Bush is a hero
lisw

Delaware, OH

#179719 Jul 12, 2014
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>What makes you say that he's not being treated normally under Mexican law?
Punched several times by law enforcement, handcuffed in a standing position. If that is typical then it's news to me..

“Help Cecil Help!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#179720 Jul 12, 2014
lisw wrote:
<quoted text>Punched several times by law enforcement, handcuffed in a standing position. If that is typical then it's news to me..
That's not normal by US law enforcement standards, at least on paper, but it happens all too often here.

He didn't get arrested in the US.

He got arrested by the Federales at the border in TJ, where normal has a whole different meaning. At least in the 70s and 80s new sailors arriving in San Diego were told to expect that kind of treatment if you were dumb or unlucky enough to get arrested in Mexico.

Since his arrest his case has proceeded normally through the Mexican court system. Unfortunately for the guy arrested, Mexican prosecutors don't have the legal discretionary authority to dismiss the charges 'in the interest of justice' that American prosecutors have.
The Awakener

Liverpool, Australia

#179721 Jul 13, 2014
Strength and Honor wrote:
<quoted text>
You wouldn't have to restrict free speech of the media if every candidate would refuse to deal with the news outlet that push one particular candidate over another. We do it with teachers who aren't allowed to spout off about the pros and cons of electing a particular politician. You don't have to restrict anybody's rights. All you have to do is hold them accountable in a peer review.
But before you do any of this, this is what you do. Have extensive classes on how to be a good parent. Also, have extensive classes on how to be a good friend and a good citizen. Sure, we scratch the surface now with some classes on these issues. But, what we need are classes that teach us how to tamp down our inner caveman to become decent civilized folk who won't succumb to greed and the dog eat dog mentality. This world needs better parents to make better politicians.
The thing is, many parents of today tend to rely on the education system to teach children to be a good friend and a good citizen. Many of the younger generations are rude and have lack of discipline.

The botroffs who changed this during the post-1960s era have made attitudes towards this too relaxed. Selfishness and self-interest has become the main thoughts among people. The feminist movement has lead women to leave the traditional role of being housewives and going out to work and sending kids to day-care centres does not do to the benefit of today's younger generations. Both parents working, less-time with kids and the dependence on teachers to teach morals and values - all this has gone out of hand.

The teenagers of the 1950s were the last generation to be brought up with ol' fashioned morals, values and ethics.

Since: Nov 08

Chicago, IL

#179722 Jul 13, 2014
Clearwater wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey S and H. He is doing better. Still in the hospital but hopes to go home Sunday.
Good news, indeed. I hope this will all be behind him soon.

Since: Nov 08

Chicago, IL

#179723 Jul 13, 2014
The Awakener wrote:
<quoted text>
The thing is, many parents of today tend to rely on the education system to teach children to be a good friend and a good citizen. Many of the younger generations are rude and have lack of discipline.
The botroffs who changed this during the post-1960s era have made attitudes towards this too relaxed. Selfishness and self-interest has become the main thoughts among people. The feminist movement has lead women to leave the traditional role of being housewives and going out to work and sending kids to day-care centres does not do to the benefit of today's younger generations. Both parents working, less-time with kids and the dependence on teachers to teach morals and values - all this has gone out of hand.
The teenagers of the 1950s were the last generation to be brought up with ol' fashioned morals, values and ethics.
This is all too true for some people.
Lyndi

Sarasota, FL

#179724 Jul 13, 2014
lisw wrote:
<quoted text>I see what you are saying, but there are a few details that make this case a little different. Soldiers often own weapons legally and if he was going somewhere (which he was) then he was carrying all of his possessions with him. He was legal in the US and made a mistake. As a soldier Obama is his commander in chief. What do you mean he has nothing to do with it. Last the treatment he is getting is not normal even for Mexican standards and as an ally Mexico is bound to treat him properly until he goes to trial I recall a case where a 12 year old child in Singapore was going to be caned for an offense that was no offense in the US and we also are against beating children . The president at the time did intervene. Yeah this is no kid but it is a similar thing. If I can find the story I'll post it. Any other president would have done it and even Hillary would do it.
I'm pretty sure no country whose federal laws were violated can simply drop a case because the accused said "he made a mistake." And I still think there may be good reasons that the public isn't aware of, that Obama hasn't just picked up the phone and asked, instructed, demanded, pleaded or requested a friendly neighborly courtesy to have him released because he "heard" the man "made a mistake." It makes me wonder why he hasn't considering his polls are in the toilet. Playing super hero about now and having a photo op with Tamhooressi in the Rose Garden is right up his obnoxious "yay me" alley and might do his distressing approval ratings some good. So, why hasn't he? I don't know. Or maybe he has, got turned down and we don't know about that either.

