lots of fun, hands-on exhibits more suited for a children's science museum?
His documents he allows the public to see will probably not fill a broom closet and those choice few will be heavily redacted.
|
|
| | | 41 | Baldwin
ID: 1211491020 Sat, Dec 20, 2008, 15:24
|
His monument will be a neocon/Soros owned republican party, a disaffected republican base ready to bolt their party for more conservative party, and the death of the Reagan Revolution, stabbed in the back by the Bush dynasty.
Oh and when terrorism takes off again unopposed we can thank Bush for the 5 years when he quelled it. I think we'll look back on the last 5 years fondly everytime a bomb goes off in the USA under Obamas' appeasement policies. I just want a camera on Bill Ayers to catch his america hating glee as they go off.
|
|
| | | 42 | Razor
ID: 181051618 Sat, Dec 20, 2008, 15:31
|
Care to elaborate on "Obama's appeasement policies" and how they will increase incidents of terrorism domestically?
|
|
| | | 43 | Baldwin
ID: 1211491020 Sat, Dec 20, 2008, 15:38
|
I think you have only to wait for his planned early trip to Indonesia to get a sense of it.
|
|
| | | 44 | Baldwin
ID: 1211491020 Sat, Dec 20, 2008, 15:40
|
And I would also estimate about 50 Al Qeada training camps open up out in the open worldwide the day he is sworn in.
|
|
| | | 45 | Baldwin
ID: 1211491020 Sat, Dec 20, 2008, 15:56
|
I would also estimate a Taliban reconquest of Afghanistan within 6 months of his swearing in.
|
|
| | | 46 | Perm Dude
ID: 811502010 Sat, Dec 20, 2008, 16:05
|
The Taliban already control most of that country now (Thanks, George!). That's hardly a prediction.
|
|
| | | 47 | Baldwin
ID: 1211491020 Sat, Dec 20, 2008, 16:18
|
#46 As if anyone you would ever vote for wouldn't currently have the Taliban in total control.
The shamelessness of liberals...amazing.
|
|
| | | 48 | Perm Dude
ID: 811502010 Sat, Dec 20, 2008, 17:54
|
Until you vote you have no place to talk about who other people are voting for. You might talk about "support" or "campaign for" or any number of things, but you don't have a leg to stand on talking about the consequences of an actual vote.
As for support, I have been quite clear in supporting candidates who are in opposition to George Bush, who did a half-assed job in Afghanistan (as in virtually all aspects of his presidency) and it'll be up to Obama to clean it up. You can run from your support against Bush but you can't hide.
|
|
| | | 49 | Baldwin
ID: 1211491020 Sat, Dec 20, 2008, 17:57
|
Since you said that Afganistan was impossible, any success at all was doing the impossible. Somehow doing the impossible becomes 'half-assed ' when it suits your purpose to be illogical.
|
|
| | | 50 | Baldwin
ID: 221172017 Sat, Dec 20, 2008, 18:16
|
I strongly suggest Salman Rushdie avoid the Obamanation, lest he find a brand new interpretation of rendition.
|
|
| | | 51 | Tree
ID: 1311551521 Sat, Dec 20, 2008, 18:27
|
And I would also estimate about 50 Al Qeada training camps open up out in the open worldwide the day he is sworn in.
can you please continue to say really stupid things. it's entertaining.
then again, your boy Bush helped bring Al Queda into Iraq in spades, so you'll do anything to cover your own a$$ in regards to the man you love.
|
|
| | | 52 | Baldwin
ID: 221172017 Sat, Dec 20, 2008, 18:32
|
During Clinton's reign anyone who wanted to could go to a map and point out a freely functioning state approved terrorist training camp. You can't do that today or for @ another month. No, not even in Iraq. Especially not in Iraq.
|
|
| | | 53 | Baldwin
ID: 221172017 Tue, Dec 23, 2008, 15:58
|
It doesn't look like the drug dynasty president is going to pardon Ramos and Compean, big surprise. Bush let a ton of extra drugs and outlaws flow into the country by 'virtue' of the outrageous miscarriage of justice that he oversaw against Ramos and Compean. Border guards have given up the right [and obligation] of armed enforcement of the border ever since. For Illegals it's open season on border guards. May the zillions of illegals he let in all squat on Bush's ranch.
