How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Iraq   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  ]
 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Iraq

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Uncas
Member
since 07-30-2010
Posts 348


25 posted 06-19-2011 06:00 PM       View Profile for Uncas   Email Uncas   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Uncas

quote:
No, my argument was that OBAMA should not have acted against Libya. You may counter that with Obama IS America, being president,


Who it was doesn't interest me in the slightest Mike, the UN, the US or if you prefer Obama - I'll not argue on that point. I simply wanted to make it clear that I understood that you didn't agree with the intervention in Libya. An opinion I happen to agree with.

quote:
How can Obama not justify going into Syria, Iraq, Somalia, Iran, North Korea or ANY country experiencing internal strife by citizens demanding freedom, since that was his only reasoning for going into Libya?


I think the reason's obvious and is even more obvious when you ask why he won't take the Iraqi government to task - the strife of the citizens isn't the only consideration when making the decision to act or not to act Mike. Obama did what he did in Libya because, based on all the information he had at the time, it seemed like the right thing to do. Contrary to your claim of inconsistency, I suggest that he'll do exactly the same thing with regard to Syria - based on the information he has he'll do whatever he thinks is the right thing to do.

My opinion is that he got it wrong in Libya and that, so far, he's got it right in Syria, Iraq? I think that not doing anything in Iraq will come back to haunt him.

quote:
his decision to go into Libya was a mistake on his part. WHen I pointed this out before, you countered with the statement that there WAS a positive going into Libya, to scare other countries


I think your memory is flawed Mike.

I countered your suggestion that Obama should announce to the world that he got it wrong in Libya by pointing out that doing so would throw away the only positive that had come out of the whole debacle - the threat that he might just consider doing it again.

As I recall I used the analogy of a nuclear deterrent and it's uselessness once you declare that you'll never use it under any circumstances.

Was it a weak argument? Perhaps, if you can point out why you think it is I'll be happy to discuss it.

.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


26 posted 06-19-2011 07:03 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

Sigh. It's a real shame that every issue in the Alley has to so quickly devolve into partisan bickering.

quote:
Who threatens us, and maybe next
who threatens our friends.   That’s when we should
send our young men, even volunteers, to die.

You do realize, John, that no one threatened us or our friends in 1776? Or, for that matter, in 1861? Traditionally, America has always seemed to believe there are some things besides immediate survival that are worth fighting for.

quote:
I will then counter that American people did NOT vote for going into Libya.

No, we didn't, MIke. We also didn't vote to go into Iraq, Afghanistan, Haiti, Liberia, Bosnia, the Persian Gulf, Lebanon, Vietnam, Korea, WWII, WWI, the Civil War, or the Revolutionary War. And a fairly good percentage of those never received direct Congressional approval, either. In fact, I don't think the American people have ever voted to go into battle, nor have they voted to get out of battle, and I don't believe we even got a chance to vote for funding a war. If we had, I suspect we'd still be trading in slaves -- assuming that our King in England allowed it.

Pure democracy generally stops working beyond the point where every participant knows the name of every other participant. That's why we elect representatives who DO know the names of every other representative.

quote:
How can Obama not justify going into Syria, Iraq, Somalia, Iran, North Korea or ANY country experiencing internal strife by citizens demanding freedom, since that was his only reasoning for going into Libya?

I'm curious, Mike, how you believe Bush justified not invading Iran, Pakistan, or any other potentially unfriendly country he thought might have WMD?

It seems that if we're to apply a "do everything or do nothing" yardstick to America, it's going to be a little difficult to justify ever doing much of anything.

I think there were actually some pretty valid reason to intercede in Libya when the uprising fell so closely on the heels of Egypt. Unfortunately, in an atmosphere of partisan hate and Tea Party conspiracies, it's hard to justify the time or energy to discuss them. It feels too much like going to a KKK meeting to talk about better race relations.


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


27 posted 06-19-2011 07:42 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

how you believe Bush justified not invading Iran, Pakistan, or any other potentially unfriendly country he thought might have WMD?

Simple enough. Iran was not claiming to have WMD's. Pakistan was not claiming to hate the devil United States. Hussein was beating his chest about his WMD's and his hatred for the US. Iraq was the country that multiple warnings were given by the UN. It was the country that repeatedly refused UN inspectors. It bordered Afghanistan, that the US had just gone into after 9/11. Was I 100% behind going into Iraq? No, although with Hussein's actions, assertions and disregard for the UN demands in the post 9/11 world, his threats and declarations against the US, I could understand the reasoning.

The phrasing of your question is how my ex-wife would change something around  before throwing it back at me

any other potentially unfriendly country he thought might have WMD?

It wasn't a question of him THINKING Iraq had wmd's. It was Hussein declaring definitely that he DID have them. It was Hussein constantly refusing to allow inspections. It was the UN believing that Iraq had them. It was pretty much the entire world believing the same....a little different that Bush just thinking Iraq had them, dontcha think?
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


28 posted 06-19-2011 07:54 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Uncas, I believe he is not acting in the best interests of this country, whether by imcompetence or design, I have no way of knowing. I can only judge his actions not the intent behind those actions.


The Tea Party stands for:

Small Federal government
States rights
Fiscal responsibility
Balancing the budget
Freezing the debt limit
and
Repealing Obamacare

What part of this qualifies as Tea Party conspiracies and feels like attending a KKK meeting to talk about better race relations, Ron?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


29 posted 06-19-2011 08:13 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

One question Uncas posed that has not been addressed is "Where is the media outcry?" My answer would be..."Where in God's name have you been for the past two years??"

Obama has been at the helm of Iraq and Afghanistan for over two years now. He had had time to make changes and has indeed made some. Iraq is Obama's now. He's not the reason we are there but he is now responsible for what our actions are there now. Haven't you noticed how Iraq and  Afghanistan have gotten a small percentage of media space under Obama instead of when Bush was in charge? Why is that? Simple....Obama is in charge. There is no "It's all Bush's fault" they can fall back on,  as they continually try to do with the economy they make worse. Are they going to fault Obama for what is happening there? Of course not. Today's media does not fault Obama for anything, if they can help it. To criticize actions in Iraq, to criticize the Iraqi government or anything connected to it, would be to criticize Obama, since he is running the show. Not gonna happen, thus there is no "media outcry" Uncas is wondering what happened to. You need to go back to the Bush years for the media outcry you seek.

Yes, I know, Ron. Sour grapes on my part. I can live with that. Obama is still the mainstream press's golden boy and, for as long as he is, he is untouchable. The day he is not, should that day ever come, I feel sorry for him.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


30 posted 06-19-2011 08:14 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
It was the country that repeatedly refused UN inspectors.

That's not entirely true, Mike, but it doesn't really matter, either. The American invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with the United Nations; there was no UN security council sanction for the invasion and, indeed, many within the UN still contend the action was "illegal" (whatever that means in an organization without the weight of law). The UN Inspectors you claim we were supporting explicitly asked America to give them more time. Sorry, but the sole responsibility for Iraq lies at our feet, Mike, not the United Nations.

quote:
It wasn't a question of him THINKING Iraq had wmd's. It was Hussein declaring definitely that he DID have them. It was Hussein constantly refusing to allow inspections. It was the UN believing that Iraq had them. It was pretty much the entire world believing the same....a little different that Bush just thinking Iraq had them, dontcha think?

I won't belabor the already belabored point that the only reason anyone believed Iraq had WMD is because the Bush administration sculptured the intelligence to support its contentions, intentionally hiding evidence that suggested Hussein was probably just posturing. Again, doesn’t matter for the sake of my question.

There were (and still are) plenty of other countries that claim WMD and have a history of enmity for the United States. If you are going to insist on absolute consistency, Mike, you're going to have to explain to me why Bush invaded only one country he believed posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region" when the criteria he claimed to be using clearly applied to others.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


31 posted 06-19-2011 10:00 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


“You do realize, John, that no one threatened us or our friends in 1776? Or, for that matter, in 1861? Traditionally, America has always seemed to believe there are some things besides immediate survival that are worth fighting for.”

In 1776 one third of the colonies’ population  were Tory another third indifferent.  1861 we
threatened each other and back then for $300 you could buy some poor man to die in your
place.   There were demonstrations against the draft in the 1860’s as there were a hundred years later.
America has always seemed to believe there are some things besides immediate survival that are worth fighting for so long as it was someone else’s son under the gun.   America back then also by and large really believed in glory and Heaven;  things have changed.  Now war should be have to, not want to.


.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


32 posted 06-19-2011 10:18 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

I won't belabor the already belabored point that the only reason anyone believed Iraq had WMD is because the Bush administration sculptured the intelligence to support its contentions, intentionally hiding evidence that suggested Hussein was probably just posturing. Again, doesn’t matter for the sake of my question.

Which leads us back to the point where we visited many times before in the  late 1990's where Ted Kennedy, Clinton, and almost all top Democrats were calling for the invasion of Iraq and the ouster of Hussein, Clinton specifying clearly that there was undoubtable proof of the existence of wmd's and Kennedy calling for up to and including using nuclear weapons against Hussein. Bush hadn't even arrived yet. Interesting how people ignore the fact so easily when democrats advocated it and jump on W for "manipulating data" to carry it out.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


33 posted 06-20-2011 01:14 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
What part of this qualifies as Tea Party conspiracies and feels like attending a KKK meeting to talk about better race relations, Ron?

Sorry, Denise, you posted your question apparently while I was writing mine; I missed it until I came back.

To answer your questions, this quote sounds like Tea Party conspiracy to me:

"I guess it depends on which countries you are trying to facilitate the establishment of the Muslim Brotherhood, or which countries assert their sovereign right to use the gold standard."

And this sounds like the kind of absolutist rhetoric I would expect to hear at a KKK meeting:

"Nothing that he has done has benefited the U.S ... Absolutely nothing ..."

quote:
Obama is still the mainstream press's golden boy and, for as long as he is, he is untouchable.

No one is untouchable, Mike. I think Nixon proved that.

As for Obama being a golden boy of the press, that's probably true to the extent the mainstream press is a reflection of the American populace. During those Bush years you cite, for example, I think the media showed President Bush the same admiration and support he was receiving from the American people. Well, no, not ALL the Bush years, of course. But certainly the early ones, say the eighteen months following 911? Public officials don't always get what they deserve from the people, at least not immediately. Then again, it's not always undeserved, either.

quote:
America back then also by and large really believed in glory and Heaven;  things have changed. Now war should be have to, not want to.

Sadly, John, yes, things have changed. We've changed. Not for the better.

War has, of course, always been have-to, not want-to. It's never been about mere survival, though. Individuals, after all, don't usually walk into a hail of bullets and mortar to guarantee their own, personal survival. They do it for a lot of different reasons, I think, but never because they are the cowards you purport them to be.

quote:
Which leads us back to the point where we visited many times before in the  late 1990's where Ted Kennedy, Clinton, and almost all top Democrats were calling for the invasion of Iraq and the ouster of Hussein, Clinton specifying clearly that there was undoubtable proof of the existence of wmd's and Kennedy calling for up to and including using nuclear weapons against Hussein.

And yet . . .  there was no invasion? Not until Bush swayed public opinion with lies and half-truths. Honestly, I don't recall all that much furor in the Nineties, Mike, but I'll take your word for it. Clearly, in retrospect, we know it was posturing since nothing ever came of it. How many tens of thousands wish it had remained so?

But again. It doesn't matter for the sake of my question. Right, wrong, or indifferent, Mike, Bush led us into war and gave very specific reasons for the necessity of that war. The consistency you demand now, of a different President, should be applied just as strictly to the prior administration. And yet you seem strangely reluctant to do so?

Of course, my whole point isn't that Bush should have led us into three or four additional battle zones just for the sake of consistency. Not even if, by his own criteria, those battles could have been justified. There are no exact parallels, and damn few that are even close. That was true in 2003 and it's equally true in 2011. And the few that are close? We pick and we choose our battles, Mike, because no one, neither man nor nation, can hope to fight all that is evil or wrong in our world.

We pick and we choose, and we pray to God that we choose wisely . . . at least some of the time.


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


34 posted 06-20-2011 07:38 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Well, I thank you for answering, Ron, and I'd like to address your comments fully but work calls right now. There is one that I must address, however, since it made me spill coffee on my bare chest when reading it!

As for Obama being a golden boy of the press, that's probably true to the extent the mainstream press is a reflection of the American populace.

