• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

What a difference...

Texan

Well-known member
...five years and a change in administrations makes. From August, 2005:

Oldtimer said:
Where is our federal government? :? Isn't it the duty of our federal government to protect our borders from outside invasion? :? Instead states are having to use their Disaster funds that normally go to fighting fires and natural disasters :? :???: :cry: :mad:

http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=36844#36844
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Texan said:
...five years and a change in administrations makes. From August, 2005:

Oldtimer said:
Where is our federal government? :? Isn't it the duty of our federal government to protect our borders from outside invasion? :? Instead states are having to use their Disaster funds that normally go to fighting fires and natural disasters :? :???: :cry: :mad:

http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=36844#36844

And tell me how much it would have changed if Bush III had got elected...You seem to forget who cosponsored the Bush/Kennedy/McCain amnesty bill :roll: ...
I read today where McCain would be willing to discuss in Congress doing away with the "anchor baby" rule- but would not commit on whether he could support such a move...

That one was toss-up- no points for either when deciding on the election...
 

Texan

Well-known member
You no longer seem to be the border activist that you once were. You seem to be quite content now that we have a different president. The border issue isn't important to you anymore?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Texan said:
You no longer seem to be the border activist that you once were. You seem to be quite content now that we have a different president. The border issue isn't important to you anymore?

No change in my beliefs.... I've posted several times against the border...It just that I've come to realize that neither party will do anything....Dems want new voters- Repubs are in the pockets of Big Industry that want more cheap labor...
So nothing will get done- especially with this Congress that thinks their only job is to partisanly stab each other in the back-- no matter if the country crumbles around them while doing it....
 

Texan

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
No change in my beliefs.... I've posted several times against the border...
Well, you sure seemed to have dodged this aspect of the border issue - more than once:

http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=465064#465064

Maybe you'd like to try it now?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Texan said:
Oldtimer said:
No change in my beliefs.... I've posted several times against the border...
Well, you sure seemed to have dodged this aspect of the border issue - more than once:

http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=465064#465064

Maybe you'd like to try it now?

I happen to agree with Obama and many legal experts (including some conservative Congressional members) that immigration law- and enforcement of immigration law is a Federal issue under the Constitution and hundreds of years of precedent- and that Federal Law takes preference over state law..
Not that I particularly like it- but that is the law we have worked under for years....
 

Texan

Well-known member
I think we all know what your reaction would have been had a President McCain stood side-by-side with a foreign leader on our soil and criticized one of our states.

And I think we all know what your reaction would have been had a President McCain's Attorney General made the rounds of the talk shows threatening to sue a state for doing the federal government's job in trying to protect it's citizens - when he hadn't even read the law.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Texan said:
I think we all know what your reaction would have been had a President McCain stood side-by-side with a foreign leader on our soil and criticized one of our states.

And I think we all know what your reaction would have been had a President McCain's Attorney General made the rounds of the talk shows threatening to sue a state for doing the federal government's job in trying to protect it's citizens - when he hadn't even read the law.


But I do remember my reaction when a President went around Congress's heavily majority vote telling him to stop TWICE - to allow Mexican truckers/trucking companies to operate in this country... :(

And what my reaction was when a President had his Attorney General prosecuting and concealing evidence against Border Patrolmen for shooting a known drug smuggler during a gunfight when they caught him in the act.... :( :(

So talk to me about following the law... :roll: This time I think they are right in their interpretation of the law- and if not its time for a SCOTUS ruling to find out for sure....
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Can't build a fence high enough to keep oldtimer from jumping over when suits his mind,
Yep it is all Bush's fault :wink:

oldtimer you really are something else, I refrain from saying what you really are because even saying it offends me :D

Give your family a break and seek help!

EH?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I'd love to see an immigration bill come before Congress this year- in which each member of Congress had to vote for either Amnesty or Deport All-- and I think you would see where the bear sh*ts in the woods....
I have no doubt the way most Dems would go (except all Montanas delegation that oppose amnesty and the illegals) because they want the added Dem voters..

But after watching the immigration committee hearings- there are a whole bunch of so called conservatives (Repubs) that are so deep in the pockets of the National Chamber of commerce- and Big Industry- that there would be major cardiacs figuring out how to keep their constituent wishes/vote, but keep the Big Industry bucks flowing into their pockets.. :wink: :p :lol: :lol:
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
I happen to agree with Obama and many legal experts (including some conservative Congressional members) that immigration law- and enforcement of immigration law is a Federal issue under the Constitution and hundreds of years of precedent- and that Federal Law takes preference over state law..
Not that I particularly like it- but that is the law we have worked under for years....


"I, Barak Hussien Obama, do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and I will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."
So when is he going to start?
When is he going to faithfully ececute and enforce Illegal invader laws?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Lonecowboy said:
Oldtimer said:
I happen to agree with Obama and many legal experts (including some conservative Congressional members) that immigration law- and enforcement of immigration law is a Federal issue under the Constitution and hundreds of years of precedent- and that Federal Law takes preference over state law..
Not that I particularly like it- but that is the law we have worked under for years....


