Posted on 02/11/2002 11:49:23 AM PST by Luis Gonzalez
You, of course, have a right to your opinions...
I, of course, haver the right to NOT give a shit about them...
Have a nice life
NO!
You, of course, have a right to your opinions...
I, of course, haver the right to NOT give a shit about them...
Have a nice life
NO!
---------------------
Thank you for not answering my questions. You just proved my point.
Nice to find Liberals in this forum, "wet foot, dry foot" was a Bill Clinton bastardization of the Law, and you seem to agree with it.
BTW, Ronald Reagan, a REAL conservative, fought FOR a child in a very similar case while he was President.
"...so he should have been sent back to his immediate family in Cuba after being rescued..."
He didn't have any immediate family in Cuba. Not only that, but the humanitarian thing to do when finding a shipwreck survivor out at sea, is to get them to a hospital ASAP, SPECIALLY in the case of a small child. You don't even have to be a conservative to think that, you just have to possess some sort of human feelings.
"How come none of you express the same outrage over political asylum seekers from China who have their appeals rejected and get sent back to that country along with their families?"
You don't know No!, you don't know me, so how is it that you are making blanket statements like that?
"China's human rights abuses are certainly far worse than Cuba's."
That's relative isn't it?
If you are the one whose rights are being abused, do you find solace in trhe fact that someone else has it worse than you do?
"In fact, would any of you have protested as much if Elian had been Chinese, or Vietnamese, or North Korean?"
In a word...yes.
"And I'm sure most of you supported Proposition 187, which denied education access to the children of illegal immigrants in California."
How do you "know" this? Are you clairvoyant? And what does that have to do witn the argument at hand anyway? One thing has nothing to do with the other.
Straw men, red herrings...it's starting to look like a Dr. Seuss book in here!
"I have no love for Fidel Castro or Janet "We had to burn those kids to save 'em" Reno"
I don't think you're being very truthful now, after all, you JUST said that you would concern yourself with the legal status of a child rather than his ohysical well-being, here are your exact words on that "...he should have been sent back to his immediate family in Cuba after being rescued...", tsk, tsk...getting yourself confused here? Looks like you and Janet share a special love for children.
Now, go back to DU or wherever you crawled out from.
Oh, really? And tell me, if I'm such a Clinton-loving liberal, then why do I like Pat Buchanan and support bombing al-Qaeda into oblivion? Or better yet, would a liberal take such a strong stance against unlimited immigration like I do? It's nice to find people in this forum who resort to knee-jerk accusations of liberalism whenever they want to avoid answering another's questions completely. And I wasn't aware that the "dry foot" policy was a Clinton distortion. Do you have any evidence of this or are you just talking out of your rear again?
He didn't have any immediate family in Cuba. Not only that, but the humanitarian thing to do when finding a shipwreck survivor out at sea, is to get them to a hospital ASAP, SPECIALLY in the case of a small child. You don't even have to be a conservative to think that, you just have to possess some sort of human feelings.
I guess his father doesn't count as immediate family, then, huh? And yes, the humanitarian thing to do *is* to get a shipwrecked child medical care. I never said I was against that, so stop putting words in my mouth.
Straw men, red herrings...it's starting to look like a Dr. Seuss book in here!
That's funny, I was thinking the same thing about you.
I don't think you're being very truthful now, after all, you JUST said that you would concern yourself with the legal status of a child rather than his ohysical well-being, here are your exact words on that "...he should have been sent back to his immediate family in Cuba after being rescued...", tsk, tsk...getting yourself confused here? Looks like you and Janet share a special love for children.
Whatever, buddy.
Now, go back to DU or wherever you crawled out from.
What the hell is this "DU" you speak of? I didn't even come from there. Funny how a person who doesn't like blanket statements made about them does the same exact thing. I don't know diddley squat about me either.
By the way, if the Cuban exile community were truly concerned with the plight of their fellow Cubans on the mainland, they'd stop supporting a failed embargo which has helped *keep* Fidel Castro. It's his crutch.
That explains a lot.
"And I wasn't aware that the "dry foot" policy was a Clinton distortion. Do you have any evidence of this or are you just talking out of your rear again?"
You should educate yourself before entering into discussions with your betters. Look it up, the first evident sign of a socialist mentality is the inability to seek for truth on its own, and instead, to expect others to provide it.
"I guess his father doesn't count as immediate family, then, huh?"
Are you saying that undocumented fathers are automatically given custody of children once the custodial parent passes away? Want to take some time and look up some case files on that?
"And yes, the humanitarian thing to do *is* to get a shipwrecked child medical care. I never said I was against that, so stop putting words in my mouth.
Is that a fact?
"His feet didn't touch dry land, so he should have been sent back to his immediate family in Cuba after being rescued."
60 posted on 3/18/02 2:20 PM Pacific by Rick_Hunter
Now tell me good sir, how is it possible to get him medical care and not have him set foot on dry land? He was rescued at sea by American citizens who brought him to a hospital. Did you expect them to head for Cuba to drop him off?
His feet touched dry land, didn't they?
"By the way, if the Cuban exile community were truly concerned with the plight of their fellow Cubans on the mainland, they'd stop supporting a failed embargo which has helped *keep* Fidel Castro. It's his crutch."
Ahhhh...a fellow traveler, otherwise known as a useful idiot.
So, when Castro took power and stole all the American businesses on the island, he did so because the Americans "exploited" Cuba, and now his economy fails he blames the Americans because they no longer do business in Cuba.
I see that you fall well for Castro's lies.
The DU is where all the comrades hang out.
Here's a link for you. Bon voyage!
It's not the US embargo, which has helped "keep" Castro. Castro deals with most countries in the world and that hasn't made a difference to its people. However, you deserve this.
Perhaps you are not aware that Elian's father was not married to Elian's mother at the time of conception or thereafter.
Also, you have to accept the word of Clinton Administration officials and Castro that his father wanted Elian back in Cuba and that he himself did not wish to defect. Juan Miguel was never out of the control of Castro's and Reno's security men.
Do you really trust those people?
It's been a while.
Anybody, is there a bump list for Elian, if so put me on it.
Never Give Up, Never Surrender!
Will do.
As cynical & shameful a politicization of a young boy as I've ever seen.....
For all the criticism of the Gonzales family, justifiable or not (not), at least I am able to see the moral difference between whatever they may have "lawyered", and the actions of the thuggish Clintonoids in ordering armed stormtroopers into a peaceful home in the middle of the night on the weekend of a holy week, and shoving an automatic weapon in the face of a six-year-old child. Falling back on the logical fallacy of constructing a false moral equivalence is a weak and ultimately doomed tactic of debate.
Politicization? You don't really want to go there. Everyone knows that the only factors driving the decisions made by Klink and his minions were political. They shed a lot of crocodile tears about "reuniting a child with his parent", but, bottom line, Clinton, Reno, Holder, Meissner, and all the other despicable swine involved in this sordid incident cared not a whit for Elian or Juan Gonzales, or anyone else. The only thing they cared about was the fat, smelly, ugly butt of Bill Clinton.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.