Just answer the question: What Presidential candidate even uttered the word "borders" in the 2004 debates?
Why was this not an issue?
Posted on 02/28/2006 8:58:32 PM PST by bayourant
PS: 'Shutting our borders' to a substantial and rich culture does not necessarily promote change. In fact, withdrawing into our country (and building a HUGE wall) really does not convey the best 'team-playing' attitude to the world.
"because he was being as Conservative a President as we had ever had."
Ever had? You might want to rethink that. Reagan was far more conservative than Bush ever thought about being.
I would like to think that his judicial appointees will bring the court back to the right but both parties have been screwed by their appointees.
I have voted straight Republican ticket since Nixon was going for his second term but you say I was wrong in doing that. So now you and I get what you want, I won't vote Rep except for Tancredo.
Like one posters tagline says "I didn't leave the Republican Party, they left me." And until they start governing conservatively I'll look elsewhere for somebody I want to vote for. No more of this lessor of 2 evils crap. I am not a Republican Party patsy.
Why did you post that Scripture then?
The article pointed out that the Bush family seems to foresee events and make strategic moves ahead of them. It is that point with which I completely agree.
If you've got the money you can subscribe to 2 different weather services that do long range predictions that are 90% accurate not like those government released ones. Any brokerage firm will pay very high fees to either or both of these firms if they do any investing in food commodities like corn, soybeans, orange juice etc. There are other firms that do forecasting of trends that are happening around the world. I don't think the Bush's are that smart as a family period. They are advised by experts where those trends will be and how to take advantage of them.
"Don’t mis-underestimate Dubya"
There is no such word mis-underestimate.
Easier, I suppose, than admitting defeat.
No, just tired of debating with someone that applies logic as if using a hammer to apply paint. As well, it grows old having people come in midway and having to rewrite everything over. The combination of the two makes it a relatively futile and unenjoyable exercise, even for someone who loves a good debate!
You too, you are so far off, the same applies to you.
Your problem is that there is no such thing as practicality to you. Your entire realm of debate is within the realm of politics. I hate to break it to ya, but there is a whole other world out there than the one inside the beltway. Yet, speaking to you, you'd never know, eh.
Just answer the question: What Presidential candidate even uttered the word "borders" in the 2004 debates?
Why was this not an issue?
And therein lies your problem! You also most clearly have no practical understanding of Islam. Absolutely none!
Allow me to rephrase your question/statement above, and see if this helps. After that I am bowing out of this thread. This is high school level nonsense.
Here goes:
How can [Europe and America] remain one of the 'civilized societies that are tolerant' (which i think is a good thing) while at the same time shut out [X%] of the worlds population?
What if Muslims were Nazis? Because Islam is nothing short of Nazism. To deny that is to ignore the reality and "fruits" of the spread of Islam.
Again, I'm outta here!
I have to conclude that you want to be banned, considering that you're engaging in personal attacks rather than answering questions.
What Presidential candidate campaigned on closing our borders in 2004?
Name that candidate.
This is a test. There will be a grade.
BUMP
But, due to unfortunate experiences with unfortunate people on this forum of late, I have decided to give up 'debating' with bashers for Lent, so I will leave this thread with this thought only, and will not reply, should you respond with further insult.
"The President is an honorable man, and everyone here knows it. He would never do anything to endanger our lives, and everyone here knows it. God bless and protect him, as he seeks the wisdom from HIM to lead this country in the direction it needs to go. We are truly blessed by God's mercy in giving us this righteous leader. PRAY for him."
Nor am I. But I am educated enough to know that the Republican party was less conservative under Nixon and Ford than it is now, and giving up on the party now, having supported it in the 70's makes no sense.
As to the comparative conservatism of Reagan and Bush43, it depends on what you're looking at. From my perspective as a moral conservative Christian, Bush is more conservative. From my perspective as one who wants to end abortion, Bush is more conservative. From my perspective as a military Mom, and strong patriot, they are equals in building the military, defending America (other than one goof of Reagan's in Lebanon), and equals in fighting for the freedom of oppressed people.
But we can debate until the cows come home about this, and not resolve it. We will have to let history resolve it, but I think the movement of the court to the right already will prove to be the deciding factor. Reagan (albeit unwittingly) contributed to the Courts leaning left. Bush (wittingly) has finally moved it back where it belongs........to the Constitution.
For me, that's the bottom line here. No more debate for me. Thanks for the civil replies. It is increasingly rare around here.
I posted that Scripture because I attempt to live by the Bible and to see Christ's teachings in everyday life, viewing his parables in practical, daily situations as he did. Move your eagle eye to someone more deserving of your fastidious zeal.
"Move your eagle eye to someone more deserving of your fastidious zeal."
It was you and others who jumped on me when I posted my first post. You see, I don't care how you vote but you sure do care about how I vote and think or at least you seem to.
Here's what your President thinks of our Constituion:
http://j-walkblog.com/index.php?/weblog/comments/bush_on_the_constitution/
Au contraire. My first post was the Biblical quote about the prophet in his home town, on which you jumped. Read first, before slinging accusations.
You used a verse of Scripture that did not apply to the situation, that's why I jumped on it. And you agree you were not saying that Bush was a prophet. It's up to you to figure out why you posted that Scripture when you knew was not appropiate. Mishandling the Word of God deceitfully is what I call it.
You know, I was unaware that God had fired St. Peter and put you in his place as the judge of mankind. My apologies.
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.