As they say in the series of popular ads currently running....REALLY????

I think that may have been true at one point in our past. It certainly is not now. The mainstream press WISHES that it were true but statistics prove otherwise. That press has taken a beating as far as viewer participation and acceptance of their validity is concerned. There has always been a running argument concerning Hollywood as to whether movies influence behavior or movies reflect behavior. The movie-makers, of course, claim they simply reflect behavior but it's a little amazing that, whatever they come up with, seems to show up in spades in human behavior.

Mainstream news shows and newspapers have tried to do the same things in the way they present the news. Normally is has worked, which is why politicians kill for friends high up in news agencies. Now, however, it doesn't seem to be working that well for them. They are still pushing the hands-off Obama agenda and people aren't buying it as well.

The mainstream press a  reflection of the American populace? No, its more like the retreat from the mainstream press the the true reflection.

Remember Baghdad Bob? That's our mainstream media these days. When their survival comes down to backing or not backing Obama, they will toss him in the trash like a cheap suit.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


35 posted 06-20-2011 08:32 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

My views do not necessarily reflect those of The Tea Party, Ron.

And if my views seem conspiratorial or absolutist, I'm open to being persuaded to change my views.

Right now I don't see that Obama's actions have done anything in the Middle East except benefit the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist radicals and undermine Israel. Just last week he gave Israel 30 days to accept his plan of Israel returning to pre-1967 borders. Or what?

Domestically, I don't see how any of his policies have made any improvement in the least. I just see everything getting worse.

But maybe I've overlooked something, so please feel free to share that iformation with me. Thanks!
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


36 posted 06-20-2011 11:31 AM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


“War has, of course, always been have-to, not want-to.”


Not true

Starting a little after 13:30:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=navbjQoBpc4&feature=fvst


Young men in the West may enlist for abstracts
but, (unless a country they love is being invaded),
they risk and lose their lives for their comrades.


.
Uncas
Member
since 07-30-2010
Posts 348


37 posted 06-20-2011 03:18 PM       View Profile for Uncas   Email Uncas   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Uncas

quote:
Iraq is Obama's now. He's not the reason we are there but he is now responsible for what our actions are there now.


That's not technically correct Mike. Iraq and what happens Iraq is the responsibility of the Iraqi government, it has been since May 20, 2006 when they assumed power. The US military is only in Iraq at as part of the Status Of Forces Agreement (SOFA) at the request of the Iraqi government.

quote:
Obama is in charge. There is no "It's all Bush's fault"


The persecution of the Iraqi protestors isn't Bush's fault Mike or Obama's fault, the Iraqi government is in charge, they ordered the Iraqi forces to open fire on protestors.

quote:
You need to go back to the Bush years for the media outcry you seek.


There was a media outcry over the mistreatment of protestor by the Iraqi government during the Bush years? Was there protester mistreatment by the Iraqi government during the Bush years? Was there even an Iraqi government? I remember a backlash against the war, criticism of how Bush handled post war Iraq when he was running the show, but I can't recall any outcry over the mistreatment of protestors.


.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


38 posted 06-20-2011 03:47 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Ron, you can go to the U.S. Open incident on Sunday to see exactly what the mainstream media has sunk to....you want to call that a reflection of the American people?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


39 posted 06-21-2011 09:42 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

On Friday, the Obama administration issued a memo announcing that federal immigration officials do not have to deport illegal aliens if they are enrolled in any type of education program or if their family members have volunteered for U.S. military service.

This new policy of “prosecutorial discretion” was quietly announced on Friday afternoon, and completely ignored by the mainstream press.

Late last year, the so-called DREAM Act which would give legal residency status to millions of illegal aliens who attend college or join the military was defeated in the Senate.

Every major poll has shown that the American people are overwhelmingly opposed to the DREAM Act as well as to any other form of amnesty.

However, with Obama’s poll numbers plummeting, this use of his executive powers is seen as an obvious ploy to solidify the Latino vote in the 2012 presidential election.


Continue reading on Examiner.com Obama issues Dream Act by executive order…press ignores - National Immigration Reform | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/immigration-reform-in-nati onal/obama-issues-dream-act-by-executive-order-press-ignores#ixzz1PxsWu3kN

So much for the  press continuing to protect Obama's derriere...
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


40 posted 06-22-2011 07:55 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Soros stated that if the Dems lost the midterms that Obama should rule by Executive Orders. I guess he decided to take that advice.

