Remember Elian Gonzalez that Bill Clinton sent him back to commie cuba ?

[steveox]

Miami - A Miami-Dade circuit judge denied a series of motions in the custody case of a 4-year-old girl Monday, setting the stage for testimony to begin on whether the child should stay with her foster family or return to Cuba with her biological father.

Circuit Judge Jeri B. Cohen determined the girl's mother, who would like her to return to Cuba, lost custody when the mother did not follow through with a court-ordered plan. At the same time, Cohen ruled against a request by the father for immediate custody.

The biological father has promised his little girl an idyllic country life on a farm with playful animals and other children. The farm's location in Cuba and the father's desire to raise the girl there, however, have put a political twist on a complex custody case unfolding in Miami family court.

The father is fighting allegations by the Department of Children & Families that he is an unfit parent. The girl and her relatives are not being named to protect their privacy.

The situation is the latest international custody battle to draw comparisons to the Elián González case.

On Thanksgiving Day 1999, 5-year-old Elián was found clinging to an inner tube in the ocean off Fort Lauderdale. He had survived a shipwreck that killed his mother and several other Cuban refugees.

A seven-month custody battle between Elián's relatives and his Cuban father -- punctuated with daily demonstrations at the Miami relatives' home -- peaked with a dramatic federal raid there and the boy's reunion with his father. Father and son returned to Cuba in June 2000.

There are many differences between Elián and the latest case. The girl's mother is alive, although she relinquished custody of the girl and her 12-year-old half-brother, who was adopted by the family the siblings live with. Also, the case is being settled in the court system, not by government officials, and has not become a "political football" like Elián, said Cuban-American activist and attorney Pedro Freyre.

"It is being decided as Elián should have been ... instead of being decided in the streets of Miami," he said. "The fact pattern in this one is different and it just got handled differently from the beginning."

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/broward/sfl-flbcustody0827nbaug27,0,1171926.story?track=rss


Its Happening all over again!! But only this time its a 4 year old cuban girl in miami.But Now Bush is the president.Now if Bush does the right thing and keep the girl in america REPUBLICANS WILL WIN IN 2008.Its all about the Latino vote. When Bill Clinton sent Elian Gonalez back to castros commie cuba AL GORE LOST THE ELECTION And 89% Florida Latino votes went to George W Bush. And Gore Lost in Florida. Gore needed florida in order to win the presidency.Now bush better learn from Bill Clintons mistake or if he sends that little girl back to cuba it could backfire and i gurantee you Hillary Rodham Clinton will become the first woman in the white house.

[Coyote]

Don't you think the child's PARENTS have a right to their child first and foremost????

[steveox]

No. Once the child is in america he or she should be able to grow up in freedom. Let me ask you this,,Why didnt other presidents sent russians back to the soviet union when they defected? Why didnt west germany send the folks back to east germany when they escaped? Thats like allowing convicts who escaped from prison roam free.

[SW85]

The former were useful, the latter were refugees from a nation with whom we were at war.

Steve, your argument would legalize the millions upon millions of illegal immigrants presently living in this country (either that or put their children on the dole) and as such is not worth considering.

Saying we ought not to deport Cuban immigrants so as to appease a fast-growing voting bloc is contrary to what logic suggests. They wouldn't be a fast-growing voting bloc if we deported Cuban immigrants. QED.

[steveox]

Theres a Differance between letting immigrants into the US from socialist nations or even a dictatorship nations than from a free or a neutral nation like mexico or even puerto rico. Cuba is a communist nation so cubans are welcome here but Mexicans are not.Cause Mexico is a democratric free nation.Mexicans are not escaping from communist rule or a dictatorship rule.Theyre escaping from poverty big differance.

[SW85]

Most Cubans who come here are escaping poverty. And who cares if Cuba is communist? The Cold War's over, dude. We're not obligated to take in refugees from a nation we're not at war with.

[steveox]

Most Cubans who come here are escaping poverty. And who cares if Cuba is communist? The Cold War's over, dude. We're not obligated to take in refugees from a nation we're not at war with.

I disagree sorry. We help people escape for freedom. I dont see the mexican president acting like Fidel Castro or Hugo Chavez. If mexicans want wealth they should do in their country not ours.Theres nothing to stop them from becoming wealthy in Mexico. My advice to mexicans save yer pesos and buy real estate in mexico.

[Coyote]

Parents - not governments - have first rights to their children. To deny this would lead to horrendous abuses.

[steveox]

Not when they arrive with their mother. Once in America he stays.But When Bill Clinton send Elian Gonalez back to commie cuba it cost Al Gore the Presidency.If George Bush truly cares about his party he would allow that little girl stays in america so Mitt Romney can become president of the united states instead of hillary. You gotta think about the Latino vote now.Theyre the ones cost Al Gore the Presidency.

[Coyote]

Not when they arrive with their mother. Once in America he stays.But When Bill Clinton send Elian Gonalez back to commie cuba it cost Al Gore the Presidency.If George Bush truly cares about his party he would allow that little girl stays in america so Mitt Romney can become president of the united states instead of hillary. You gotta think about the Latino vote now.Theyre the ones cost Al Gore the Presidency.


Sometimes doing the right thing costs.

No parent has the right to be deprived of his or her child with out due cause and the only due cause I can think of us abuse. Clearly the child isn't being sent back to torture and abuse. Just because we don't like the government isn't sufficient cause.

[steveox]

Remember the old saying in Politics? Dont get mad " Get Even" Why you think Al Gore isnt helping hillary? Cause her husband cost him the trip to the oval office.

[top gun]

Parents - not governments - have first rights to their children. To deny this would lead to horrendous abuses.

Absolutely... that should go without saying... I think steve misses a lot of the intricacies of life always painting with such a broad red brush. What do ya think? ;)

[USMC the Almighty]

Absolutely... that should go without saying... I think steve misses a lot of the intricacies of life always painting with such a broad red brush. What do ya think? ;)

Red brush? He's voting blue next year.

[Coyote]

Absolutely... that should go without saying... I think steve misses a lot of the intricacies of life always painting with such a broad red brush. What do ya think? ;)


Steve has woman problems....don't blame the poor guy....:rolleyes:

[Coyote]

Red brush? He's voting blue next year.


Sounds kind of purple to me.

[steveox]

Steve has woman problems....don't blame the poor guy....:rolleyes:


Yeah you bet i have girl problems. Its all because of Womens lib!

[vyo476]

Yeah you bet i have girl problems. Its all because of Womens lib!

I'd be inclined to think it's more because you think it's all because of women's lib.

[steveox]

Let me put it this way.Dealing with girls and getting dates was so much easier and simple back in the 1950s and beyond. Nowadays its much tougher getting dates because its the girls make it more complicated.

[vyo476]

Let me put it this way.Dealing with girls and getting dates was so much easier and simple back in the 1950s and beyond. Nowadays its much tougher getting dates because its the girls make it more complicated.

Because now, unlike the 1950s, it's more acceptable for them to say "no" if they don't like you - or to give you the runaround until they decide whether they like you or not.

Face it! If you want to get a date, it'll have to be based on more than just what you want now.

[steveox]

Thats why i always thought it was better to live back in the soviet union days.Cause russians used to be a very politie society under communist rule.Il even bet you Russian girls were allowed to behave in a certain way.In fact if every girl told me "no" Id tell her hey you better go out with me or ill report yer ass to the KGB. And you know what those guys will do to ya? See i dont have to walk up to a KGB agent and say ""well she wont go out with me"" Ill i have to say is ,,Sir that girl over there called Mr Brezhnev an asshole,, And theyre grab that girl and haul her ass to jail.

[9sublime]

Steveox, you live in a fantasy 1950's world. Everyone except you will know what I'm talking about.

[USMC the Almighty]

Yeah you bet i have girl problems. Its all because of Womens lib!

Steve, I consider myself to be conservative and have no problem attracting women. I'm not going to make fun of you or call you stupid, I would just really like to know how old you are. My guess would be that its your age which impacts your view of women more than anything else.

[steveox]

Steveox, you live in a fantasy 1950's world. Everyone except you will know what I'm talking about.

Jack did any girl behave back in the 1950s like they do now? You walk up to one they never play hard to get. They never made things so differcult like guessing games.If you ever watch "Leave it to beaver" show not one Girl rejects wally. NOT ONE. Wally is the one who says if he wants to go out with her or not. Eddie Haskell always con Wally to go out on a date but Wally says to Eddie"" Well i dont know"" Thats how guys behave back in the 1950s. Theyre the ones who make the calls. But Girls wanted guys back in 1950s. Theyre the ones who fought over guys back in those days. But nowadays its the guys who want girls and its the girls who say if you get them or not.Girls are the ones make the call not guys.

[dahermit]

Theres a Differance between letting immigrants into the US from socialist nations or even a dictatorship nations than from a free or a neutral nation like mexico or even puerto rico."Letting" Puerto Ricans in??? News for you...Puerto Rico is a US protectorat...they can enter the US anytime they wish; legally. Jesus! Did you sleep the whole time you were in school?

[steveox]

But Puerto Rico isnt an US state. You still have to go though US customs when you enter in the US from Puerto Rico dont you?

[9sublime]

Jack did any girl behave back in the 1950s like they do now? You walk up to one they never play hard to get. They never made things so differcult like guessing games.If you ever watch "Leave it to beaver" show not one Girl rejects wally. NOT ONE. Wally is the one who says if he wants to go out with her or not. Eddie Haskell always con Wally to go out on a date but Wally says to Eddie"" Well i dont know"" Thats how guys behave back in the 1950s. Theyre the ones who make the calls. But Girls wanted guys back in 1950s. Theyre the ones who fought over guys back in those days. But nowadays its the guys who want girls and its the girls who say if you get them or not.Girls are the ones make the call not guys.

This is a FANTASY in your head.

Sure, girls probably were in general a bit more submissive due to the way society was at that time. But it wasn't like you think it was.

It wasn't like a bloke could walk up to any girl in the street and have her like that. This is just pathetic nostalgia for a time you blatantly have never lived in.

I'm sure every man would like it to be the case that he always calls the shots, but in the end its better that it doesnt happen like that. Its all that equal rights stuff, annoying isn't it steve? Always putting an attractive young man like yourself down...

Do you really believe "Leave it to Beaver" to be a factual documentary on life in the 1950's?

[steveox]

This is a FANTASY in your head.

Sure, girls probably were in general a bit more submissive due to the way society was at that time. But it wasn't like you think it was.

It wasn't like a bloke could walk up to any girl in the street and have her like that. This is just pathetic nostalgia for a time you blatantly have never lived in.

I'm sure every man would like it to be the case that he always calls the shots, but in the end its better that it doesnt happen like that. Its all that equal rights stuff, annoying isn't it steve? Always putting an attractive young man like yourself down...

Do you really believe "Leave it to Beaver" to be a factual documentary on life in the 1950's?


Well look at the society back then,,For example Kids arent disaplined like they were in the 1950s. Todays Parents just go out work longer or get booze like Welfare mothers do and dont care what their kids do. Todays kids would take drugs and bring weapons to school to kill their classmates. Kids back in the 1950s wouldnt do anything like that. Kids were taught to dress nice and use decent manners around adults. Todays kids dress like rats with earrings and wear caps sideways or backwards and dont use any manners around people. I have never heard any kid reply to you as Yes Sir, No Sir or Yes Maam or No Maam. Beaver & Wally always say Yes Sir ,No Sir or Yes Maam or No Maam around adults. Nowadays they say Yeah or Nope.Todays kids watch Violence and filth on TV than they did back in the 1950s. Plus they didnt listen to music that groups sing about volence or sex. And there were no MTV on any station back in 1950s. The only music they watched was american Bandstand and that was it. So Girls were easy and much nicer to get than the Rats today.

[9sublime]

The fact that the youth aren't as disciplined has nothing to do with the fact that you can't get any women.

[SW85]

I disagree sorry.

Disagree all you want, you're still wrong.

We help people escape for freedom.

Sometimes, but that's a matter of refugee policy, not immigration policy. People escaping murderous dictatorships can be shunted into refugee camps and then asked to leave when conditions in their home country improve. We are not obligated even in the slightest way to incorporate them into this nation under conditions of full citizenship, which is what you're suggesting.

But When Bill Clinton send Elian Gonalez back to commie cuba it cost Al Gore the Presidency.

You keep repeating this; you seem to forget Cubans vote Republican anyway (the only Latino constituency that does). They wouldn't have voted for Gore, anyway.

If George Bush truly cares about his party he would allow that little girl stays in america so Mitt Romney can become president of the united states instead of hillary.

If George Bush cared about his party, he'd take the hardest stance against immigration possible -- i.e., the position that's popular among the vast majority of Americans. But he doesn't, nor does he care about his country. Nor do most liberals.

You gotta think about the Latino vote now.Theyre the ones cost Al Gore the Presidency.

Again, this is circuitous logic. The Latino vote is only growing as fast as it is because of immigration. Cut immigration and the Latino vote's rate of growth will plummet along with its political relevance.

What you're advancing is silly, anyway. Latinos do not and have never voted on the basis of immigration politics. Pete Wilson won in California despite being the most anti-immigrant politician in the country (and it's pathetic that he's the best we could do, because he's still to the left of the national majority). They vote for the party that gives them the most indulgent deal, which will almost always be the Democratic Party, the party that keeps their drug dealers out of jail and lets their 14-year-old children get government-subsidized abortions on demand.

And even if it were true, it'd still be ethically abhorrent: you're advancing a political position solely on the basis of its political advantage, rather than its empirical worthiness. If immigration were bad for the country (and make no mistake, it absolutely is), you'd still support it on the basis that the party can eke out some advantage from it. That's just sick.

And Steve, women do not play hard to get. If it seems like they're avoiding you, they actually are avoiding you. No girl seriously ever says to herself, "Gee, I like him and I think he likes me, so I'm going to go out of my way to make myself unavailable to him." If she likes you, you'll be able to tell. If you can't tell, she doesn't like you.

[vyo476]

Thats why i always thought it was better to live back in the soviet union days.Cause russians used to be a very politie society under communist rule.Il even bet you Russian girls were allowed to behave in a certain way.In fact if every girl told me "no" Id tell her hey you better go out with me or ill report yer ass to the KGB. And you know what those guys will do to ya? See i dont have to walk up to a KGB agent and say ""well she wont go out with me"" Ill i have to say is ,,Sir that girl over there called Mr Brezhnev an asshole,, And theyre grab that girl and haul her ass to jail.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you steveox, the man who thinks he needs a murderous, totalitarian police state backing him up to get a date.

Have you ever tried getting to know a girl? Sitting down and actually having a discussion? Really paying attention to what she has to say? You'd probably have a lot more luck if you'd start looking at women as equals, rather than going off about how you wish the Soviet Union would murder any girls who won't go out with you just because you happened to like them.

[dahermit]

But Puerto Rico isnt an US state. You still have to go though US customs when you enter in the US from Puerto Rico dont you?What the hell does that have to do with: "...letting them in...". They have virtually the same rights as any other US citizen. All American citizens would have to go through customs on entering the US.
A question for you: If a person were a dullard, would they be aware of that fact? Or, would their dullness shield them from that awareness?

[r0beph]

they have a non voting representative in DC also, with the same function as DCs representative...

[drippinhun]

steveox,

There is a lot more complexity. I believe you will find the answer in that most things are driven by economics.

[invest07]

coyote
"No parent has the right to be deprived of his or her child with out due cause and the only due cause I can think of us abuse."

This is one great example of the hypocricy of Libs. Libs have pioneered child's legal "rights" which have nothing to do with abuse. Now, in the minds of Libs, kids have a "right" to contraception and have a right to learn how to put rubbers on bananas. And of course the parents have no rights to stop this.

Libs oppose any form of vouchers in education even if the parents don't want their kids exposed to all the Lib sewage in a public scholl curriculum.

Libs oppose kids being spanked. Libs oppose any punishment that involves shame. Libs oppose any form of competition. Libs think multi-cultrualism is more improtant to teach than the three R's. All this, in spite of the parent's wishes.

"No parent has the right to be deprived of his or her child with out due cause and the only due cause I can think of us abuse."

It's too bad you apply that statement so selectively. Try applying your statement as a blanket and maybe your comments will have more credibility in this forum.

[Coyote]

coyote
"No parent has the right to be deprived of his or her child with out due cause and the only due cause I can think of us abuse."

This is one great example of the hypocricy of Libs. Libs have pioneered child's legal "rights" which have nothing to do with abuse. Now, in the minds of Libs, kids have a "right" to contraception and have a right to learn how to put rubbers on bananas. And of course the parents have no rights to stop this.

Libs oppose any form of vouchers in education even if the parents don't want their kids exposed to all the Lib sewage in a public scholl curriculum.

Libs oppose kids being spanked. Libs oppose any punishment that involves shame. Libs oppose any form of competition. Libs think multi-cultrualism is more improtant to teach than the three R's. All this, in spite of the parent's wishes.

"No parent has the right to be deprived of his or her child with out due cause and the only due cause I can think of us abuse."

It's too bad you apply that statement so selectively. Try applying your statement as a blanket and maybe your comments will have more credibility in this forum.

What are you talking about? What does any of that have to do with a parents right to their kids and in particular Gonzales'?

[vyo476]

Now, in the minds of Libs, kids have a "right" to contraception and have a right to learn how to put rubbers on bananas.

Oh no! Teenagers who are going to be sexually active anyway might learn how to do it safely! Heaven forbid!

And of course the parents have no rights to stop this.

That's not even close to being true. Having very recently been a student at public school which taught abstinence-only sex ed, the parents don't even need to get involved to stop kids from learning about contraception - the government is doing it for them.

Libs oppose any form of vouchers in education even if the parents don't want their kids exposed to all the Lib sewage in a public scholl curriculum.

Because the only reason people might want to take their kids out of public schools are those evil liberals.

Libs oppose kids being spanked.

"Gershoff found "strong associations" between corporal punishment and all eleven child behaviors and experiences. Ten of the associations were negative such as with increased child aggression and antisocial behavior. The single desirable association was between corporal punishment and increased immediate compliance on the part of the child."

http://www.apa.org/releases/spanking.html

Libs oppose any punishment that involves shame.

Shame is negativism. It doesn't positively reinforce "good" values, it just tells you that you suck.

Libs oppose any form of competition.

You'll have to explain what you mean by that.

Libs think multi-cultrualism is more improtant to teach than the three R's.

As important? Yes. More important? No. There's a big difference there.

All this, in spite of the parent's wishes.

Suddenly you speak for all parents? Has it ever occurred to you that a lot of parents support more liberal education?

[Bill Shatner]

Not when they arrive with their mother. Once in America he stays..If George Bush truly cares about his party he would allow that little girl stays in america so Mitt Romney can become president of the united states instead of hillary. You gotta think about the Latino vote now..

Considering that your location is "way down south" it doesn't shock me to see you endorse ownership over people.

In other words, slavery.

But When Bill Clinton send Elian Gonalez back to commie cuba it cost Al Gore the Presidency

Besides this point of view being rather quaint, it's also a complete revision of actual history.

In addition, Cuba is a predominantly Socialist nation that's run by a Leninist party; nothing more.

So tell me jack, did you "commune with the spirits" or "roll the bones" to discover the way kids behaved half of a century ago?

Maybe you "saw it in the stars".

How about your knowledge of Russian "manners" under Bolshevik rule?

Did the local gypsy sell you a crystal ball off the back of his wagon so you could find out?

If so you got jipped.