MONTY: Where the HELL did you get that bit about Sr, Gonzales having to belong to a particular political party? It sure as hell wasn’t in my post.
I never said that the court was going to grant custody to anyone. As a matter of fact I went out of my way to say otherwise. Legally the court will decise Elians asylum staus, and thus his residency, ie Cuba or US. There seems to be little doubt in any rational persons mind that IF Elian stays in the US, the Miami relatives will have custody: if he goes back to Cuba, Sr. Gonzales will have custody. Is there any reason to think different? (Of course, there again is the possibility that Sr. Gonzales will also ask for asylum, and stay in the US. I would suppose he would get custody then.)
As for not quoting sources; above I have quoted the U.S. 11th Circuit Court. The best you have come up with is a radio entertainer. I win.
No, Danny; you again extrapolated incorrectly what a particular court actually said. That’s also known as uttering a falsehood.
I’ll take this slowly for you this time:
The child’s relatives in Miami were granted temporary custody by the INS, the appropriate governmental agency for this issue.
That temporary custody was ended by the INS, the appropriate governmental agency for this issue.
The child’s relatives in Miami have changed their story a number of times, each time the appropriate governmental agency was prepared to restore the child to his lawful custodial parent.
Your own statement above is where I got the bit about party affiliation. If the child’s father is not a fit parent when he’s not applying for residency, then he’s not a fit parent when he is applying for residency either! You stated, your very words above show this, that you believe if he applies for residency, then he’s a fit parent.
Today’s news is showing that the appropriate governemntal agency for this issue is preparing to remove the child from his relatives in Miami. Feel free to check the websites or channels of CNN, FOXNews, ABC, CBS, or NBC. You can also check the National Council of Churches’ website about this issue.
The federal court did not address the issue of custody.
You made an assertion about the entire staff of KGO Radio (also known as News Radio).
I asked you to provide proof of that assertion.
You failed to so do.
I’m still waiting on statistics as you’ve already used up the first two categories described in the phrase “There are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics.” I’ve forgotten the exact wording and even who said it.
The “source” you quote is a radio talk show host. I’m not going to try to prove that he is lying, I have said he might not be. I have said, the the entertainment portion of KGO is not to be used as a source,these guys are there to entertain & rile you up (it worked). The Mercury news radio columnist has mentioned several times where some of these guys have been caught “stretching the truth”. One of them said (re SmogII) that a “gross polluter” would be siezed, towed to a yard and junked on the spot.
I never said Sr. Gonzalez is not a fit parent or that he should not get custody. Read the posts! I simply said that a court, rather than a politically motivated Bureaucrat should make the decision. If you remember correctly, I said that I felt that IF such a court rendered a decision, it would likely be in favor of the father. BUT, since I don’t have all the facts (nor do you), I felt that Elian deserved his day in court. The 11th Circuit Court agrees with this.
Again, I have said that the Court is not, strictly speaking, deciding custody. But, if a Court rules that Elian gets asylum, it is apparent that Elian will then stay w/ his Miami relatives. I have never stated that i want the court to decide that Elian stays, in fact I believe it is somewhat more likely that the Court will rule against asylum, and thus, practically speaking, put Elian back in the hands of his father.
The Circuit Court has made a ruling that vindicates both my positions: 1. That Elian derserves his day in court, and 2. That the issue is not simple, or black & white, as some here would have you believe.
I’m not riled up. I’m a bit astounded at your leaps of logic in this issue.
The Federal Court did not and shall not address the custody issue. That’s because that is not in its jurisdiction.
Please see posting above concerning how a custody issue is decided by the appropriate court. I seriously doubt that a court will grant custody of a 6 or 7 year old child to someone residing in a house with known felons residing in it for long stretches. But that’s not my decision to make, nor is it the decision of the Federal court.
BTW: Thanks for the statistic (singular). Your definition of “often” now appears to be “One.” To where should I send the hat?