He has shown time and time again that he doesn't care what the American people want. And with the media in his pocket we have to increasingly get our news from outside the U.S.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


41 posted 06-22-2011 09:39 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Ignoring is one of Obama's characteristics..so is doing end runs. Court rules against Obama on off-shore drilling moratorium? Ignore it. Senate votes against Dream Act? Ignore it. The public is against both of them? Ignore them. Cannot get the health care passed the conventional way? Do the end run. Such is the world according to Obama.

Uncas
Member
since 07-30-2010
Posts 348


42 posted 06-22-2011 01:44 PM       View Profile for Uncas   Email Uncas   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Uncas


Have you got the reference number for the executive order he issued?

I have a copy of the internal memo issued by John Morton to ICE enforcement officers but I can't find any details of the executive order mentioned in the article.

It's hard to comment without the facts.

.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


43 posted 06-22-2011 03:52 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Executive Order, Personal pResidential Memo, Fiat...same-same-o. Semantics. Same result.
Uncas
Member
since 07-30-2010
Posts 348


44 posted 06-22-2011 05:49 PM       View Profile for Uncas   Email Uncas   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Uncas


So when Dave Gibson in the linked article says:

"Obama issues Dream Act by executive order…press ignores"

He didn't really mean executive order, or Obama, and the Dream act that was issued was actually an internal memo clarifying a process and procedure that's been in place since 1976.

Is anyone surprised that real journalists ignored it?

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


45 posted 06-22-2011 09:07 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Morton is part of the Obama administration and doesn't act without the authority of the President, Uncas. It's more than merely a 'clarification' of previous memos. It expands the factors effecting the use of discretion by the agency making enforcement more lax and also changes the standard for discretionary decisions:

quote:

The Meissner memorandum's standard for prosecutorial discretion in a given case turned principally on whether a substantial federal interest was present. Under this memorandum, the standard is principally one of pursuing those Cases that meet the agency's priorities for federal immigration enforcement generally.


How convenient. If you can't get your Dream Act through Congress, just direct your agency head to put out a memo weakening the illegal immigrant prosecutorial/deportation procedures. Rule by fiat.

And I wonder what qualifies one as a 'serious' felon as opposed to a regular run-of-the-mill felon? Or how does one have a history as a longtime lawful permanent resident when they are here illegally in the first place?

We don't have any real journalists affiliated with our press anymore. You would have to actually have a free press in order to have real journalists, not one in the pocket of the ruling elite.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


46 posted 06-23-2011 07:59 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


quote:

     And I wonder what qualifies one as a 'serious' felon as opposed to a regular run-of-the-mill felon? Or how does one have a history as a longtime lawful permanent resident when they are here illegally in the first place?



     How did these people become felons without due process, Denise?, serious or run of the mill?

     If the legal apparatus has been in place for treating them as the President has asked them to be treated since 1976, it seems to me that they would have considerable right to ask what's been the unconscionable delay, and why have the Republicans been avoiding granting rights to Latinos.  For that matter, why were the Democrats not fighting for them sooner as well?

     Apparently this suggests that the only time that Democrats can be counted to to grant rights to minorities is when there is something to gain from the minorities politically.  And that the Republican base is so bizarre that they can be counted on to try to fight against the granting of those rights even then.  I don't think the combination says very many happy things about the nature of racism in our country today.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


47 posted 06-23-2011 10:21 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

This isn't about Latinos Bob. It is about illegal immigrants.

IF someone is a convicted felon, serious or otherwise, whatever that means, it would seem that they have had their due process in court, either here or in their country of origin.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


48 posted 06-23-2011 11:10 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
Executive Order, Personal pResidential Memo, Fiat...same-same-o. Semantics. Same result.

Latinos, illegal immigrants, same-same-o, Denise. Semantics. Same result.

Or do we suddenly perceive differences again?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


49 posted 06-23-2011 11:21 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Ron, have you seen the chart of the breakdown of people by nationality sneaking into the country illegally? HINT...they are not all Latins.
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Iraq   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors