DC Tom Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 Does it seem ridiculous to anyone else that the guy moved to the US as a two year old and the discussion is based on the fact that he is a "Mexican national"? Shouldn't some common sense enter the equation at some point? Legally, he is a Mexican national. Doesn't have to make sense. Good God, am I actually arguing about common sense with crayonz? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 Does it seem ridiculous to anyone else that the guy moved to the US as a two year old and the discussion is based on the fact that he is a "Mexican national"? Shouldn't some common sense enter the equation at some point? The interesting thing to me is the line of thinking from our federal government that suggests on one hand that the state of Texas should have done more than they did because the person in question was from Mexico, and on the other hand tells Arizona their new immigration law does too much based on the fact that the people in question are from Mexico. Who's driving this car? Stevie Wonder? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 The interesting thing to me is the line of thinking from our federal government that suggests on one hand that the state of Texas should have done more than they did because the person in question was from Mexico, and on the other hand tells Arizona their new immigration law does too much based on the fact that the people in question are from Mexico. Who's driving this car? Stevie Wonder? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted July 8, 2011 Author Share Posted July 8, 2011 (edited) The interesting thing to me is the line of thinking from our federal government that suggests on one hand that the state of Texas should have done more than they did because the person in question was from Mexico, and on the other hand tells Arizona their new immigration law does too much based on the fact that the people in question are from Mexico. Who's driving this car? Stevie Wonder? Is he an option? Edited July 8, 2011 by Dante Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 Legally, he is a Mexican national. Doesn't have to make sense. Good God, am I actually arguing about common sense with crayonz? Is "international law" code for "written by a Canadian"? Because this seems stupid enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1billsfan Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 The interesting thing to me is the line of thinking from our federal government that suggests on one hand that the state of Texas should have done more than they did because the person in question was from Mexico, and on the other hand tells Arizona their new immigration law does too much based on the fact that the people in question are from Mexico. Who's driving this car? Stevie Wonder? What's interesting to me is Obama's opposition to the ban on partial birth abortions in comparison to his support of a reprieve of that slug's life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 What's interesting to me is Obama's opposition to the ban on partial birth abortions in comparison to his support of a reprieve of that slug's life. Oh, Jesus H. !@#$ing Christ on a pony. Way to completely ignore the entire thread in the interest of posting a complete irrelevency in a meaningless and pathetic attempt to change the subject to something unrelated to the topic of the thread. The interesting thing to me is the line of thinking from our federal government that suggests on one hand that the state of Texas should have done more than they did because the person in question was from Mexico, and on the other hand tells Arizona their new immigration law does too much based on the fact that the people in question are from Mexico. Who's driving this car? Stevie Wonder? In the administration's defense, they're arguing the primacy of federal law in both cases, so they're not inconsistent. Rather retarded, yes. But inconsistent? Not entirely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1billsfan Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 Oh, Jesus H. !@#$ing Christ on a pony. Way to completely ignore the entire thread in the interest of posting a complete irrelevency in a meaningless and pathetic attempt to change the subject to something unrelated to the topic of the thread. The subject matter is about Obama and the law in regards to the ending of a human life. Obama's history with partial birth abortions falls under that umbrella. If my bringing it up upsets you than that's your problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 Oh, Jesus H. !@#$ing Christ on a pony. Way to completely ignore the entire thread in the interest of posting a complete irrelevency in a meaningless and pathetic attempt to change the subject to something unrelated to the topic of the thread. Why a pony? Why not a legitimate horse? Plus I am pretty sure Jesus can make himself any size so you know what would be cool with this being Texas and all? An armadillo. That would be cool. He could also make the armadillo really big instead of making himself really small. A pony? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted July 8, 2011 Author Share Posted July 8, 2011 The subject matter is about Obama and the law in regards to the ending of a human life. Obama's history with partial birth abortions falls under that umbrella. If my bringing it up upsets you than that's your problem. Same people who are gung ho on abortions are the same douchebags that would defend this guy. Raped, bludgeoned and defiled a 16 year old. Perfect illustration of of liberal cold hear ted reasoning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 The subject matter is about Obama and the law in regards to the ending of a human life. Obama's history with partial birth abortions falls under that umbrella. If my bringing it up upsets you than that's your problem. No it's not, dumbass. It's about the law in regards to due process and international treaty. The moment you can present anything relating due process or international treaties to abortion is the moment you might, just possibly, have a point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted July 8, 2011 Author Share Posted July 8, 2011 Enough with these aholes already. They can go f themselves. Kick the UN out of NYC and they can feel free to move it to Mexico. What would the mexican consul do for him anyways. "The denial of access raises concerns about whether Leal got a fair trial, Pillay said." What? This guy was in the appeal system for years and had the best of lawyers trying to get him off. This dumb international law thing was the last desperate attempt by his defense people and the liberal left. Pathetic. I wonder since Mexico and the UN are so concerned about fairness, would they compensate the young girls family for their loss? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1billsfan Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 No it's not, dumbass. It's about the law in regards to due process and international treaty. The moment you can present anything relating due process or international treaties to abortion is the moment you might, just possibly, have a point. I believe that a law which bans partial birth abortions is related to due process. More specifically, it relates to the babies born alive who are killed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 I believe that a law which bans partial birth abortions is related to due process. More specifically, it relates to the babies born alive who are killed. You don't know what "due process" means, do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1billsfan Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 You don't know what "due process" means, do you? I'm no where close to being a lawyer, but let's try this link... http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d080.htm "The idea that laws and legal proceedings must be fair. The Constitution guarantees that the government cannot take away a person's basic rights to 'life, liberty or property, without due process of law.'" You don't know what "basic right to life" means, do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 I'm no where close to being a lawyer, but let's try this link... http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d080.htm "The idea that laws and legal proceedings must be fair. The Constitution guarantees that the government cannot take away a person's basic rights to 'life, liberty or property, without due process of law.'" You don't know what "basic right to life" means, do you? Yes. Do you know what "person" means? And can you explain how this POSSIBLY relates to UN consular agreements? !@#$ing dipshit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 Yes. Do you know what "person" means? And can you explain how this POSSIBLY relates to UN consular agreements? !@#$ing dipshit. Here is what I say: If a two year old kid moves to the US and grows up here, then he probably knows American law better than he knows the law of the place he lived until he was two. Let me repeat: two. The stupid CNN article someone linked did not mention that he lived here since he was two. Two. I seriously doubt that Mexico gives a crap about this guy at all they are just making a stink because they can get something for Mexico; not this murderer who lived in America since he was two. Two. They can say they care about him but it is not true. It just makes them liars. Has there ever been any remote suggestion that this guys place of birth had anything whatsoever to do with the outcome of the trial? Has any article stated when this embassy consultation complaint was first lodged? The murder was in 1994. Why did it take the brilliant genius lawyers 16+ years to think up this crap? All this mumbo jumbo about meeting with the embassy or whatever makes sense in a lot of cases but this is clearly a loophole. Did they want a new trial for this guy whose teeth marks were embedded in the victim's corpse or did they want something for Mexico, or more importantly just something anti-US? If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is not a penguin. This is a bunch of crap which can be summarized as Obama's winking to the world way of saying to foreign countries it is now ok to screw with Americans and he will have another excuse to ignore it and be a doormat yet again. It is just more of the Glove Wearing Mary foreign policy. The thing that really gets me though is that it will be about 10 minutes before every illegal Canadian is going to their embassy claiming they are being denied free dental treatments or some other crap. If you want to see a financial system really crumble just charge it with fixing Canadian teeth and or trying to educate them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 (edited) Yet that logic doesn't apply to gay marriage, even though there have been no cases of gay couples suing churches to allow gay weddings? And we're supposed to believe that Andrew Cuomo's signature has mystical powers that will suddenly lead to a rash of lawsuits against the clergy, when heretofore there have been 0. How's that twisty windy thingy working out for yah? No, it doesn't because the restrictions on assclowns like the ACLU, not the act of gay marriage itself, is what my logic is predicated on. The # of gay marriages prior to law is irrelevant, exactly as much as the number of lawsuits pursuant to those marriages prior to the law being signed. It is the law itself and the consequence of it that are at issue here. Moron. What is relevant is: the long history of the ACLU suing religious organizations using whatever pretense, false or otherwise. Those things are quantifiable. Your John McCain befuddled assertions are worthless and almost without meaning. The gay marriage law itself, without the assclown restrictions, would lead directly to and create assclown lawsuits. You cannot point to any direct relationship the ruling lead to and creates that doesn't already exist. The first has 0 similarity to the second. So, like I said: Moron. Andrew Cuomo's signature is also irrelevant. What is relevant: specific measures were taken to deal with tangible, predictable and quantifiable risks of buffoonery from the far left. Conversely, you cannot describe any direct consequence of this ruling besides: ruining you and John McCain's crusade against common sense. How's the moron thing working out for yah? Edited July 9, 2011 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 No, it doesn't because the restrictions on assclowns like the ACLU, not the act of gay marriage itself, is what my logic is predicated on. The # of gay marriages prior to law is irrelevant, exactly as much as the number of lawsuits pursuant to those marriages prior to the law being signed. It is the law itself and the consequence of it that are at issue here. Moron. What is relevant is: the long history of the ACLU suing religious organizations using whatever pretense, false or otherwise. Those things are quantifiable. Your John McCain befuddled assertions are worthless and almost without meaning. The gay marriage law itself, without the assclown restrictions, would lead directly to and create assclown lawsuits. You cannot point to any direct relationship the ruling lead to and creates that doesn't already exist. The first has 0 similarity to the second. So, like I said: Moron. Andrew Cuomo's signature is also irrelevant. What is relevant: specific measures were taken to deal with tangible, predictable and quantifiable risks of buffoonery from the far left. Conversely, you cannot describe any direct consequence of this ruling besides: ruining you and John McCain's crusade against common sense. How's the moron thing working out for yah? Mirror mirror on the wall, who's the fairest of them all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1billsfan Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 (edited) Yes. Do you know what "person" means? And can you explain how this POSSIBLY relates to UN consular agreements? !@#$ing dipshit. Hey potty mouth, the title of this thread is "Casey got away but." Please tell us what that has to do with UN consular agreements. Edited July 9, 2011 by 1billsfan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts