The Forum should unite against Alberto R. Gonzales

[Black_Iron]

Can’t find any evidence that directly addresses Gonzalez’s actions and not the positions of a group he is only a board member of?

Again, I ask you for some proof that Gonzalez will NOT faithfully discharge his duties as AG.

Shaggy, where were you during the whole discussion of immigration and Gonzales' ties to various Hispanic special interest groups? Please re-read it before you react with additional nonsense.

WRT the Supreme Court and the AG, I don’t know how to get it through your thick skull that the AG is not a part of the judiciary.

Where did I make this particular claim?

The AG may represent the United States and the federal government in cases before the Supreme Court, but its still a part of the executive Branch and thus insulated from the Court which is part of the judiciary.

The court is a part of the judiciary? Wow, shaggy.

Shaggy, I am assuming we know how Washington really works and how the legal system really works in the real world. Gonzales, as Attorney General, as the legal arm of P. Bush, will be at the forefront of making sure that immigration laws are readily enforced, and clearly he is in no shape to do so given his past affiliations.

All you can provide so far is a vague and tenuous link between Gonzalez and NCLR, and irrelevant cut & pasted nonsense that only provides someone else’s opinion of Gonzalez.

Life isn't a courtroom Shaggy. There's no clear, exact, statistical evidence confirmed by official research studies from government agencies relating Gonzales to these groups. How do you deal with the fact of his board membership?

So pro-life is your concern? Great. At least now I know your perspective is that of the Christian Taliban

No, my persepective is one of not deliberately taking innocent life. I have never heard of the "Christian Taliban", but if they rightfully protect babies from being killed, then they are far better human beings than you and your ilk are shaggy. By the way, what does Christianity have to do with this killing of human life? It's nothing but a distraction, and one that was skillfully used by Kerry during the debates. I prefer protecting and valuing the life of the unborn, and not that of illegals.

Last I read, in Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood abortion was determined to be legal and Constitutional by the US Supreme Court. I didn’t read the news today, but if you were appointed to the Supreme Court and ruled another case today that overruled those two I’d love to hear about it. Got a case cite for me Chief Justice BlackIron?

I've studied those cases for a long time, and there is no Constitutional precedent for either Rv.W or Casey. Both of those cases "overturned" legitimate law based on the fact that radicals like Marshall and Blackmun didn't like it. Unless you think that 5 mediocre justices can "decide" what the Constitution is at any given point, which is why we are asking Bush to appoint Justices that will correct this reprehensible behavior.

Finally WRT to the assault weapons ban, you again just can’t get the idea through your head that its not about what Gonzalez believes. Rather it’s the politics of the senate confirmation process. That is the context in which those statements were made. Additionally, IIRC it was during questioning by Chuck Schumer. In the 2004 elections you probably voted against Bush because he said he’d sigh the AW IF it made it to his desk. Unfortunately, you’re too thick to understand that was merely a political statement made to disarm a democrat issue in an election year. If anything made it out of Congress, the republicans in Congress would have put a few pork barrel extras on the bill so Bush would have a plausible and unrelated excuse for exercising the veto on it. Bush had no intention of renewing the ban, but politics being politics, there are certain statements you have to make and worry about finding a way to not back them up later on.

You don't understand the fact that I don't want Gonzales. Period.

I don't care about the "politics" of this or that, I care about the Constitution.

Bush doesn't need to "disarm" a democrat on guns; most of the people who voted against him could care less about his opposition to it. It was a foolish miscalculation on part of Karl Rove. My point is that there was no reason for Bush to appease the likes of Clinton, Kennedy and Schumer.

Having Gonzales affirm that position only further indicates that he is a poor choice for the job.

Black Iron is herby proclaimed the king of cut and paste.

Sorry about that. Everybody is just crying for evidence, because Alberticano is a holy Mexican.

 

[shaggy]

WRT the Supreme Court and the AG, I don’t know how to get it through your thick skull that the AG is not a part of the judiciary.

Where did I make this particular claim?

The claim wasn’t made, but your clear implication was that the AG has some sort of special sway with, or power over the Court. That is simply not the case.

The AG may represent the United States and the federal government in cases before the Supreme Court, but its still a part of the executive Branch and thus insulated from the Court which is part of the judiciary.

The court is a part of the judiciary? Wow, shaggy.

Well when it comes to picking nits, I’ll give you a gold star. My misstatement – The Court is part of the Judicial Branch. Feel better now?

Gonzales, as Attorney General, as the legal arm of P. Bush, will be at the forefront of making sure that immigration laws are readily enforced, and clearly he is in no shape to do so given his past affiliations.

And yet you still have not been able to explain the nature of this “affiliation”. As I mentioned (and you conveniently ignored) an affiliation can be made by something as innocuous as sharing of mailing lists. What is the exact nature of the affiliation between NCLR and AAMA? You’re basing part of your objection to Gonzalez on this affiliation, but you don’t even know the nature of the affiliation?

Life isn't a courtroom Shaggy. There's no clear, exact, statistical evidence confirmed by official research studies from government agencies relating Gonzales to these groups. How do you deal with the fact of his board membership?

I know, but you can’t even explain the nature of that affiliation. What did they do; share mailing lists? Boy, that’s some damning evidence. Can you provide me a quote from Gonzalez himself? Something other than mere membership in an group that’s vaguely affiliated with this LaRaza?