|
|
| | | 54 | Tree
ID: 1311551521 Tue, Dec 23, 2008, 23:26
|
ugh. we've been over that case a million times. they're criminals. they don't deserve a pardon.
and the statement "for illegals, it's open season on border guards," is, quite frankly, not relevant in this case.
however, if you want to transpose your words, feel free, because if they were pardoned, "for border guards, it's open season on illegals" would be quite appropriate.
|
|
| | | 55 | Perm Dude
ID: 4211462314 Tue, Dec 23, 2008, 23:45
|
Open season to turn your backs on the border guards and get shot, it seems.
As for Bush, this is a guy who let his state kill a retarded kid on death row. You really think he's going to pardon anyone for non-political reasons?
|
|
| | | 56 | Baldwin
ID: 221172017 Wed, Dec 24, 2008, 11:06
|
PD
He was shot in the groin. I will add you to the list of liberals who feel the groinal area is in the backside.
|
|
| | | 57 | Perm Dude
ID: 281125249 Wed, Dec 24, 2008, 11:18
|
He was shot at when his back was turned.
From the Sutton report:
As will be demonstrated by the summary below, the defendants were prosecuted because they had fired their weapons at a man who had attempted to surrender by holding his open hands in the air, at which time Agent Compean attempted to hit the man with the butt of Compeanï's shotgun, causing the man to run in fear of what the agents would do to him next. Although both agents saw that the man was not armed, the agents fired at least 15 rounds at him while he was running away from them, hitting him once.
Heroes to you, I suppose. They hit a Mexican in his ass with a shotgun, then fired away at him when he was running away.
Bush, in 2007, said he wouldn't pardon these guys. You seem to be taking Bush to task for not flip-flopping.
|
|
| | | 58 | Baldwin
ID: 221172017 Wed, Dec 24, 2008, 12:45
|
The doctor at the trial testified that Aldrete-Davila's wound was consistent with his reaching his left hand back toward the officers in a bladed motion that would be consistent with pointing a weapon at the officers. ...As Ramos and Compean testified. You are welcome to believe a man turning to point at you, who has a million in drugs at risk of seizure isn't planning on shooting you. I am glad you are not a border guard and you should be too, because you'd be a dead border guard sooner or later.
|
|
| | | 59 | Baldwin
ID: 221172017 Wed, Dec 24, 2008, 12:47
|
And Sutton is as corrupted as they come. He is the drug trade power elite point man. The Bush dynasty has him in their hip pocket. I wouldn't trust him ever.
|
|
| | | 60 | Perm Dude
ID: 281125249 Wed, Dec 24, 2008, 12:52
|
You are welcome to believe a man turning to point at you, who has a million in drugs at risk of seizure isn't planning on shooting you.
The timing is very inconvenient for you. They had no idea he had any drugs until after they shot 15 rounds at him.
|
|
| | | 61 | Tree
ID: 1311551521 Wed, Dec 24, 2008, 13:30
|
The doctor at the trial testified that Aldrete-Davila's wound was consistent with his reaching his left hand back toward the officers in a bladed motion that would be consistent with pointing a weapon at the officers.
it also sounds like the would is pretty consistent with running away from someone as fast as you can, arms pumping at your side, and turning around to see where the guys trying to murder you are...
|
|
| | | 62 | Baldwin
ID: 221172017 Wed, Dec 24, 2008, 13:57
|
After all, Sutton has already been exposed as an individual willing to use his political pull within the Bush administration to silence and retaliate against a DEA whistleblower who sought to expose the U.S. government’s complicity in mass murder in Juárez, Mexico, and its role in nearly causing the death of a DEA agent and his family in that same city — another obviously embarrassing political scandal for the Bush White House. - The Narcosphere, reporter Bill Conroy Also reporting Sutton had a significant role in the AG firings, for those of you upset by that.
Covering for institutionalized sexual abuse of orphans and children in state custody..."Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton, both already under siege for other matters, are now being accused of failing to prosecute officers of the Texas Youth Commission after a Texas Ranger investigation documented that guards and administrators were sexually abusing the institution's minor boy inmates," writes Corsi in a report for World Net Daily ."Among the charges in the Texas Ranger report were that administrators would rouse boys from their sleep for the purpose of conducting all-night sex parties."
A 2005 investigation led by Texas Ranger Brian Burzynski revealed that systematic abuse of minors was commonplace at West Texas State School in Pyote, Texas. Burzynski presented the findings of the investigation to both Gonzales and Sutton but was rebuffed, and even received a letter from Sutton's office that attempted to legitimize the sexual abuse of children, claiming that "under 18 U.S.C. Section 242," it would have to be demonstrated "that the boys subjected to sexual abuse sustained "bodily injury," states the letter from Bill Baumann, assistant U.S. attorney in Sutton's office.
Incredulously, Baumann's letter goes on to make the case that the minors consented to and even enjoyed the acts of pedophilia, therefore no further action was necessary.
U.S. Attorney General Johnny Sutton. In September 2005, the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division also refused to follow up with a prosecution.
According to Corsi, officials implicated in the scandal were hired despite their known criminal backgrounds and were also retained even after it was discovered that they were using state computers to regularly visit pornography websites.
"It basically sounds as if you wouldn't get hired in one of these facilities unless you were a pedophile," Corsi told the Alex Jones Show.
"You've got a culture of pedophilia that is at the core of the Texas Youth Commission, and what that means is you won't get hired or you won't stay as an employee unless you're willing to participate in the boy rape that's going on or keep quiet about it." - INFOWARS PDF of Texas Rangers' official report detailing these abuses included in that site.At the conclusion of his testimony to the Texas legislature joint committee, Burzynski spoke personally, saying he wanted to "shed some light on the real reason why I am here."
"When I interviewed the victims in this case, I saw kids with fear in their eyes, kids who knew they were trapped in an institution where the system would not respond to their cries for help," he said.
He emphasized the personal commitment he felt to the victims in the case.
"Perhaps their family failed them, society failed them, TYC definitely failed them," he said. "But I promised each one of those victims that I would try to do everything in my power as a Texas Ranger to insure that justice would be served and that this didn't happen again. The Rangers would not fail them, and I made that perfectly clear to each one of them."
Burzynski said he "can only imagine what the students think about the Ranger who was unable to bring them justice. I feel like I played a very small part in chipping away at an iceberg."
At the conclusion, he received a standing ovation from the joint committee and audience in the room. - Texas Rangers' spokesman I am sure PD is ok with this too. Border guard takes shot at tires of smugglers who tried to run him over. Sutton trying to give him ten years.After a Texas deputy sheriff fired shots at the tires of a fleeing vehicle that had tried to run him down, he was arrested for injuring one of the passengers, a Mexican who was being illegally smuggled into the USA.
Edwards County Deputy Sheriff Guillermo F. Hernandez could get up to 10 years in prison for doing his thankless job after being prosecuted by the office of Bush-appointed US attorney Johnny Sutton...Prosecutors had offered Hernandez probation in exchange for a guilty plea, but he turned down the deal on the grounds that he had done absolutely nothing wrong. Unfortunately, trusting in the fairness of our moonbat-infested judicial system is hardly a safe bet — particularly in cases involving our invasion by Mexico, which has been sanctioned by treasonous authorities who unlike Hernandez really do belong in jail. - Moonbatter keeping track of moonbats like PD Democrats should enjoy reading the last three paragraphs of this one. Huge.
|
|
| | | 63 | Baldwin
ID: 221172017 Wed, Dec 24, 2008, 13:59
|
Also once the jurors found out the stuff Sutton prevented them from hearing they also believe they voted in error due to not knowing the whole story.
|
|
| | | 64 | Tree
ID: 1311551521 Wed, Dec 24, 2008, 14:11
|
After a Texas deputy sheriff fired shots at the tires of a fleeing vehicle that had tried to run him down, he was arrested for injuring one of the passengers, a Mexican who was being illegally smuggled into the USA.
what's your point? that's exactly why cops are trained to NOT fire their weapons at those that are fleeing from them - because you can accidently shoot someone who is innocent.
it's one thing if the vehicle is coming toward the cop...but if it's driving away, you don't shoot. it's that simple.
as for the passenger who was shot - the fact he/she was an "illegal", is totally irrelevant, accept to those who find it ok to shoot them for no reason other than them being illegal.
|
|
| | | 65 | Baldwin
ID: 221172017 Wed, Dec 24, 2008, 15:10
|
For some reason the illegals never try and run down Tree with their cars.
