The problem is a Spanish conviction is a European conviction. If it is found to be a "delito" it is extrdictable from anywhere with a European nation treaty. That would curtail his travel habits. No more pro oil speeches in Calgary.
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 4:57 PM, Zebnick <[email protected]> wrote: > > Evidently, the feckless Hispanoles care what he does. The question is, > who cares what THEY do? > > On Apr 9, 6:51 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > Who cares what he does ? > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 4:49 PM, Zebnick <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I'm sure Bush would be shivering in his boots! LOL! > > > > > On Apr 9, 6:45 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > No, but if convicted and a warrant issued it can be exercised in ANY > > > aduanal > > > > area. > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Zebnick <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Spain is impotent and irrelevant. They're also collossal cowards. > What > > > > > will these hispanoles do? Send the Nina and Pinta over here to > > > > > retrieve Bush and "bring him to justice?" They'd better bring some > > > > > kick ass paella and sangria with them or we won't even let them > dock. > > > > > > > On Apr 9, 5:06 pm, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > So China did not ignore a UN Resolution in 1951 by your facts... > > > That > > > > > > is good to know, now only if it were true... And that is the > problem > > > > > > here... Not unlike the WH insisting Obama did not bow to the > Saudi > > > > > > King... > > > > > > > > Now I do not know if it is being Gringo is to accept truth when > it is > > > > > > made apparent, If so you are NOT Gringo... Too bad, because that > is > > > a > > > > > > trait all folks could benefit from, be them Europeans, Indians, > > > > > > Chinese, Africans, Arabs, Latinos, and Gringos... > > > > > > > > On Apr 9, 4:13 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > All told, Reagan did noy ignore a UN resolution but a > conviction > > > and > > > > > fine. > > > > > > > There is a great difference. I guess that is lost on you and it > up > > > > > holds my > > > > > > > position... I do not make assumptions without identifying them > as > > > such. > > > > > That > > > > > > > would be a Gringo failing. > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 1:44 PM, jgg1000a <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >>> Simply because I am not. > > > > > > > > > > Unless 1959 is prior to 1981 you are in error... > > > > > > > > > > >>> Your need to have things spelled out letter for letter > and > > > > > obvious > > > > > > > > lack of insight into a situation as a whole is not my > > > shortcoming. > > > > > > > > > > Your refusal to explicitly state assumptions, not atypical > for LW > > > > > > > > demagoguery, IS your shortcoming in a honest, civil, and > > > transparent > > > > > > > > debate... That is often done to insure circular logic to > ensure > > > > > your > > > > > > > > prejudices become the conclusions... It is often also the > > > reason > > > > > > > > the LW cna NOT accept the reality of the GOOD Bush did in > Iraq... > > > > > > > > > > >>> but only one side has held itself up as the fortress of > > > freedom, > > > > > the > > > > > > > > land of liberty and free thought > > > > > > > > > > More BS... A better statement is that those opposing America > and > > > > > > > > Human Rights demand perfection from America while ignoring or > > > > > excusing > > > > > > > > away worst conduct in others... Why??? Then they do not > have to > > > > > > > > insist the really bad abusers do anything about human > rights??? > > > How > > > > > > > > do you advance Human Rights - by demanding perfection from a > few, > > > or > > > > > > > > by getting the worst abusers to change??? Frankly it the > latter > > > > > > > > which produces greater results... > > > > > > > > > > The UN Human Rights Body is an example... Or take the issue > of > > > > > > > > transAtlantic slavery in the 1600's to 1850... Who received > > > most of > > > > > > > > the slaves??? Do you know??? The US by and by treated their > > > slaves > > > > > > > > far better than the Caribbean or Brazil.... Is Cuba, Haiti, > or > > > > > > > > Brazil asked for reparations??? Or Saudi Arabia or Iran > (both > > > who > > > > > > > > engaged in slavery in the 1900's... > > > > > > > > > > >>> I am here to debate, not instruct. None of my facts are > > > incorrect > > > > > and > > > > > > > > my position is formed after a career of 27 years of first > hand on > > > > > site > > > > > > > > observation with bullets flying and who is who and backed by > who > > > in > > > > > the > > > > > > > > field known. > > > > > > > > > > Debates require STATED assumptions... Second your fact that > the > > > US > > > > > > > > under Reagan was the first to openly ignore a UN Resolution > is > > > > > clearly > > > > > > > > false... So yes your facts ARE QUESTIONABLE... Sorry to > > > disabuse > > > > > > > > you of this... > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 9, 3:02 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Why is it you can not admit you were in factual error > instead > > > of > > > > > > > > > seeking to justify BS by jumping on the US??? > > > > > > > > > > > Simply because I am not. Your need to have things spelled > out > > > > > letter for > > > > > > > > > letter and obvious lack of insight into a situation as a > whole > > > is > > > > > not my > > > > > > > > > shortcoming. > > > > > > > > > > > There have absolutely been wrongs on all sides that nis > > > > > unquestionable... > > > > > > > > > but only one side has held itself up as the fortress of > > > freedom, > > > > > the land > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > liberty and free thought, the supposed