I've studied those cases for a long time, and there is no Constitutional precedent for either Rv.W or Casey. Both of those cases "overturned" legitimate law based on the fact that radicals like Marshall and Blackmun didn't like it. Unless you think that 5 mediocre justices can "decide" what the Constitution is at any given point, which is why we are asking Bush to appoint Justices that will correct this reprehensible behavior.

Well evidently five Justices of the Supreme Court did find a Constitutional basis for Roe and later Casey. I don’t know whatConstitution you’re referring to, but its not just me that thinks those 5 Justices can decide what the Constitution is. According to the US Constitution and Marbury, those nine Justices collectively get to decide what is Constitutional and what is not, and if my math is correct five is a majority. Until the Court and a potentially different set of nine Justices hear a case and overrule Roe, it remains the law of the land and Constitutional.

I suppose part of your concern is that Gonzalez will be nominated for the Court once a vacancy makes it possible. At this point, however we’re only talking about the job of AG. There isn’t even a vacancy on the Court yet to fill. Not that the post of AG is even necessary for nomination to the Court. Even if Gonzalez isn’t confirmed as AG, he can still be nominated if or when there is a vacancy on the Court.

Bush doesn't need to "disarm" a democrat on guns; most of the people who voted against him could care less about his opposition to it. It was a foolish miscalculation on part of Karl Rove. My point is that there was no reason for Bush to appease the likes of Clinton, Kennedy and Schumer.

That’s your opinion and you’re certainly welcome to it, but I think you are way off. The soccer mom vote is still alive and well and any candidate that ignores the ramifications of it is a fool. A foolish miscalculation by Rove? Not by a longshot. The fact is, Bush deactivated a potentially damaging issue for the republicans by telling a half truth. He said he’d sign it IF it reached his desk. But the obvious implication (at least for some of us) was that it never would reach his desk, thanks to Congressional republicans which would block it, or load it with pork to the point it was absolutely unacceptable on other grounds. Bush didn’t push the issue or pursue a renewal of the ban in any way, shape or form. He gave the moderate swing voters a soundbite to make them more comfortable and then walked away from the issue to let it die of natural causes in Congress. That was a smart move by Rove if you ask me. Why draw fire if it there is no upside or benefit?

 

[Master Blaster]

He is nothing but a concession, and the office of Attorney General is not something we should concede. I'd prefer that this man just get kicked out of the Bush government entirely.

Norm Minnetta needs to be shown the door also he is just as bad if not WORSE.

Yes if the Repubs question or vote against Gonzales they will be labeled as racist by the media.

But of course when Babs Boxer and John Kerry vote agains Condi Rice, the media says they are just protecting our rights from this evil woman, they are not racists. :barf:

 

[Derius_T]

And yet you still have not been able to explain the nature of this “affiliation”. As I mentioned (and you conveniently ignored) an affiliation can be made by something as innocuous as sharing of mailing lists. What is the exact nature of the affiliation between NCLR and AAMA? You’re basing part of your objection to Gonzalez on this affiliation, but you don’t even know the nature of the affiliation?

Come on. Use your head. Its common sense. If you were 'affiliated' with
such a group, and in public office, would you want to provide clear, concise
evidence of the nature of that 'affiliation' or would you want to downplay it
or cover it up as much as possible? Get real man, obviously politics is not
your bag....

You almost try to paint it as if the 'affiliation' between the two groups is trivial
and unimportant. That is exactly what you are SUPPOSED to think. Open
your eyes sheep.....thats a wolf under that wool.....

Can one group become an 'affiliate' of another without their support, or
knowledge? The FACT that they 'affiliate' themselves with the other group IN
ANY WAY, means they are like minded, and most certainly share some of the
other groups beliefs or values.....

Now of course, seeing the general nature of your other posts, I expect to
get flamed on while you try to ignore and sidestep the issue, but such is
your type I suppose. I could even place a side bet on what part of this
message you will quote.......

And this message is directed mainly to Shaggy, but the rest of you who are
clearly delusional can reply as well....

 

[Hooey]

Oh boy! If Gonzalaz is so well loved by some on this board, I can't wait to hear all the loving support for the Bush nomination of Michael Chertoff as new Security Czar for Homeland Security. A closer look at loyalties is in needed in this nomination as well. And heck ,C. Rice is no prise either.

 

[Hooey]

Oops! I should have proofread...

 

[Wallew]

BI,

THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU!

Shaggy, LA RAZA is slowly taking over the southern US, which they feel is rightfully theirs.

Kind of like how the Cubans have taken over Miami politics. The mayor in Miami is now called 'ALCALDE'.

And if you think the MEXICAN CULTURE IS SO GREAT, then go watch "Man on Fire" with Denzel Washington.

Specifically the parts where the kidnappers always say, "I am a professional". Because in MEXICO, kidnapping IS A PROFESSION. If you think we need professional kidnappers here in the United States, you are WRONG.

And it figures you live in NYC. Go live down in South Tejas or Arizona or Nevada or California. Where mexicans have already become the dominant 'minority'. You will FINALLY GET IT when whites and blacks join arms against the mexicans and RUN THEM OUT OF THIS COUNTRY ONCE AND FOR ALL.