Should President Nieto be able to call Obama on the phone, ask Obama to contact local law officials in Milwaukee and order those officials there to drop charges on a Mexican citizen being held on weapons charges and just send him back to Mexico? I think it's politically stickier than it might seem for heads of state to make pleas and ask for favors to one another. The trouble with asking for favors, is sometimes they're asked to be returned.......

I don't know all the details because I haven't followed it all that closely but I get the sense some of the harumpf I'm seeing is in retaliation to Obama arranging for that dubious prisoner exchange with a purported deserter for 5 Gitmo detainees, some of the harumpf is "For Pete's sake, we've absorbed 11-20 million illegal Mexicans, so why can't they just let this one guy go" and some of the harumpf is because many of Tahmooressi's supporters can't stand Obama and are looking to pile on another "he didn't do anything about this either."

It's my understanding that a couple dozen congressmen/congresswomen have contacted the authorities in Mexico about this, Secretary of State Kerry has spoken to them about it, the State Department is following it closely, he's had multiple meetings with US embassy officials and has legal representation. That's a lot of support by any standards.

On a curious note & maybe you would know because it's your line of work. Why is someone who has been diagnosed with PTSD and headed to San Diego to get treatment for that permitted to own multiple weapons and why if he has been diagnosed with PTSD is he still active in the reserves?

“The future begins”

Since: Jul 07

every moment

#179725 Jul 13, 2014
Lyndi wrote:
<quoted text>
A simple "touché!" would have been adequate, Hip. No need to bloviate me to death simply because you don't like getting tripped up in your own words or seeing the word "tyranny" appropriately linked to democrat behavior and on Obama's watch.
One would think that someone who has been as ((( wrong ))) as you have concerning this president, his administration, his polices both foreign and domestic and the number of scandals and crises brought on by this unqualified dolt, you might be about ready to display a little humility and show some deference to those of us who knew better.
Touché might have been adequate if the exchange to which you interjected had been a recitation of Republican sins.

But it wasn't.

We were talking of the self-serving nature of party polarization which those not on the fringes, who comprise 60-80% of the electorate, see as crippling a vital democracy. The fact that you missed (ignored) the topic being discussed, and went for the cheap partisan gag instead, is a perfect example of that determined self-centered partisanship we were talking about.
Lyndi

Sarasota, FL

#179726 Jul 13, 2014
Clearwater wrote:
<quoted text>
I did witness some that claimed to have supported Obama the first time to say boy was I wrong. Didn't get quite the play that romnesia did as the msm worshiped at the alter of Obama but it was around.
There's a ton of buyers remorse for Obama now and it's growing. And funny, funny, Romney is looking better by the minute. His ratings are flying high and he's not even running.
"Too late now, PEOPLE! Shoulda listened to Lyndi! "

Buyers remorse is normal for normal people but there are always those entrenched in denial types who will keep driving that lemon as it lurches and hiccups and stalls and coughs and backfires and dry heaves down the road ........and they'll still tell you they bought a great car.

Can't explain it.

“Help Cecil Help!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#179727 Jul 13, 2014
Lyndi wrote:
<quoted text>
On a curious note & maybe you would know because it's your line of work. Why is someone who has been diagnosed with PTSD and headed to San Diego to get treatment for that permitted to own multiple weapons and why if he has been diagnosed with PTSD is he still active in the reserves?
PTSD isn't an automatic discharge, nor is a diagnosis an automatic disqualification for weapons ownership.
Lyndi

Sarasota, FL

#179728 Jul 13, 2014
HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text>Touché might have been adequate if the exchange to which you interjected had been a recitation of Republican sins.
But it wasn't.
We were talking of the self-serving nature of party polarization which those not on the fringes, who comprise 60-80% of the electorate, see as crippling a vital democracy. The fact that you missed (ignored) the topic being discussed, and went for the cheap partisan gag instead, is a perfect example of that determined self-centered partisanship we were talking about.
Sometimes in debate, a person errs and says something so shockingly self defeating, the original topic is instantly is forgotten. This is one of those times.
You lost that round by accidently speaking an unfortunate truth and there are no do overs simply because you don't like the outcome.



