Skip to comments.Bush defends his immigration proposals
Posted on 07/19/2007 5:27:42 PM PDT by backtothestreets
click here to read article
Bush is full of B/S on this border,way out in left field.
“Bush called Sutton a friend.”
Here’s a quote from another one of Bush’s “friends”.
“There’s no doubt that Mexican men and women full of dignity, willpower and a capacity for work are doing the work that not even blacks want to do in the United States.”
Bush, of course, is in full concert with the above statement having said many times that “they are doing jobs Americans don’t want to do” etc.
Under these circumstances is it any wonder that these people(illegals)feel entitled be be here?
Of course not!
This is why my ire is directed at those leaders that have done everything in there power to condone illegal immigration — short of personally escorting them here.
I was confused as to why you would ask this question as the answer is so obvious to me. But then I took a look at the "News" coverage of this case and was amazed at the rather incredible wall of outright propaganda that has served as coverage. I had previously only been aware of the actual facts of the case - which couldn't possibly contrast more than they do with the coverage. For that I have learned a lesson.
To give an answer to your question: the shooting was completely illegal and therefore the related convictions would surely qualify (though I admit I can't list the actual convictions off the top of my head and didn't find them listed anywhere in my "News Media" review). And while I know that the entire case is on-line (including the trial testimony) I'm apparently not savvy enough to easily find such stuff.
I guess I can only say that I do indeed have personal familiarity with similar cases, and that while I realize that I'm not going to influence your opinion, my very different opinion is even less likely to be influenced by this discussion.
So, for my part, I'll just have agree to disagree with my added admission that I was rather naive of the "public" history of this case.
I like the "to give an answer to your question" part, since you never do get around to answering my question to you. But nice try at finessing. You might slip that non-response by someone not paying attention. Take a week or so, maybe you can figure out the underlying crime they were involved in when they fired on the smuggler.
Your boy Sutton was counting on that and never expected to have to defend his own actions. After all, he's Bush's boy, so he figured he could get away with anything that furthered Bush's no-border agenda. Too bad for him that Feinstein and Cornyn noticed he's at least guilty of bad judgment and prosecutorial overreach. The House gets a turn soon, and I hope Delahunt gives his committee wide latitude in the questions they ask Sutton.
As far as: "maybe you can figure out the underlying crime they were involved in when they fired on the smuggler."
Do you really believe that they would be convicted of the crime if it didn't apply? You've never been in a court room have you?
I'll see if I can find it for you if you really care.