From which we do not derive the lesson that border patrol officers should be pro-illegal immigration.
|
|
| | | 66 | Tree
ID: 1311551521 Wed, Dec 24, 2008, 16:25
|
For some reason the illegals never try and run down Tree with their cars.
which has what to do with anything??
a border patrol officer shot at a FLEEING individual. in the process, that officer shot someone who was not the intended target. that person who was shot was an "illegal", and it seems that you're condoning the shooting of that person based on that fact.
and where are YOUR people from, kemo sabe?
|
|
| | | 67 | Baldwin
ID: 221172017 Wed, Dec 24, 2008, 16:47
|
I believe both officers thot they were in danger of being shot. In fact I suspect Ramos, when he saw Compean on the ground, assumed he had been put there by the smuggler. I think the smuggler turned around to see if his gamble, based on long experience, that the agents would not shoot, was correct. I'm sure that thot crossed his mind bigtime. Unfortunately the agents took that movement to mean that the smuggler wasn't merely trying to run away but that he meant to save his load. Until a smuggler has his hands in cuffs he must be assumed to be a threat.
|
|
| | | 68 | Tree
ID: 1311551521 Wed, Dec 24, 2008, 17:05
|
Until a smuggler has his hands in cuffs he must be assumed to be a threat.
perhaps. but law enforcement officers are trained not to shoot at fleeing suspects in most cases. ..and if Ramos "assumed" Compean was on the ground via the smuggler, well, it's his own fault for acting rash.
|
|
| | | 69 | Baldwin
ID: 221172017 Wed, Dec 24, 2008, 17:37
|
You of course empathize with how an agent feels watching another agent struggle with a smuggler and then witnessing the subsequent 'officer down'.
|
|
| | | 70 | Tree
ID: 1311551521 Wed, Dec 24, 2008, 18:13
|
You of course empathize with how an agent feels watching another agent struggle with a smuggler and then witnessing the subsequent 'officer down'.
absolutely.
but when that agent shot that smuggler, the struggle was already over with.
|
|
| | | 71 | Baldwin
ID: 221172017 Wed, Dec 24, 2008, 18:16
|
As if to dig the knife in deeper, heir to a drug dynasty George Bush today pardoned or commuted the sentences of a meth dealer, a cocaine dealer and two marijuana dealers. I'd call that a no with a bold underlining to Ramos and Compean. Such evil in such high places.
|
|
| | | 72 | Tree
ID: 1311551521 Wed, Dec 24, 2008, 18:31
|
did those dealers shoot anyone who was fleeing from them?
|
|
| | | 73 | Baldwin
ID: 221172017 Wed, Dec 24, 2008, 18:40
|
Typical liberal. All criminals are sympathetic, all cops guilty.
|
|
| | | 74 | Baldwin
ID: 221172017 Wed, Dec 24, 2008, 18:48
|
The chilling effect on border guards. The government certainly doesn't have a war on rampant illegal immigration, that 'we' reserve for the war on border guards.
|
|
| | | 75 | Perm Dude
ID: 1211122420 Wed, Dec 24, 2008, 21:12
|
Also once the jurors found out the stuff Sutton prevented them from hearing they also believe they voted in error due to not knowing the whole story.
What a surprise--once the jury was tainted they voted to convict.