 

[shaggy]

Derius_T

Come on. Use your head. Its common sense. If you were 'affiliated' with
such a group, and in public office, would you want to provide clear, concise
evidence of the nature of that 'affiliation' or would you want to downplay it
or cover it up as much as possible? Get real man, obviously politics is not
your bag....

Actually I have done bit of lobbying - whats your political experience?


So if this affiliation is not so trivial or unimportant, show me how its not trivial or unimportant. Show me what the nature of the affiliation is. Apparently business is not your bag. I've had personal experince dealing with companies where the word "affiliate" is thrown around as loosely as "love" (I love my wife, I love my car, I love mustard on my ham sandwich...). And yes, "affiliate" can mean something as trivial as sharing of mailing lists, use of trademark or banner ad on a website, etc. But you think you know better than me so prove me wrong. I'm perfectly willing to accept it, but give me something more solid than he's a Mexican, he's a member of a board of a group which is somehow (and you apparently don't know) "afiliated" with NCLR.

 

[shaggy]

Wallew

I'm sorry, but the movies and fiction is not where I chose to get my information and news.

So whats wrong with Cubans in politics? If they're US citizens they have as much right to be involved as you or me (assuming you're a US citizen). And from what I understand, Cubans are overwhelmingly Republican in their views. Perhaps thats because they came here to escape a Communist dictatorship???

 

[Derius_T]

Shaggy -

Actually I have done bit of lobbying - whats your political experience? So if this affiliation is not so trivial or unimportant, show me how its not trivial or unimportant. Show me what the nature of the affiliation is. Apparently business is not your bag. I've had personal experince dealing with companies where the word "affiliate" is thrown around as loosely as "love" (I love my wife, I love my car, I love mustard on my ham sandwich...). And yes, "affiliate" can mean something as trivial as sharing of mailing lists, use of trademark or banner ad on a website, etc. But you think you know better than me so prove me wrong. I'm perfectly willing to accept it, but give me something more solid than he's a Mexican, he's a member of a board of a group which is somehow (and you apparently don't know) "afiliated" with NCLR.

Without getting into their private records, there is no 'inconclusive' evidence,
and I'm SURE if such evidence exists, it will indeed be covered up so it never
comes to light and hurts his political career. You seem to hide behind the
word 'affiliation' itself. You have no more proof debunking the nature of his 'affiliation' that I do prooving it. But as I said before, and I quote:

Can one group become an 'affiliate' of another without their support, or knowledge? The FACT that they 'affiliate' themselves with the other group IN ANY WAY, means they are like minded, and most certainly share some of the other groups beliefs or values.....

So lets say you run for office. You stand for PRO-GUN, PRO 2nd AMMENDMENT, ect. Do you let yourself be KNOWN OR EVEN SUSPECTED TO
BE AFFILIATED IN ANY, ANY, ANY WAY with an ANTI-GUN, or ANTI-2nd
group? The answer is no. You thouroughly and vehemently squash even the
slightest RUMOR that you are 'affiliated' in even the most minute way with
ANY such organization.

The exact nature of the affiliation doesn't matter at this point, the FACT is
that is is KNOWN or PERCEIVED that he has contact with this radical
organization, and he does not despute the fact. Guilty by association.

Is this too hard for you to understand? Bet you ask for proof of the nature
of the 'affiliation' again........

 

[shaggy]

You have no more proof debunking the nature of his 'affiliation' that I do prooving it

True, but I'm not the one basing my opinion of a man on his membership on a board which of a corporation which is somehow affitilated to another group. You and BI are the ones relying on this affiliation, so if you stop dodging and answer the question, I'll stop asking it.

Can one group become an 'affiliate' of another without their support, or knowledge? The FACT that they 'affiliate' themselves with the other group IN ANY WAY, means they are like minded, and most certainly share some of the other groups beliefs or values.....

Oh this is just brilliant. You can't show me the nature of this affiliation, but you're sure it means there is ownership, control, support, and/or approval. I've said it once and I'll say it again; "affiliate" can mean almost anything. Most of the time its by nature of a contractual agreement whereby the nature of the relationship is defined. And yes, there is obviously SOME link in an affiliate relationship, but it does not necessarily mean there is knowledge, approval, or support of a set of values and/or beliefs. In fact, an affiliate can mean nothing more than "we'll give you our client list if you give us yours". I personally have read and approved agreements whereby one party is considered an "affiliate" for doing nothing more than providing a banner ad online. There's no common or shared beliefs - just a mutual desire to use each other to make more money for themselves.

Honestly, I'm not sure why I'm bothering trying to convince you anymore; we're obviously at an impasse. I like to think for myself and make my decisions based upon the best factual info I have available on the individual in question. You seem to be content with weak assumptions based on race and very vague and tenuous relationships between third parties to which he has ties.

 

[Black_Iron]

The claim wasn’t made, but your clear implication was that the AG has some sort of special sway with, or power over the Court. That is simply not the case.

I arrest my case.

Well when it comes to picking nits, I’ll give you a gold star. My misstatement –The Court is part of the Judicial Branch. Feel better now?

Not yet.

And yet you still have not been able to explain the nature of this “affiliation”. As I mentioned (and you conveniently ignored) an affiliation can be made by something as innocuous as sharing of mailing lists. What is the exact nature of the affiliation between NCLR and AAMA? You’re basing part of your objection to Gonzalez on this affiliation, but you don’t even know the nature of the affiliation?

