Thread: George W. Bush Is America's Worse Enemy!

Sherri wrote:

TRAITOR: One who betrays one's country, a cause, or a trust; especially one who betrays ones country.

I think it has been proven over and over Bush does not have America or its citizens best interest in mind.We would not be having this discussion if he had enforced the border laws. All this havoc could have been avoided if he had made the choice to do the job he was elected to do and enforce the law. There would be no need for this forum ,or this website for Americans who support Legal Immigration, if Bush had not betrayed his country.

Originally Posted by SherriCorrell

Have you not read my previous post? I am the one who posted the blogspot with Mr. Loya's letter. My name was one of those 250,000 names on the grassfire.org petition.

We have a corrupt government. And as far as the jurors, I believe that the possibility exists that some were pressured or some were confused about the instructions. It certainly wouldn't be the first time there was bias on the part of a juror. Who knows? Maybe they just wanted to be done with it so they could go home or go back to their regular job that pays more!!!

I don't have all the answers, but I have been following this. I'm not spouting off to be spouting off. This is my opinion, and as I stated originally, it's a sad state when an illegal drug smuggler can continue smuggling drugs, get free medical care at the expense of tax paying U.S. citizens, sue the border patrol for $5 million and laugh all the way to the bank while the President of this country breaks the laws daily and does nothing to secure our borders or enforce our laws.

And I disagree with you that he has not done anything treasonous. Here are the definitions of a few words I think MORE THAN APPLY to Jorge Bush:

TRAITOR: One who betrays one's country, a cause, or a trust; especially one who betrays ones country.

TREASON: Violation of allegiance towards one's country or sovereignty; especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it by consciously and purposely acting to aid it's enemies

INVASION: 1. The act of invading, especially the entrance of an "armed force "(MiddleEast Terrorists & Mexican "ILLEGALS") into a territory to conquer. 2. An intrusion or encroachment.

Sherry, there are numerous logical flaws with your post.

As evidence of the innocence of the agents, you offer that:

1. We have a corrupt government...

2. You believe that the jurors were compromised.

Boy, that's a compelling argument. Whether we have a corrupt government has nothing to do with whether a given defendant is innocent or guilty. If a gangster in 1930 Chicago murdered one of Capone's men, the fact that Capone may or may not have bought some elements of the government does not change the objective guilt or innicence of the gunman. So that is a logical non-sequitur.

You say that you "believe" that the jurors may have been bought, or may have wanted to go home, or were biased. How about "or were convinced of guilt by the facts presented"? See, your statement SCREAMS your prejudice in this case. In the next paragraph you admit that you "don't have all the answers," yet you have convicted the prosecutor, the judge, the jurors, and everyone else who does not share your view (for which you provide no evidential support) that the agents were the victims of a conspiracy. Have you ever heard of Occam's Razor? If not, it would appear that you are not alone on this site in that respect.

Now, as for your definitions of treason and traitor, you make ANOTHER glaring error. You are offering the generic definitions, not the all-important LEGAL definition. Have you not read the Constitution? I'll help you out:

Article III
Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

That's it. That's the ONLY definition that matters with respect to trying bring charges of treason against a person. Period.

As for your inclusion of the definition of invasion, I don't know the reasoning behind that unless you are trying to say that the administration's failure to stop illegal immigration constitutes treason. Re-read the definition of treason. Mexico is not a declared enemy. Regardless of your opinion or even mine, the fact is that Mexico is an ALLY in status, not an enemy. Jurisprudence on the matter is quite clear. An enemy must be a declared and overt enemy, which by definition does not include nominal allies. For what it's worth, I think that the FFs were overzealous in attempting to avoid the excesses of King George in trying people for treason any time they disagreed with him, but I prefer a very narrow definition to one in which the government is constantly imprisoning people who raise a voice against it.

Crocket,
I find you to be a very arrogant and pompous. Is it so difficult for you to accept the fact that not all think Bush hung the moon?

I just don't buy it that you're more superior in knowledge and judgment than myself or the other posters here that I've seen you goading.

Sherry, there are numerous logical flaws with your post.