Lyndi

Sarasota, FL

#179729 Jul 13, 2014
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>PTSD isn't an automatic discharge, nor is a diagnosis an automatic disqualification for weapons ownership.
Okay. Well, that answers that.

“Help Cecil Help!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#179730 Jul 13, 2014
Lyndi wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay. Well, that answers that.
I should say that PTSD isn't an automatic discharge YET, but in the future it could become one as the services shrink to ridiculously small levels.

Given the callused nature by which the Army is RIFing officers right now, anything is possible.

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/06/30...

http://nypost.com/2014/07/09/sending-pink-sli...

“The future begins”

Since: Jul 07

every moment

#179731 Jul 13, 2014
Lyndi wrote:
<quoted text>
Sometimes in debate, a person errs and says something so shockingly self defeating, the original topic is instantly is forgotten. This is one of those times.
You lost that round by accidently speaking an unfortunate truth and there are no do overs simply because you don't like the outcome.
And sometimes in debate, a self-serving respondent goes "rogue" and talks about what they want to talk about rather than the debate question. See Palin vs. Biden debate for a prototype example to yours. Then it ceases to be debate and becomes performance theater.

And as I said, it would be a "winning round" if it could only describe one side. The debate question was whether hyper-partisanship by all sides is good for the future of a democracy.
lisw

Delaware, OH

#179732 Jul 13, 2014
Lyndi wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm pretty sure no country whose federal laws were violated can simply drop a case because the accused said "he made a mistake." And I still think there may be good reasons that the public isn't aware of, that Obama hasn't just picked up the phone and asked, instructed, demanded, pleaded or requested a friendly neighborly courtesy to have him released because he "heard" the man "made a mistake." It makes me wonder why he hasn't considering his polls are in the toilet. Playing super hero about now and having a photo op with Tamhooressi in the Rose Garden is right up his obnoxious "yay me" alley and might do his distressing approval ratings some good. So, why hasn't he? I don't know. Or maybe he has, got turned down and we don't know about that either.
Should President Nieto be able to call Obama on the phone, ask Obama to contact local law officials in Milwaukee and order those officials there to drop charges on a Mexican citizen being held on weapons charges and just send him back to Mexico? I think it's politically stickier than it might seem for heads of state to make pleas and ask for favors to one another. The trouble with asking for favors, is sometimes they're asked to be returned.......
I don't know all the details because I haven't followed it all that closely but I get the sense some of the harumpf I'm seeing is in retaliation to Obama arranging for that dubious prisoner exchange with a purported deserter for 5 Gitmo detainees, some of the harumpf is "For Pete's sake, we've absorbed 11-20 million illegal Mexicans, so why can't they just let this one guy go" and some of the harumpf is because many of Tahmooressi's supporters can't stand Obama and are looking to pile on another "he didn't do anything about this either."
It's my understanding that a couple dozen congressmen/congresswomen have contacted the authorities in Mexico about this, Secretary of State Kerry has spoken to them about it, the State Department is following it closely, he's had multiple meetings with US embassy officials and has legal representation. That's a lot of support by any standards.
On a curious note & maybe you would know because it's your line of work. Why is someone who has been diagnosed with PTSD and headed to San Diego to get treatment for that permitted to own multiple weapons and why if he has been diagnosed with PTSD is he still active in the reserves?
Oh boy have you opened a can of worms. There are exactly two sides to this and I'll tell you mine . you'll hear from the other I'm sure.
PTSD is on a spectrum and has been around since the beginning of time. You and I have probably had some mild form at some time or other. The armed forces are trying not to make it the end of careers so soldiers don't hide it and refuse treatment. Denying someone with any mental disorder guns imo is wrong unless there has been a history of violence.This man was a model marine.
I suspect there is a reason Obama doesn't call, but that is just conjecture on my part and I think I'll leave that alone.