Ok Shaggy, if you are really THIS DENSE.

From WorldNet Daily

"Alberto Gonzales served with distinction on the board of directors of one of NCLR’s oldest and most respected affiliates, the Association for the Advancement of Mexican Americans in Houston, Texas," she said. "Moreover, during his tenure as White House counsel, he has been one of the most accessible members of the White House staff to NCLR and other Hispanic organizations."

af·fil·i·ate ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-fl-t)

v. af·fil·i·at·ed, af·fil·i·at·ing, af·fil·i·ates
v. tr.
1. To adopt or accept as a member, subordinate associate, or branch: The HMO affiliated the clinics last year.
2. To associate (oneself) as a subordinate, subsidiary, employee, or member: affiliated herself with a new law firm.
3. To assign the origin of.

-------------------------------------

If you still don't get it, go to the website of the National Council of La Raza, and check out their affiliates.

National Council of La Raza - Affiliates

What do you know, the Association for the Advancement of Mexican Americans.

And if you don't understand what "La Raza" does, you can check this site out.

NCLR - About Us

Founded in 1968, NCLR began as a regional organization concerned primarily with providing grassroots support to Mexican Americans in the Southwest.

They were not just "sharing mailing lists".

I know, but you can’t even explain the nature of that affiliation. What did they do; share mailing lists? Boy, that’s some damning evidence. Can you provide me a quote from Gonzalez himself? Something other than mere membership in an group that’s vaguely affiliated with this LaRaza?

I expained it repeatedly. It's not my fault that you are unable to understand something this simple or that you refuse to do so.

From La Raza's endorsement of Gonzo.

http://www.nclr.org/content/news/detail/28109/

NCLR WELCOMES NOMINATION OF GONZALES TO SERVE AS ATTORNEY GENERAL

Washington, DC – The National Council of La Raza (NCLR), the largest national Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization in the U.S., today welcomed President Bush’s nomination of White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales to succeed John Ashcroft as Attorney General. If confirmed, Gonzales would be the first Hispanic ever to serve as Attorney General.

“We are very encouraged by the Gonzales nomination. We previously criticized the Bush Administration for not having an Hispanic in the cabinet since the departure of former HUD Secretary, now Senator-elect, Mel Martinez. We are pleased that one of the first acts since the President’s reelection both rectifies that situation and marks an historic milestone for the Latino community. Never before has an Hispanic served as head of one of the four major cabinet posts – Secretary of State, Treasury, Defense, and Attorney General,” stated Janet Murguia, NCLR Executive Director and COO.

Murguia also noted Gonzales’ ties to the Hispanic community throughout his career. “Alberto Gonzales served with distinction on the board of directors of one of NCLR’s oldest and most respected affiliates, the Association for the Advancement of Mexican Americans (AAMA) in Houston, Texas. Moreover, during his tenure as White House Counsel, he has been one of the most accessible members of the White House staff to NCLR and other Hispanic organizations,” added Murguia.

Murguia concluded, “We acknowledge that this is the first step of a long confirmation process that requires that his record be fully examined. That being said, Gonzales is a thoughtful, reasonable public servant, a man of his word, and we have every expectation that his nomination will be very well received in the Latino community.”

I'll give you Gonzo's official bio if you still don't believe me from WhiteHouse.gov.

/www.whitehouse.gov/government/gonzales-bio.html

Judge Al Gonzales was commissioned as Counsel to President George W. Bush in January of 2001. Prior to serving in the White House, he served as a Justice of the Supreme Court of Texas. Before his appointment to the Texas Supreme Court in 1999, he served as Texas' 100th Secretary of State from December 2, 1997 to January 10, 1999. Among his many duties as Secretary of State, Gonzales was a senior advisor to then Governor Bush, chief elections officer, and the Governor's lead liaison on Mexico and border issues.

Well evidently five Justices of the Supreme Court did find a Constitutional basis for Roe and later Casey. I don’t know whatConstitution you’re referring to, but its not just me that thinks those 5 Justices can decide what the Constitution is. According to the US Constitution and Marbury, those nine Justices collectively get to decide what is Constitutional and what is not, and if my math is correct five is a majority. Until the Court and a potentially different set of nine Justices hear a case and overrule Roe, it remains the law of the land and Constitutional.

You're not understanding my arguments. I'm aware they "got away" with it, because a majority of justices ruled on it, but they had no legal reasoning whatsover other than a "right to privacy" they somehow concocted from thin air, and even if you hold the Constitution to the light and/or test for invisible ink, it isn't there. What's stopping a majority of Justices from declaring the Pledge Unconstitutional, legalizing murder, or even declaring this country "Unconstitutional"?

I still demand that you explain what you meant with your little outburst about the "Christian Taliban" or your resentment against my pro-life stance. It clearly had little to do with the legal technicalities you seem so stuck on presently.

I suppose part of your concern is that Gonzalez will be nominated for the Court once a vacancy makes it possible. At this point, however we’re only talking about the job of AG. There isn’t even a vacancy on the Court yet to fill. Not that the post of AG is even necessary for nomination to the Court. Even if Gonzalez isn’t confirmed as AG, he can still be nominated if or when there is a vacancy on the Court.