As evidence of the innocence of the agents, you offer that:

1. We have a corrupt government...

2. You believe that the jurors were compromised.

Boy, that's a compelling argument.

When I say "I believe", it is based on what I have read and my interpretation of what I have read.

Do you seriously think our government is NOT corrupt? That's a hoot if there ever was one.

Do you seriously think a juror can't be compromised? I believe they can.

Yes, I've read The Constitution, The Declaration of Independence and so many other docs over the years that I've lost count.

Do not insult my intelligence again.
I do think it is naive to trust our government, and that goes for both parties. From all the other posters comments that I've read, I don't believe I'm alone.

Please nix the insults folks! We are here to debate and fight on the same side, not insult each other when we disagree on a detail.

Everyone needs to chill please.

W

Originally Posted by LegalUSCitizen

What about the problems with the trial....where the judge insisted on a verdict or no one could leave the room.

It's called an Allen Charge and has been given by a judge to a jury probably millions of times, for more than a century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_charge

Originally Posted by SherriCorrell

Crocket,
I find you to be a very arrogant and pompous. Is it so difficult for you to accept the fact that not all think Bush hung the moon?

I just don't buy it that you're more superior in knowledge and judgment than myself or the other posters here that I've seen you goading.

Sherry, there are numerous logical flaws with your post.

As evidence of the innocence of the agents, you offer that:

1. We have a corrupt government...

2. You believe that the jurors were compromised.

Boy, that's a compelling argument.

When I say "I believe", it is based on what I have read and my interpretation of what I have read.

Do you seriously think our government is NOT corrupt? That's a hoot if there ever was one.

Do you seriously think a juror can't be compromised? I believe they can.

Yes, I've read The Constitution, The Declaration of Independence and so many other docs over the years that I've lost count.

Do not insult my intelligence again.
I do think it is naive to trust our government, and that goes for both parties. From all the other posters comments that I've read, I don't believe I'm alone.

First off, please stop mischaracterizing my opinion of Bush. I don't trust him any more than I trust anyone in the upper reaches of government, and far less than I trust most. I think many of his policies are misguided at best and done at the bidding of the enemies of the People at worst. Nevertheless, I have the pragmatism to understand what is demonstrable and what is not and to avoid passing final judgment until there are solid facts to support one conclusion or another.

As far as your beliefs go, you appear to be angry that I am asking you to substantiate your stated beliefs rather than demanding that I take them at face value based upon your self-described scholarship. I don't know you from Adam's housecat, so you will forgive me if I confine my acceptance of claims to those for which some evidence can be provided. For example, I see your claim that you have read the Constitution, yet you appear to have thoroughly misunderstood its legal limitations on the crime of treason.

Sherry, my only basis for judging your posts is the content of the posts themselves.

Originally Posted by Bamajdphd

Originally Posted by LegalUSCitizen

What about the problems with the trial....where the judge insisted on a verdict or no one could leave the room.

It's called an Allen Charge and has been given by a judge to a jury probably millions of times, for more than a century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_charge

Thank you.

I understand that emotions are running high on this issue, but people speaking without first making sure they know whereof they speak isn't helping anything or anyone. I've seen this sort of frenzy more times than I care to count, and it's amazing how offering a voice of moderation or simply asking for a review of the facts before leaping to judgment can end up getting you tarred and feathered. I abhor mob mentality, regardless of the intentions behind it.

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Originally Posted by Bamajdphd

Originally Posted by LegalUSCitizen

What about the problems with the trial....where the judge insisted on a verdict or no one could leave the room.

It's called an Allen Charge and has been given by a judge to a jury probably millions of times, for more than a century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_charge

Thank you.

I understand that emotions are running high on this issue, but people speaking without first making sure they know whereof they speak isn't helping anything or anyone. I've seen this sort of frenzy more times than I care to count, and it's amazing how offering a voice of moderation or simply asking for a review of the facts before leaping to judgment can end up getting you tarred and feathered. I abhor mob mentality, regardless of the intentions behind it.

You're welcome, Ghost. I find myself in complete agreement with your posts on this issue. You make other, shall I say, interesting, claims elsewhere, but I'll leave them for another time, should they contemporaneously re-surface later.