shining example > which > > > they > > > > > export > > > > > > > > by > > > > > > > > > force of arms (covert or overt) if you disagree. That is > the > > > US. No > > > > > > > > > government has ever been so hypocritical and no people so > > > blinded > > > > > by > > > > > > > > > misinformation as the US. > > > > > > > > > > > No, I do not have a "hard on" for the US as a whole, just > it > > > time > > > > > and > > > > > > > > time > > > > > > > > > again failed policy to forcefully indoctrinate the world > > > regardless > > > > > of > > > > > > > > their > > > > > > > > > culture and tradition. \ > > > > > > > > > > > I am here to debate, not instruct. None of my facts are > > > incorrect > > > > > and my > > > > > > > > > position is formed after a career of 27 years of first hand > on > > > site > > > > > > > > > observation with bullets flying and who is who and backed > by > > > who in > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > field known. You get yours from where ?? > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 10:50 AM, jgg1000a < > > > [email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Mark, the question here is your claimed fact that the US > was > > > the > > > > > first > > > > > > > > > > to publicly ignore an UN Resolution... On that your are > in > > > > > > > > > > error.... > > > > > > > > > > > > Now you expose your unmentioned predict "The US proclaims > > > itself > > > > > as a > > > > > > > > > > shinning example of morality, while China does not, so > China > > > does > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > count"... What hogwash... The fact here is the US is by > and > > > > > large > > > > > > > > > > far more "moral" in it dealings with the world in the > rough > > > and > > > > > tumble > > > > > > > > > > arena of geopolitical Real Politiks... Now that does > not > > > say > > > > > the US > > > > > > > > > > is perfect. If it far from it... Yet it is head and > > > shoulders > > > > > > > > > > better than China in the main. > > > > > > > > > > > > In the main, this line of reasoning seeks to condemn the > US > > > for > > > > > > > > > > everything while excusing away the same or worse behavior > in > > > > > other > > > > > > > > > > world or regional powers as Russia, China, France, > Iran... > > > And > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > is what little mikey used to do more crudely than you.... > > > > > > > > > > > > Here is an example of Russia being "immoral" if you were > > > honest > > > > > enough > > > > > > > > > > to apply the same standards to Russia as you demand from > the > > > > > US... > > > > > > > > > > Equality between nation state, as you demand, also > demands > > > equal > > > > > > > > > > standards in judging them... > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> So, in the end you did indeed twist the words to suit > > > your > > > > > own ends > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > continue to do so. > > > > > > > > > > > > Why is it you can not admit you were in factual error > instead > > > of > > > > > > > > > > seeking to justify BS by jumping on the US??? > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 9, 10:56 am, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry but you are wrong. Why is it you see NO > difference in > > > > > publicly > > > > > > > > > > > espousing to the world the moral right of your cause > and > > > > > presenting > > > > > > > > your > > > > > > > > > > > nation as the shining example of all that is right and > good > > > in > > > > > the > > > > > > > > world > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > China who has never claimed to do anything but protect > and > > > > > expand its > > > > > > > > > > sphere > > > > > > > > > > > of influence ??? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why is it you have a population screaming for more > Nuclear > > > > > power > > > > > > > > plants > > > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > > production of electricity when that same population > wants > > > to > > > > > deny > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > same > > > > > > > > > > > right to other equally Sovereign states ?? Is fear they > may > > > do > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > > which you already have ?? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why is it the US can try to invoke the Monroe Doctrine > > > (they > > > > > are the > > > > > > > > only > > > > > > > > > > > signators to this self protecting ideal) yet when > nations > > > with > > > > > EQUAL > > > > > > > > > > rights > > > > > > > > > > > to do so elsewhere do just that the US cries most foul > ?? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just what is it that gives you (US) the "right" to > > > intervene > > > > > and > > > > > > > > negates > > > > > > > > > > > that "right" for others on issues they find most > offensive > > > ?? > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, in the end you did indeed twist the words to suit > your > > > own > > > > > ends > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > continue to do so. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why ?? > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 8:17 AM, jgg1000a < > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The second point here is Mark I did NOT twist your > > > words... > > > > > I > > > > > > > > claimed > > > > > > > > > > > > your facts were wrong... You claim that I twisted > your > > > words > > > > > when > > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > > > > > facts were clearly wrong is in fact twisting MY > words... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mark > > > > ... > > > > read more ยป- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > -- Mark M. Kahle, , www.filacoffee.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
