Posted on 11/28/2005 1:55:47 PM PST by TCats
Once again, you are welcome.
LOL..............zzzzzzzzzzzzzz
I made no attempt to "contribute". I suggested to an ill informed partisan that loyalty ("Great speech! That is the Bush I love!!!") was no substitute for substance in a discussion of policy.
As an example a reply containing sound reasoning supported by an understanding of historical events from the mid 80's, was offered by a long time contributor:
"what does creating a worker permit program do? It makes every illegal already here, "LEGAL". They will be able to get a work permit and legitimization . Will a government that REFUSES to send people home today, do it in six years when the worker permit expires? This just punts the ball down the road and makes it possible for millions more foreign nationals to enter the United States via a legal vs an illegal flood of humanity. Each of them will be legal, and not a single one will EVER be asked to leave the U.S. Bush has just committed to legitimizing a human flood of Mexican and south American immigrants into this nation that will never leave."
To this reasoned response the partisan hack offered: "It allows the people to remain for a limited time only!!! Hardly amnesty!"; with no reference to whose policy or its date of presentation.
Another informed Freeper suggested that Bush might simply: "say he's going to enforce the laws on the books and stop pandering to illegal aliens."
The hack responded: "Reagan endorsed amnesty. Bush said quite clearly that the laws ARE to be strictly enforced. Were you even listening!!??? Did you hear the stats he read off about the improvements he HAS made during his 5 years???!!! offering no disclaimer of Reagan's admissions regarding his role in the the IRCA nor any substantiation of the facts presented during Bush's litany today or these "stats" relational significance to the problem at hand.
I enjoy these discussions and profit from them but two things will not pass lightly.
1) Party hacks substituting obedience and loyalty for reason on a conservative forum
2) Republican loyalists intervening on a conservative forum expecting forum members to defer to their abuse.
Thanks for the reply:)
You: *Crickets*
You should go check it out. It's wide open to anyone who wants to walk in. Tens of millions have.
All the words in the world won't mean squat until the border is closed...
Yes, how could someone confuse minutemen with vigilantes, they have been reported about in the news at length? And if he was wrong in his choice of words, he should have apologized, he didn't so we must believe he meant what he said.
%%%%%
I keep hearing and reading about President Bush calling the Minutemen vigilantes, but I cannot find when or where he said it = and I monitor Fox news virtually all the time, since that is the only channel where there is a hope of seeing the President. I would really appreciate it if you could tell me when he made that remark.
Thanks
google is your friend
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050324-122200-6209r.htm
http://www.rense.com/general63/decries.htm
http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2005/04/hayworth_says_b.php
I agree that the president inherited his policy of disgraceful indifference to border security. But after perpetuating that policy for five years and being rather antagonistic to those who disagree, he now ~owns~ the policy.
The laundry list could have been even longer and I mention it only because you say that "after perpetuating that policy for five years .... he now ~owns~ the policy." I don't agree he perpetuated it. After all, it is a legislative prerogative requiring legislative action and initiative. Part of the reason he can't just issue an EO is the many laws that impact the problem. As was mentioned earlier on the thread there are "PC" laws that prevent an employer from even asking if an applicant is legal or illegal. Under those rules is it fair to storm a workplace and fine the employer and, as some suggest, take away his business and his property? Many who demand that complain about the War on Drugs for the same reason.
There are also the catch and release requirements. That is law, not prerogative, and to make capturing illegals meaningful those would have to be changed. That takes legislation.
All of those perpetuate the situation and make it difficult to solve. It is easy to come on a forum like FR and demand that things be done and to blame Bush for not doing them but quite another to actually do something that is practical and politically possible. That is why many of these posts make me angry. They are full of bluster and macho demands and very short on knowledge and practicality.
It is true, as you say, that the president has had a great deal on his plate.
The reason I take issue with the 5 years comment is that the Democrats purposely delayed his being prepared when he took office, withholding transition funds while they drug out the vote counting and certification process, and boasting about laying some time bombs for him to discover later. By the time he was able to get the people he wanted to nominate for his cabinet vetted, and before many of them were in office, 9/11 happened. Then there was the haggling about getting UN approval and all that long process which was just a planned delay to allow Saddam to prepare better and move his WMD elsewhere. Then there was the preparation for Afghanistan, fighting the war, etc., that I have mentioned earlier. On top of all that the Dems and MSM were trying to impeach him and the election season was upon us. He was pretty busy for those 5 years, not sitting back like a Bill Clinton.
But for many Americans, the need to secure the borders is just behind (and related to) the war on terror as a top priority.
I agree with that but again, he made some proposals and ran into all the flack he is running into now.
All presidents are busy. A laundry list of the president's challenges does nothing to diminish my dissatisfaction that he has ignored one of his very most important responsibilities.