"I, Barak Hussien Obama, do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and I will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."
So when is he going to start?
When is he going to faithfully ececute and enforce Illegal invader laws?

Probably about as fast as the Presidents for the past 60 years....The last President to actually enforce immigration law was Ike- back in the 50's..
 

Mike

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Texan said:
Oldtimer said:
No change in my beliefs.... I've posted several times against the border...
Well, you sure seemed to have dodged this aspect of the border issue - more than once:

http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=465064#465064

Maybe you'd like to try it now?

I happen to agree with Obama and many legal experts (including some conservative Congressional members) that immigration law- and enforcement of immigration law is a Federal issue under the Constitution and hundreds of years of precedent- and that Federal Law takes preference over state law..
Not that I particularly like it- but that is the law we have worked under for years...
.

Supreme Court Rules FDA Label Rules Do Not Impliedly Preempt State Tort Suits
March 4, 2009

"We start with the assumption that the historic police powers of the States were not to be superseded by the Federal Act unless that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress." (Justice Stevens in Levine v Wyeth (2009))

Gonzales v Oregon (2006) considered whether Congress, in enacting the Controlled Substances Act, intended to pre-empt state laws such as that of Oregon's which authorized physicians (under strictly controlled circumstances) to prescribe lethal doses of controlled drugs for terminally ill patients. (The case also raised the administrative law issue of whether the Attorney General acted within the scope of his statutory authority when he issued regulations criminalizing the prescription of lethal drugs by physicians.) The Court, ruling 5 to 4, held that the Act did not authorize pre-emption of Oregon's Death with Dignity Act.

My point is that Federal Law does NOT always trump or pre-empt, if you will, State Law.

In other words, Federal Law does NOT take preference over State Law in every case.

Why would our framers want this if they do the exact same thing and have the exact same intentions, as is the case with USA vs. Arizona?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
OT, did you ever arrest any conterfeiters when you were sherriff? Ever arrest anyone on federal crimes?

Just either on a Federal warrant- or while assisting Federal officers...Federal law is much more restrictive on making an arrest without a grand jury indictment or magistrates warrant...I had some we arrested for a state crime- that we found were also in violation of a federal crime... These were referred to the proper Federal Law Enforcement agency- and often when they had served their state sentence or posted state bond- they had to be released because the Federal authorities had declined prosecution- or still hadn't had an indictment handed down...

Two whole different worlds between the state courts and the federal courts... If OJ had been tried in Federal court the trial would have probably taken 3 days- a week at the most...
 

Texan

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
But I do remember my reaction when a President went around Congress's heavily majority vote telling him to stop TWICE - to allow Mexican truckers/trucking companies to operate in this country... :(

And what my reaction was when a President had his Attorney General prosecuting and concealing evidence against Border Patrolmen for shooting a known drug smuggler during a gunfight when they caught him in the act.... :( :(

So talk to me about following the law...
:roll: This time I think they are right in their interpretation of the law- and if not its time for a SCOTUS ruling to find out for sure....

LOL. For some reason nobody is surprised that you would prefer to dodge the questions and turn it into something about President Bush. (He's no longer President - remember?) But, since you want to discuss President Bush - and since you challenged me to, "talk to me about following the law" - I'll play your little game...

I remember quite well your reaction to the case of the Border Patrolmen. Isn't that where you accused President Bush of having ties to drug money? And even though I gave you multiple opportunities to prove it, you never came up with anything? And finally just started dodging the questions? Is that it?

How you coming with that proof of President Bush having ties to drug money, Oldtimer? I've asked you about it a lot, and you never came up with anything. Did you think I'd forget? Even if I had forgotten, YOU professing an interest in ''following the law" (presumption of innocence and all that stuff) would have reminded me.

Let's do a quick review for the people who are new here and the people who may have forgotten (or just for the amusement of the rest of us):



When asked you in September of last year, you just dodged the question:

http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=296464#296464


Prior to that - in August - you said:

Oldtimer said:
Got Dobbs working on it...

http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=291480#291480


And prior to that - in July - when I asked you for that proof, you said:

Oldtimer said:
As fast as the revelations are coming out- it will be here soon....

http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=287456#287456


And then there was this gem:

Oldtimer said:
I'm still not convinced he or some at high levels isn't involved...The old cop in me says where there is smoke there is fire.....

http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=287487#287487


So, considering the "old cop" in you...

If you really believe in "following the law" and if you really believe in the Constitution and the presumption of innocence - as any "old cop" should - are you ready to admit that President Bush does NOT have any ties to drug money?

Are you finally willing to admit that you made it all up? Come on now, Oldtimer...

You constantly question other people's ethics here. You frequently cite your law enforcement experiences, along with telling us about your experiences being a judge - as if all of that makes you superior to the rest of us in legal matters. BUT...

Are you really interested in justice? Or do you think false allegations and slander are okay...as long as it's YOU doing it?
 

Mike

Well-known member
Randy, OT has told so many lies that he covers one up with another one.

I would imagine that it's hard for him to keep them straight anymore.
 
Top