“Help Cecil Help!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#179733 Jul 13, 2014
lisw wrote:
<quoted text>Oh boy have you opened a can of worms. There are exactly two sides to this and I'll tell you mine . you'll hear from the other I'm sure.
PTSD is on a spectrum and has been around since the beginning of time. You and I have probably had some mild form at some time or other. The armed forces are trying not to make it the end of careers so soldiers don't hide it and refuse treatment. Denying someone with any mental disorder guns imo is wrong unless there has been a history of violence.This man was a model marine.
I suspect there is a reason Obama doesn't call, but that is just conjecture on my part and I think I'll leave that alone.
What 'other side' to you imagine she will hear from?

There's never been any 'other side' presented in this thread, certainly not on the issue of PTSD.
Lyndi

Sarasota, FL

#179734 Jul 13, 2014
lisw wrote:
<quoted text>Oh boy have you opened a can of worms. There are exactly two sides to this and I'll tell you mine . you'll hear from the other I'm sure.
PTSD is on a spectrum and has been around since the beginning of time. You and I have probably had some mild form at some time or other. The armed forces are trying not to make it the end of careers so soldiers don't hide it and refuse treatment. Denying someone with any mental disorder guns imo is wrong unless there has been a history of violence.This man was a model marine.
I suspect there is a reason Obama doesn't call, but that is just conjecture on my part and I think I'll leave that alone.
This article from the NY Times seems to support your position.
http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/26/sho...

Since: Nov 08

Chicago, IL

#179735 Jul 13, 2014
lisw wrote:
<quoted text>Oh boy have you opened a can of worms. There are exactly two sides to this and I'll tell you mine . you'll hear from the other I'm sure.
PTSD is on a spectrum and has been around since the beginning of time. You and I have probably had some mild form at some time or other. The armed forces are trying not to make it the end of careers so soldiers don't hide it and refuse treatment. Denying someone with any mental disorder guns imo is wrong unless there has been a history of violence.This man was a model marine.
I suspect there is a reason Obama doesn't call, but that is just conjecture on my part and I think I'll leave that alone.
Good post lisw. If more people felt like you do about people with mental disorders, I'm sure more people would seek treatment and there might even be more funding.
Lyndi

Sarasota, FL

#179736 Jul 13, 2014
HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text>And sometimes in debate, a self-serving respondent goes "rogue" and talks about what they want to talk about rather than the debate question. See Palin vs. Biden debate for a prototype example to yours. Then it ceases to be debate and becomes performance theater.
And as I said, it would be a "winning round" if it could only describe one side. The debate question was whether hyper-partisanship by all sides is good for the future of a democracy.
WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH ---------->

( I think that was Lyndi blowing past your latest attempt to salvage one of your blowhole longwinded political opinions and bruised ego..........
HipGnozizzz

Dahinda, IL

#179737 Jul 13, 2014
Lyndi wrote:
<quoted text>
WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH ---------->
( I think that was Lyndi blowing past your latest attempt to salvage one of your blowhole longwinded political opinions and bruised ego..........
Bruised ego? Projection, party of one, your table's ready.

Oh I agree, that was Lyndi blowing all right, after yet again ignoring an ongoing exchange between others and interjecting for "points" instead. The beauty of your timing this time tho' is it was a *perfect* negative example of what was being discussed as being broken in today's democratic system.

Speaking of bruised egos........;)
lisw

Delaware, OH

#179738 Jul 13, 2014
Strength and Honor wrote:
<quoted text>
Good post lisw. If more people felt like you do about people with mental disorders, I'm sure more people would seek treatment and there might even be more funding.
It's very important to me that mental disorders are not seen as a one size fits all and also that fear not prevent people from getting help. Someone who is immature and ticked off because their spouse wants a divorce can be lots more dangerous than a person with a mental disorder. We've come a long way in understanding mental illness but have a very long way to go.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 4 min kent 683,511
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 11 min Mr Wiggley 15,180
Tribute Wife's DDD's! 36 min Orangestar4189 1
O.J. Simpson is about to be a free man once again. 36 min Mirrormirorwall 2
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 47 min Disappointed US W... 982,992
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 53 min David S Pimpkins 286,520
Moroccan Guys Have The Biggest Cocks! (Jun '13) 2 hr Mimi 31
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 3 hr Just Wondering 619,682
More from around the web