Do you know why Ashcroft resigned? Bush on immigration. What part of 'Gonzales nomination sending a signal' don't you understand? There's a reason why he chose Gonzales, there's a reason why Arbusto found such a chum in that criminal Administration of Mexico that has clearly put both Fox and Bush above our law and it makes this country look pathetic.

As for the garbage the left is spewing about Gonzales "violating" some ridiculous convention, I could care less. It is nothing but crap they've contrived; Americans know the real reason to oppose AG for AG. They want no part in glorifying vain and arrogant Hispanics, whose record of racism and cultural hegemony they've left below the border is showing its ugly face now on our nation.

How many Latinos voted for Bush and how many protested against the Iraq war on OUR STREETS?!

That’s your opinion and you’re certainly welcome to it, but I think you are way off. The soccer mom vote is still alive and well and any candidate that ignores the ramifications of it is a fool. ................

The soccer mom vote?

Shaggy, you need to take a drug test.

First of all, you have no idea what you're talking about other than what you get from the mass media.

Anybody who votes for Bush won't do it because he supports an AWB ban. It's not even an issue; more women than ever want guns to PROTECT THEMSELVES. Especially in this era of violent crime and of repeat offenders.

He's selling out millions of gun owners to pander to a bunch of fools; if Bush doesn't think our rights will help him get elected he thinks he can chuck them out the window? Absolutely not. This is a matter of priniciple, and the Ban was in clear violation of the 2nd Amendment. I admit Bush got lucky this time, but he better start getting serious. We, who put him in office, are getting tired of receiving the shaft.

 

[Black_Iron]

Where mexicans have already become the dominant 'minority'. You will FINALLY GET IT when whites and blacks join arms against the mexicans and RUN THEM OUT OF THIS COUNTRY ONCE AND FOR ALL.

Wallew,

Let's not be racist here. My problem is with their racism. It's not just Mexicans. It's Chinese and Indians too. Both of them are just as stubborn, especially the Indians propagating all of thier organizations and hindu temples. The "Raza" doesn't like you if you're black, white, Chinese, whatever. It's a radical nationalist group that has abetted these harmful policies for their own extremist agenda.

Racist whites, for example, hate blacks as much as Mexicans, so you have to be careful.

I disagree with the African American Community on many political issues. But the African Americans who have served this country are some of the finest Americans this nation has produced, like Dr. Condolezza Rice, Justice Clarence Thomas, and countless others. Don't let Sharpton, Cochran, and Congressional Black/Hispanic Idiots ruin it for all the others.

 

[shaggy]

Ok Shaggy, if you are really THIS DENSE.

If you think I’m dense I suggest you look at yourself in the mirror. I keep asking the same question because YOU keep dodging it and posting irrelevant and useless crap. YOU make big long cut & pastes of useless fluff, but you dodge the question everytime. For the umpteenth time, answer my question – what is the exact nature of the “affiliation” between NCLR and AAMA? You rely on that relationship to damn Gonzalez but you don't even know the nature of the relationship. I'll admit I may be wrong on Gonzalez, but I like to think for myself and you’re proving yourself to be incapable of understanding a simple question and answering it. Either that or you have no clue as to the nature of the relationship there and can only parrot the irrelevant nonsense you read on WND that does not answer my question either.

Now on to Gonzalez’ bio – You bold the fact that Gonzo was the Sec of State for the State of TX and was a liason on Mexico & border issues? How brilliant of you. You do know of course, that whether Gonzalez was there or not that position would exist for someone to deal with. However, I’m not really sure of what he was doing there as border issues are a federal issue. Maybe you’d like to find a cut & past that doesn’t address that for me?

Abortion – On this issue I can actually respect your position and I do apologize if my remarks on this offended you. I don’t agree with your position on abortion, but if your opposition to Gonzalez is based on the abortion issue, I’m ok with it. That’s a fair issue and I know a lot of republicans take serious issue with Gonzalez on it. Its when you try to pin other issues on him that you can’t back up that I have a problem. But lets be honest here, as AG, Gonzalez isn’t going to have much say on the abortion issue anyway the SCOTUS has spoken and it doesn't looklike they'll take up the issue again in the near future.

Do you know why Ashcroft resigned? Bush on immigration.

Got something to back that assertion up? Maybe you’re right, but I’ve never heard that reason ascribed to Ashcroft’s resignation.

How many Latinos voted for Bush and how many protested against the Iraq war on OUR STREETS?!

Actually most of the Latinos I know are business owners and solid Republicans – probably even more so than myself. They certainly didn’t protest in the streets. Would you like to tell me how many Latinos voted against Bush? Maybe you'd also like to tell me how many white Americans voted against Bush too.

Anybody who votes for Bush won't do it because he supports an AWB ban. It's not even an issue; more women than ever want guns to PROTECT THEMSELVES. Especially in this era of violent crime and of repeat offenders..

Baloney. There were many people that voted for Bush that wuold have been quite happy to see the AWB extended. There are many RINO's in the party and one only has to look to the moderate republicans in Congress and the Senate to see a sample of how moderate many republicans can be. How about you do a cut & paste to show me how many republicans crossed the party in 1994 to help pass the AWB? They may not be ideal republicans, but the moderate republican and RINO votes still help get the party in control of the House and the Senate to dictate the legislative agenda.