Stupid rules. Always getting in the way. One can't shoot spics anymore, the hope they turn out to be drug dealers.
|
|
| | | 76 | Tree
ID: 1311551521 Wed, Dec 24, 2008, 21:27
|
Typical liberal. All criminals are sympathetic, all cops guilty.
typical idiot. making statements that don't make sense.
we're talking about one specific example - we're talking about two border agents who shot a man who was fleeing from them.
there are plenty of examples like that though - cops committing crimes. However, there are plenty MORE examples of cops doing the right thing.
but in this case, the cops were wrong. period.
and no amount of FALSE generalizations by you can change that.
jerk.
|
|
| | | 77 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117 Wed, Dec 24, 2008, 22:18
|
Boy, they must have let Boldwin out of the halfway house early for Christmas.
|
|
| | | 78 | Tree
ID: 1311551521 Wed, Dec 24, 2008, 23:29
|
The chilling effect on border guards.
from your article:
Just then, another vehicle was spotted in Mexico, and a sniper began firing an automatic weapon at the U.S. agents.
But agents did not fire back.
then those agents should be relieved of duty for not defending themselves while being fired upon.
According to reports, additional heavily armed smugglers began scaling the border fence and tossing bundles of drugs from the Avalanche pickup truck into Mexico.
The agents refrained from discharging their weapons.
and these agents should be commended, even though they were just doing their job.
do you not see the difference in the case of Campeon and Ramos, and the two above cases??
in the first, two border agents fired on a man fleeing. they were in the wrong.
in the second, border agents didn't fire when fired upon. they too, were in the wrong.
in the third, border agents didn't fire when, well, people were not doing anything to deserve to be fired upon. they, were in the right.
never mind the fact that the examples in your linked article are dubious at best considering the source.
let's read more of your article:
When U.S. agents arrive on the scene, smugglers often pelt them with rocks, strike them with vehicles or fire weapons at them – and agents sometimes face penalties for firing back.
well, i disagree with that. if you're being assaulted, you should be able to defend yourself...so, let's read further....
In an incident similar to the Ramos and Compean case, one border patrol agent said he feared for his life after a group of illegal aliens began throwing rocks and concrete chunks at him in August at the San Ysidro border crossing. He fired his weapon and wounded one of the men in the buttocks.
ok, i've got no real issues with this, as anyone who has read my thoughts on the israeli-palestinian conflict would know...
Officials at the Mexican consulate in San Diego criticized the 10-year Border Patrol veteran and demanded the U.S. conduct a full investigation, the San Diego Union Tribune reported. Local police and the FBI investigated the agent.
ok. wait. STOP THE PRESSES. the Agent was investigated for firing his weapon..holy moley, that NEVER EVER EVER EVER happens. well, except for NEARLY EVERY TIME AN OFFICER DISCHARGES HIS WEAPON THEY'RE INVESTIGATED.
so, let's get this straight...the article says that agents *sometimes* "face penalties for firing back," yet, can't cite one example of an agent facing a penalty.
then, it tries to use a technique WND often does, but taking something common (such as being investigated for firing one's weapon), and placing it within part of a story so that someone who isn't smart enough to know better will be like "oh yea, see! he was defending himself, and he got...investigated!!! the gall! the unmitigated gall!"
keep trying baldwin, because sooner or later, you WILL prove the infinite monkey theorem.
|
|
| | | 79 | Baldwin
ID: 221172017 Thu, Dec 25, 2008, 00:39
|
The wicked witch of California, Nancy Pelosi can even see my point and call for Ramos and Compean to be pardoned and yet you don't understand how border guards now feel their jobs have been made impossible by the ruling in this case.
What is being confirmed to no one's surprise is that you live to post the opposite of whatever I post without exception.
The sky is up.
'No it isn't, there's sky in China.' - Tree
Saved you a whole post.
|
|
| | | 80 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117 Thu, Dec 25, 2008, 01:01
|
Go to bed.
|
|
| | | 81 | Tree
ID: 1311551521 Thu, Dec 25, 2008, 02:42
|
my concern isn't with Pelosi, Baldwin. unlike you, i think for myself, instead of being told how to think.
and you're right. i should agree with you. when you say "Tree says all cops are bad and all criminals are good," i should just shut up and agree with you - after all, it's what good little sheep like yourself do.
partisan hack.
|
|
| | | 82 | Baldwin
ID: 221172017 Thu, Dec 25, 2008, 06:01
|
partisan hack
Partisan hack would kick Bush's drugtrade facilitating 'my family financed Hitler' butt out the door? Interesting. Try not to depress the Yucatan national average intelligence too severely.