Not all presidents are busy doing important things. Clinton was busy avoiding doing the difficult things and instead left them for Bush to do. I submit, because it is my true opinion, that W has faced more difficult challenges than any modern president and has managed to add a lot of legislative successes to it. All that in the short five years you complain about and with most everyone fighting against him.
(I don't use Dim talking points. On balance, I continue to support the president although he has disappointed me substantially in some ways. But I keep in mind the alternatives, and I am thankful to have him. I posted my honest and personal reaction as I listened to him.)
My point is that a lot of posters on FR are doing the Dems work whether purposefully or not. Most don't take into consideration the political realities of the situation nor the consequences if their ideas were adopted. As bad as the immigration problem is, a take over by the Democrats would be worse. That is the most important thing to prevent. We must remember that the Democrats and all their allies want to keep the immigration situation as it is, so it is not just a matter of wanting to do something. Anything we do must get through the legislature with all the demagoguery by the Democrats as well as all their legislative tricks. And that must be managed in such a way as to not give the Democrats and their allies, both foreign and domestic, the upper hand for the next election. There is more to it than just demanding it on FR. Freepers can afford to do that but Bush can't, not and be successful.
The Democrats are a more deadly enemy than the illegals but we must deal with both.
I did, dipdung, and it makes no sense. For your edification, Bush took office in 2001, and has been President for 5 years, not 6. In that time he has handled more problems than any modern president dispite interference from people like you.
Sorry, I have been busy with other things. Yes, I have been to the border and to Mexico. I live in Texas and am quite close to the problem. My main gripe is the demand by others to do things that can't be done immediately or without the help of the legislature. Some suggestions are impractical. Most others require manpower we don't have and the changing of laws before they could be done anyway. Bush can't just snap his fingers. Many also attribute motives to him that I don't think he has.
There have been many other threads where I have gotten angry over similar things, that being internet Rambos who are the toughest guys in the universe, to hear them tell it, and demand the most extreme solutions to all sorts of problems. I may even agree with the desirability of some of the solutions but, politically, they can't be done. We must keep in mind that the Democrats ar serious enemies, too, and must be dealt with in everything we do.
Anyone who knows me would tell you different. You may flatten me afterward but by then I would have already said it. I say what I want to say no matter where.
King Jorge has betrayed the trust of the people who elected him.
Why do you call him King? He has been stymied in much of what he wants to do by the Democrats and the Rhinos. A King would face that. Were he not forced to deal with that, like a king, he may have done more to please you.
I gave him every benefit of the doubt for the first four years.
Now I see him for what he is.
I am afraid you don't. You should praise him rather than work against him. I hope you and others don't give us Hillary. Then I will be crying with you.
Touche'. :-)
All that is lacking on the border is 'political will' aka 'leadership'.
And, last time I checked, Republicans control the Executive and the Legislative branches.
For the moment.
Ignoring the will of the people is a fast-track out of power.
You know as well as I do that the overwhelming majority of Americans, of both parties, want this border closed up tight.
The President's amnesty, by any name, is politically DOA.
The Bush Administration, domestically, has been one long example of squandered political capital.
Wall off the border? LOL.
That will be the Maginot Line of immigration.
They'll swim around it.
If they really want to end illegal immigration, they should end NAFTA.
Closing the border will slow illegal immigration to a trickle.
And enforcing the laws against the employment of illegals will do the rest.
Unfortunately, the President thinks these scofflaw employers should be 'helped', not punished.
And his patchwork of enforcement along the border is a joke.
We both support the rule of law. Where we probably differ is that if we would have a process to vet the people applying for immigration, I would support changing the limits of numbers of persons from our southern borders.
Where we also may differ is that I would argue that the numbers of illegal immigrants are not here by someone's plan, but rather by the disjointed legislation and judicial wishywashyness that results in unmanageable borders, insufficient people in the US available (even assuming that there's funding somewhere) for the kind of border control needed and an obstinate crowd mandating the bankruptcy of border hospitals to care (at US expense) of illegals (courtesy of the senator who lost his pants)
Lastly, the most powerful argument against illegal immigration as it stands today is that it supports brutal and corrupt regimes to the south of our border. Yet this is not the argument that the reform crowd takes, which I think puts the discussion on a weaker plane.
Plan B is always necessary. Any job or line of work is a risk. This can mean good things, but a person who is responsible for him or herself needs to be open to contingency planning.
I disagree with your recommendation as it defies the principles upon which the US Constitution was founded. The rights to property were mentioned specifically five times in the US Constitution in reflection of the rights of Englishmen of the Glorious Revolution in 1688. Aristotle had it right. So did Madison.
Madison said that anyone who takes your property does not respect your ideas.
Let the buyers beware. People aren't stupid and don't need government to totally mess it up for them at exorbitant costs. Which is pretty much all that government does well, except for defense.
republicans don't control congress.
the dems in the senate can fillabuster any legislation they want too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.