Thread: Is George W. Bush a Mexican Mole?

Originally Posted by LegalUSCitizen

That having been said...I do hold him personally responsible for the situation with our borders. Is that wrong?

No, it is not wrong, and I agree that the border situation is necessarily the blame of the President, because that's where the buck stops. In this case, it is also where it starts.

Originally Posted by Cindy

I think Bush is a clone of Hitler.

I won't go that far, but I think he is a very evil man who has had everything handed to him since birth and has sold his soul for power and greed. I think he is a very arrogant, stubborn, condescending, jerk who is use to always getting his way, a total traitor who doesn't care about this country or those who live in it. Out of all the traitorous politicians he is by far the most dangerous.

Originally Posted by dman1200

Originally Posted by Cindy

I think Bush is a clone of Hitler.

I won't go that far, but I think he is a very evil man who has had everything handed to him since birth and has sold his soul for power and greed. I think he is a very arrogant, stubborn, condescending, jerk who is use to always getting his way, a total traitor who doesn't care about this country or those who live in it. Out of all the traitorous politicians he is by far the most dangerous.

That's laughable. Clinton was AT LEAST as traitorous. After all, it was Clinton who gave nuclear reactors to the insane dictator of N. Korea. It was Clinton who allowed the Chinese to have the missile technology that just allowed them to shoot down a satellite. It was Clinton who deferred to the authority of the UN at every turn.

Bush has done some stupid things and he has done some really bad things, like refusing to secure the border (which was a policy begun by the Clinton Administration in 1996). Pretending that he is the worst or most dangerous threat to our republic is nothing short of childish, assuming that you really believe what you are saying, "dman." I believe that it is much more likely that you do not believe what you are saying, but rather are making partisan hay out of the discontent with Bush on this forum. If that's what you are doing, it's not only couterproductive, it's despicable.

Bush has done some stupid things and he has done some really bad things, like refusing to secure the border (which was a policy begun by the Clinton Administration in 1996). Pretending that he is the worst or most dangerous threat to our republic is nothing short of childish, assuming that you really believe what you are saying, "dman." I believe that it is much more likely that you do not believe what you are saying, but rather are making partisan hay out of the discontent with Bush on this forum. If that's what you are doing, it's not only couterproductive, it's despicable.

Bush is the most dangerous. Look at the policies he's pushing. They are all for ending our nations sovereignty. Do I really have to go on yet another rant on everything this bastard has done? If you don't believe this you either greatly underestimate Bush or your very naive.

Originally Posted by dman1200

Bush has done some stupid things and he has done some really bad things, like refusing to secure the border (which was a policy begun by the Clinton Administration in 1996). Pretending that he is the worst or most dangerous threat to our republic is nothing short of childish, assuming that you really believe what you are saying, "dman." I believe that it is much more likely that you do not believe what you are saying, but rather are making partisan hay out of the discontent with Bush on this forum. If that's what you are doing, it's not only couterproductive, it's despicable.

Bush is the most dangerous. Look at the policies he's pushing. They are all for ending our nations sovereignty. Do I really have to go on yet another rant on everything this bastard has done? If you don't believe this you either greatly underestimate Bush or your very naive.

My, what a scholarly analysis that was! Friend, Clinton was EVERY OUNCE as guilty of those things as Bush has been and more so in many cases. Mexico's interests may be contrary ours, but China is closer to being a real long-term threat, yet Clinton gave away the farm on classified high tech to them. Look, we have had precious few presidents the last century who didn't sell us out one way or another. Pretending that Bush presents some special case is either the result of being disastrously uninformed or intentionally deceitful.

Crocketts- I appreciate your stance on this topic. I have read all the threads regarding the pardoning of the BP agents. Ironically, I have the utmost respect for many of the posters who have disagreed with you, but your posts really made me re-think this a bit. I don't agree with everything you said, but you are correct about a lot of things. I am one of those people who jumped on the pardon bandwagon. But yesterday was the first day I heard a lot of things... like that the drug smuggler attempted to surrender. On the other hand, I had heard/read that three of the jurors were coerced, that he had a gun, and had attacked one of the agents... etc etc. Thus, that is how my opinion was formed. But no, I haven't read the transcripts.

I am not uneducated but am also not an attorney and don't pretend to know the law (the extent of my knowledge is from civics class ).
I just think the sentences are completely unfair(I know you addressed this in another post). It is also really tough to swallow that the drug smuggler got immunity, then subsequently did it again.

IMHO, I think given all the discrepencies, it warrants another look.

Do you really think we sent the message that law enforcement officials are not above the law, or was the message that drug smugglers, illegal aliens, human smugglers can cross our border becuase we have no control? I really think it is the latter.

Originally Posted by anniealone

Crocketts- I appreciate your stance on this topic. I have read all the threads regarding the pardoning of the BP agents. Ironically, I have the utmost respect for many of the posters who have disagreed with you, but your posts really made me re-think this a bit. I don't agree with everything you said, but you are correct about a lot of things. I am one of those people who jumped on the pardon bandwagon. But yesterday was the first day I heard a lot of things... like that the drug smuggler attempted to surrender. On the other hand, I had heard/read that three of the jurors were coerced, that he had a gun, and had attacked one of the agents... etc etc. Thus, that is how my opinion was formed. But no, I haven't read the transcripts.

I am not uneducated but am also not an attorney and don't pretend to know the law (the extent of my knowledge is from civics class ).
I just think the sentences are completely unfair(I know you addressed this in another post). It is also really tough to swallow that the drug smuggler got immunity, then subsequently did it again.

IMHO, I think given all the discrepencies, it warrants another look.

Do you really think we sent the message that law enforcement officials are not above the law, or was the message that drug smugglers, illegal aliens, human smugglers can cross our border becuase we have no control? I really think it is the latter.

I don't know what message was sent. I suppose it would depend on the audience. But then again, it's not the message or lack thereof that is my concern but rather the tendency to jump on bandwagons based on presumptions and limited information. It is also how easily the people can be convinced to beg the government to engage in what what would under normal circumstances be an ethically dubious act - namely, having an executive pardon his own underlings after a conviction by a jury in a court of law.

As for the issues with the jury, they should be taken into account, but ignorance dos not rise to the level of tampering. Our justice system is designed for the use of responsible and reasonable adults. That means that it is the responsibility of each juror to understand what he's doing and the decision he is rendering. Jurors are given a clear charge before they begin deliberations. I don't think that I need to explain the MASSIVE problems inherent in allowing jurors to recant or rethink their verdicts, especially after being released by the judge. It would be akin to allowing voters to change their votes AFTER the outcome of an election. Allowing such a thing would open jurors to all sorts of influences, including threats or bribes once their identities were known and they were no longer under the supervision and protection of the court. I don't think that either threats or bribes were involved here, but if we allow these jurors to change their minds then we have really created a precedent that would thoroughly upset the applecart of justice.

Anniealone wrote:

Do you really think we sent the message that law enforcement officials are not above the law, or was the message that drug smugglers, illegal aliens, human smugglers can cross our border becuase we have no control? I really think it is the latter.

Me too Annie! In my opinon, the whole case needs a thorough impartial investigation so noone is left in the dark and justice is done!

I love your new Avatar, I remember that photo from one of the videos! It really gets the message across.