You seem to be absolutely blind to the power of the negative ad and completely clueless to political strategy. Thank God Rove knows what he’s doing and isn’t listening to your advice. Guns and gun control isn’t a primary voting issue for most people in this country. However, if Bush voiced support for allowing the AWB to die, the dems would have been all over it and spun it as though Bush wanted to legalize machineguns for anyone under 18 and hand them out at every street corner with a Happy Meal. Do you even remember the campaign ads in 1990 and 1992 - a perfect example of the dems using guns as a fearmongering issue. Last year the dems would have used their fearmongering to make gun control an issue again and they would have clobbered us with it. Sally Soccermom doesn’t care about guns unless she sees campaign ads on TV that make her worry about the safety of her kids in school. At that point, it becomes an issue for her. Maybe not a primary issue, but one that nonetheless commands some of her attention and thought. The dems have mastered the campaign tactic of fearmongering and know how to use it well.

He's selling out millions of gun owners to pander to a bunch of fools; if Bush doesn't think our rights will help him get elected he thinks he can chuck them out the window? Absolutely not. This is a matter of priniciple, and the Ban was in clear violation of the 2nd Amendment. I admit Bush got lucky this time, but he better start getting serious. We, who put him in office, are getting tired of receiving the shaft

Bush did nothing of the sort. Tell me, how exactly did we get the shaft? What gun control laws passed in Bush’s first term? What gun control laws did he sign into law? What gun control laws did he propose and advocate Congressional action on? Can you answer me that? I can’t believe you’re too simple to understand basic campaign and PR tactics. It’s the art of the soundbite to disarm a potential damaging issue. Perhaps that’s too difficult a concept though.

 

[Wallew]

S,

I'm sorry, but the movies and fiction is not where I chose to get my information and news.

Yes, it is a movie. HOWEVER, it's NOT FICTION. All this actually happened.

Go watch the flick. If you feel that listing your profession as KIDNAPPER is OK by you, then we are all in trouble.

Also, go down to Mexico. Notice that MOST of the homes have high walls and iron gates. If you can afford it, you have your own security force.

If you want to turn the US into a third world country where criminals consider what they do as 'legal', where bribery and murder are considered 'business tactics', then just say so.

Otherwise, consider speaking only about what you have experienced personally. Having grown up in Corpus Christi, San Antonio, and Houston, Texas as I did, you MIGHT have a different perspective. My families closest friend is a Mexican evangelist, so it's not race based.

This is all based in the FACT that a growing number of mexicans both here and in Mexico believe the US does not legally own the Southwest, where I have lived my whole life, and that they are going to do something about it.

That will occur after they pry the weapon from my cold dead hands.

Just to be clear about Gonzales. I've seen the video of his attendance (on the dias no less) to at least one major La Raza gathering. He may not be a member, but he is definately sympathetic to their cause, which is to 'take back the Southwest'.

Guns and gun control isn’t a primary voting issue for most people in this country.

Eighty million gun owners (last count I read two years ago) and you don't think it's a voting issue for 'most' people in this country. You couldn't be further from the truth. ON BOTH SIDES. Do you think a Democrat is pro-gun and would vote that way? Do you think a Republican is anti-gun and would vote that way? Geez, get a grip.

YOU apparently have no understanding of political strategy if you actually believe that. Also, if gun ownership, etc is a non-starter to Bush, then why did he reverse his position on CCW in Texas as governor (after he said he was against it)? Couldn't have been all those pro-gunners who flooded his office with calls, letters, faxes and email (oh, yeah, I was one of those people who called, wrote a letter and an email)?

 

[PsychoSword]

Also, go down to Mexico. Notice that MOST of the homes have high walls and iron gates. If you can afford it, you have your own security force.

If you want to turn the US into a third world country where criminals consider what they do as 'legal', where bribery and murder are considered 'business tactics', then just say so.

I agree. And though not totally, it seems to be a regional thing. You see it all across the south from Florida to California. Gate communities with private security forces and home owners sacrificing their sovereignty to a home owners' association in the name of security of course. The invasion began a long time ago.

That will occur after they pry the weapon from my cold dead hands.

It will be too late at that point. Everyone will be assimilated.

 

[Wallew]

PS,

My favorite story I like to tell about housing in Mexico is the one where my wife and I were travelling from Las Vegas, through Phoenix down to I-10 so we could visit my parents in West Texas.

As we rolled through El Paso, travelling east on I-10 my wife commented, "Boy they must have pretty loose housing codes here in Texas. Look at all those homes built on top of each other and look at all the tin roofs." She was looking south, across the Rio Grande.

"Dear, I don't believe shanty towns in Mexico HAVE building codes."

That is where we are going. Scary if you take time to think about it.

 

[shaggy]

Just to be clear about Gonzales. I've seen the video of his attendance (on the dias no less) to at least one major La Raza gathering. He may not be a member, but he is definately sympathetic to their cause, which is to 'take back the Southwest'.

So I 'll now ask you the same question I've been asking everyone else; what is the exact nature of the affiliation betweem NCLR and AAMA? So Gonzalez was at a meeting of NCLR? You mean to tell me mere attendance signifies agreement and consent to all NCLR's policies and beliefs? Guilt by association must be just fine by you then. I'll have to keep that in mind.

Eighty million gun owners (last count I read two years ago) and you don't think it's a voting issue for 'most' people in this country. You couldn't be further from the truth. ON BOTH SIDES.

Eighty million gun owners and only about 3 million in the NRA. No its not a primary voting issue for most Americans. If it were there'd be a lot higher membership in the NRA, GOA, etc. Much less than the 3 Million in the NRA consider guns a PRIMARY issue when they go to vote. How many NRA members are also members of a union and vote with their union (usually liberal) for financial reasons?

Do you think a Democrat is pro-gun and would vote that way? Do you think a Republican is anti-gun and would vote that way? Geez, get a grip.

As far as progun dems who vote with the republicans, and republicans who vote anti-gun, you're a complete dolt. You've obviously never heard of the blue dogs or RINOs. Do names like Jeffords, Castle, Dingell, and McCain, mean anything to you? And you question my knowledge of politics?

 

[Black_Iron]

Shaggadelic

If you think I’m dense I suggest you look at yourself in the mirror.

That's a real insult right there.

I keep asking the same question because.....

Shaggy, you might've needed extra help back in middle school, but I am certainly not here to coddle slow learners.

For the umpteenth time, answer my question – what is the exact nature of the “affiliation” between NCLR and AAMA?

Shaggy, didn't I post the link to NCLR several times? Don't they have a page explaining the "nature" of their affiliate network? Here it is people. Shaggy, it's evident that you really have nothing to add other than regurgitating endlessly the mindless demands that countless posters have repeatedly debunked.

NCLR Affiliate Network

Since NCLR was founded in 1968, the body of NCLR’s Affiliate Network has grown to more than 300 community-based organizations. Their services are diverse and include charter schools, after-school programs, job readiness and training, English language preparation, homeownership counseling, health centers, and community activities centers, to name a few. In total, these organizations provide services to approximately 4 million Hispanic Americans.

These organizations deal on a day-to-day basis with all aspects of serving the Latino population. They are familiar with the practical concerns and the policy issues affecting their constituencies and are actively engaged in developing and implementing innovative solutions to the problems they face.

NCLR’s active and productive relationships with its community-based affiliate organizations are at the heart of NCLR’s work and key to its ability to fulfill its mission. In providing capacity-building assistance, policy analysis, advocacy, and special initiatives that complement the work of our affiliates, NCLR is able to work “on the front lines” to improve life opportunities for Hispanic Americans throughout the country.

If you legitimately didn't understand how or why Association for the Advancement of Mexican Americans is an affiliate of the National Council of La Raza, I doubt you're competent enough for me to continue intelligent discussion regarding Mr. Gonzales'. Political and Advocacy Organizations don't 'affiliate' with one another on the basis of sharing mailing lists. If you're dragging out this issue and in doing so believe that you have the upper hand, it's time for you to take your head out of your @$$.

You rely on that relationship to damn Gonzalez but you don't even know the nature of the relationship. I'll admit I may be wrong on Gonzalez, but I like to think for myself and you’re proving yourself to be incapable of understanding a simple question and answering it. Either that or you have no clue as to the nature of the relationship there and can only parrot the irrelevant nonsense you read on WND that does not answer my question either.

It's more than obvious here as to who can't comprehend what organizational affiliation is at all as well as the "relationship" between Alberto Gonzales' and any Hispanic organization. I'll give you a clue:

ALBERTO GONZALEZ IS HISPANIC.

Now on to Gonzalez’ bio – You bold the fact that Gonzo was the Sec of State for the State of TX and was a liason on Mexico & border issues? How brilliant of you. You do know of course, that whether Gonzalez was there or not that position would exist for someone to deal with. However, I’m not really sure of what he was doing there as border issues are a federal issue. Maybe you’d like to find a cut & past that doesn’t address that for me?

Just re-stating what is obvious for anyone with average intelligence, but unfortunately isn't so obvious for you. Do you think Gonzalez was advocating a complete crackdown on illegals to Gov. Bush, given later the President's own POV of giving them blanket amnesty as well as citizenship? Given his past membership with the AAMA and his blatant pride in his Mexican heritage?

Get real you fool.

Abortion – On this issue I can actually respect your position and I do apologize if my remarks on this offended you. I don’t agree with your position on abortion, but if your opposition to Gonzalez is based on the abortion issue, I’m ok with it. That’s a fair issue and I know a lot of republicans take serious issue with Gonzalez on it. Its when you try to pin other issues on him that you can’t back up that I have a problem. But lets be honest here, as AG, Gonzalez isn’t going to have much say on the abortion issue anyway the SCOTUS has spoken and it doesn't looklike they'll take up the issue again in the near future.

Shaggy, you have no respect for my position which I validate with your remarks about the "Christian Taliban", and worst of all, you have no respect for the 30 million unborn children that are brutally killed. Perhaps in that sick city that is NYC, such degeneracy is cool and hip with perverts and the youth they use for pleasure. The election of Bush as President precisely on the basis of 'moral values', especially in swing states, should reveal to you how extreme and utterly evil your views are in relation to the rest of America.

Got something to back that assertion up? Maybe you’re right, but I’ve never heard that reason ascribed to Ashcroft’s resignation.

What happened to all that political expertise, Shaggy? Your expertise on so-called crossover Republicans and Democrats, as if we had no idea? That's right, you still can't understand why Albert is unfit to be Attorney General. How could you possibly understand why Ashcroft would quit what gives him the highest positions of authority governing the law of the United States, unless it wasn't Bush's hideous stance on illegal immigration and his hideous and corrupt relationship with Vicente Fox of Mejico?

Why is it that Mr. Vicente doesn't want to discard from Mexico what is the strictest requirements for citizenship in the world, yet he feels he can dictate to America what our citizenship requirements are? America doesn't need the burden of Mexico and it's citizens.

Actually most of the Latinos I know are business owners and solid Republicans – probably even more so than myself. They certainly didn’t protest in the streets. Would you like to tell me how many Latinos voted against Bush? Maybe you'd also like to tell me how many white Americans voted against Bush too.

How about the majority of migrant laborers and low class wage earners who compromise much of that demographic? Wake up, they vote Democratic. Another good reason to stem this problem before it is too late.

Baloney. There were many people that voted for Bush that wuold have been quite happy to see the AWB extended.

They are not the majority of people in the Republican party or even in the mainstream on gun issues. The RINO's, without the support of the party they adopted, will easily find themselves out of a job, especially when there are Democrats like Daschle who will do it for them.

You seem to be absolutely blind to the power of the negative ad and completely clueless to political strategy. Thank God Rove knows what he’s doing and isn’t listening to your advice. Guns and gun control isn’t a primary voting issue for most people in this country. However, if Bush voiced support for allowing the AWB to die, the dems would have been all over it and spun it as though Bush wanted to legalize machineguns for anyone under 18 and hand them out at every street corner with a Happy Meal. Do you even remember the campaign ads in 1990 and 1992 - a perfect example of the dems using guns as a fearmongering issue. Last year the dems would have used their fearmongering to make gun control an issue again and they would have clobbered us with it. Sally Soccermom doesn’t care about guns unless she sees campaign ads on TV that make her worry about the safety of her kids in school. At that point, it becomes an issue for her. Maybe not a primary issue, but one that nonetheless commands some of her attention and thought. The dems have mastered the campaign tactic of fearmongering and know how to use it well.

These people live in surburban communites, not in violent urban enviornments, Shaggy. It's the false association of guns with crime and "racists" that let the Democrats spread all the crap they do about guns.

How did the terrorists destroy the WTC? With guns? Your assertion that the Democrats would've gotten anywhere with guns speaks more for your ignorance, especially given the fact that the main issues were moral ones concerning stem cell research and abortion.

Bush did nothing of the sort. Tell me, how exactly did we get the shaft? What gun control laws passed in Bush’s first term? What gun control laws did he sign into law? What gun control laws did he propose and advocate Congressional action on? Can you answer me that? I can’t believe you’re too simple to understand basic campaign and PR tactics. It’s the art of the soundbite to disarm a potential damaging issue. Perhaps that’s too difficult a concept though.

Shaggy, you would sink in oil, you would sink the Dead Sea. Your mental density is that large.

If you still don't get how Bush gave us the shaft, then re-read every post in this thread about nominees like Alberto.

 

[Wallew]

S,

Guns and gun control isn’t a primary voting issue for most people in this country. However, if Bush voiced support for allowing the AWB to die, the dems would have been all over it and spun it as though Bush wanted to legalize machineguns for anyone under 18 and hand them out at every street corner with a Happy Meal. Do you even remember the campaign ads in 1990 and 1992 - a perfect example of the dems using guns as a fearmongering issue. Last year the dems would have used their fearmongering to make gun control an issue again and they would have clobbered us with it.

You contradict YOURSELF in this paragraph alone. Gun control isn't a primary voting issue for most people?

Then you say "Last year the dems would have used their fearmongering to make gun control an issue again and the would have clobbered us with it."

DUH, those two statements contradict themselves. THE ONLY REASONS dems did not was they KNEW it was a losing argument. Regardless of what YOU may think. YOU actually think KERRY knows doo-dah about firearms? Do you really think Kerry is a hunter? Did you NOT see him pandering to all us gun owners? Do you think he did that because 'gun control isn't a primary voting issue in this country'?

Please get a grip and come back to reality. The dems didn't waste hundreds of thousands of dollars on ads showing Kerry in hunting get up or ads showing him recieving a 'hunting shotgun' from a union member if GUN CONTROL WAS NOT A HUGE PRIMARY VOTING ISSUE?

Or are you saying the Dems got it wrong and wasted money on all those ads in all those states that are pro-gun (38 at current count) ON PURPOSE?

Just curious.

As to LA RAZA. Are you suggesting that their main goal ISN'T to take the Southwestern US away from us? That's what THEY SAY. NOT ME.

And you never got around to addressing any of the questions I asked. Like do you believe Kidnapper, drug dealer or hitman are PROFESSIONS that we need here in the US like they have in MEXICO and most the the rest of central and south america?

Oh, and it's FOUR MILLION NRA MEMBERS. Keep up with CURRENT STATS.

BTW, yes I'm aware there is ALWAYS a minority of people on both sides that flip flop on any given issue. HOWEVER, you said gun control was NOT a primary voting issue. YOU ARE INCORRECT, as I have shown above. So, Shagman, how about answering MY QUESTION?