|
|
| | |
| | |
| | | 85 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Mon, Jan 05, 2009, 13:46
|
Maybe in the process the congress can censure themselves for giving the president all this power. Like its immediate predecessors, the 110th Congress eagerly yielded its authorities - even the power of the purse - to the president. The Iraqi War Resolution, the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Act, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act amendments, and the declination to hold Rove in contempt of Congress were emblematic.
|
|
| | | 86 | Boxman
ID: 571114225 Tue, Jan 06, 2009, 06:19
|
Bush to Create World's Largest Marine Protection Zone
The home of a giant land crab, a sunken island ringed by pink-colored coral, and equatorial waters teeming with sharks and other predators are being designated national marine monuments by President George W. Bush in the largest marine conservation effort in history.
|
|
| | | 87 | walk
ID: 181472714 Thu, Jan 15, 2009, 08:40
|
Politicon Review of Bush Presidency
There are about 8 of these reviews of Bush's presidency on Politico. I thought this one was most aligned with my opinion. You may feel others are more accurate.
|
|
| | | 88 | jedman
ID: 552262217 Thu, Jan 15, 2009, 16:46
|
True that Bush was President when the financial collapse happened, but to blame the whole thing on him I think is wrong. There is ample fault on both sides of the political aisle, so I don't think it will be fair to blame the whole thing on Bush or his policies, just as I don't think it's fair to blame it all on the Democrats and the mortgage fiasco. To me, it is just too complex and far reaching to put the blame on Bush alone.
|
|
| | | 89 | Baldwin
ID: 00321417 Thu, Jan 15, 2009, 18:34
|
The rankings on who got the most donations per year from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would be a pretty good indicator of who was most to blame.
|
|
| | | 90 | walk
ID: 181472714 Fri, Jan 16, 2009, 09:58
|
Bush, alone is not to blame for the financial fiaso, but it occurred on his watch, and he has some not-so-little accountability. Ultimately, the CEO is responsible for the company's success or failure, and he is the CEO of America (which he has himself said). How does he not have at least some significant responsibility here? He had oversight responsibilities, the SEC, the Treasury, the lobbyists, etc. There's not a small role the government plays in helping to ensure the liquidity of our markets.
|
|
| | | 91 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Fri, Jan 16, 2009, 12:56
|
I disagree, the scope of world economics is beyond the ability really for anyone to understand. To blame Bush for not stopping this miss would be same as asking him to stop the sky from being blue. I think the lesson that is going to be taken away from all this, is how little control governments now have, when all the bailouts and stimulus packages barely effect the underlying elements of world economics, the lessons will be learned.
|
|
| | | 92 | Perm Dude
ID: 590291514 Fri, Jan 16, 2009, 13:03
|
I don't think anyone should hold Bush, or the GOP blameless, except to say that the GOP has had difficulty governing for some time.
And by "govern" I mean to do the work of running the government. Which at times is intended to be a safeguard for people.
I can see how you might come away with this problem with the idea of how little government can do. But that's because the government didn't actually do very much.
|
|
| | | 93 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Fri, Jan 16, 2009, 13:08
|
I can see how you might come away with this problem with the idea of how little government can do. But that's because the government didn't actually do very much.
i knew this before going into this that the government can do very little. Just as the Clinton administration was no more caused the dot com boom than was the reason behinds its bust.
|
|
| | | 94 | jedman Dude
ID: 315192219 Fri, Jan 16, 2009, 19:23
|
Bush is to blame, Frank and Dodd are to blame, the CEO's of the big brokerage and mortgage houses are to blame, the list goes on and on. I do wonder if it could have been stopped. When so many fingers are in the pie, how do you stop all of them? There was too much money being made and greed prevented anybody from admitting that something was wrong. And those saying something was wrong were the chicken littles and ignored, like the guy who warned the SEC about Madoff for years and was ignored. It's just all so sickening and I am really afraid that things are going to get much worse. I just don't believe that throwing all this money at the problem is going to fix it since the money is going to the same guys that broke it.
|
|
|
|