Bush might as well be Fox's marionette, since everything that Bush says on this issue is a reflection of Fox's opinion.
There is no distance between them-not even a crack of daylight-when it comes to this subject.
And there is no substantive, tangible distinction between Bush implying that the Minutemen are vigilantes and him repeating the phrase "The Minutemen are vigilantes."
This semantical hairsplitting does not do anything to resolve the essential question at issue, i.e. why our president won't uphold his Constitutional duty to enforce the law of the land and protect our borders from invasion and penetration.
Bill Richardson made it explicitly clear where he stood on the Minutemen issue, declaring that while he disagreed with the actions they were taking he commended them for their concern about our So. border-which is as porous as a sieve-and applauded their civic spirit.
Bush, on the other hand, has made it explicitly clear that he disagrees with all-not just some-of the values espoused by the Minutemen, and has no intention of helping border state governors to address this problem head-on.
So you are saying that When Bush spoke last week and said that border enforcment hs got to be part of a 'comprehensive bill", not to mention that it hs to come first, that he was just outright lying? Are you saying that Fox is in lockstep with enforcing the border?????
Care to try again on that note?
I cannot wait to throw this one back at you in the future, it will be most exciting.
You just claimed that there is no difference between what someone says you imply and what what words you actually say. You are in effect saying that what a person means is irrelevent because you know better what they meant than they did when they said what it is they said.
"And there is no substantive, tangible distinction between Bush implying that the Minutemen are vigilantes and him repeating the phrase "The Minutemen are vigilantes."
If all you have is implication why would you (or anyone else) try to to claim more than implication by saying he said something he did not say? That says alot about your position.
I stand with you in asking why W will not enforce our laws, further (if the excuse is that the laws are to conflicting to administer equally and justly) why the congress will not take on their contitutional duty to forge the law in a way that can be administered equally.
Bush bashing on this issue is worthless when it becomes simply that...Bush Bashing. Others hold responsibility in this issue as well, those being present and past congresses and present and past presidents.
Bill Richardson cannot even remember if he was drafted by a baseball team or not....ha ha... I don't trust a word he says. WHat exactly does he disagree with about their actions? Should I say he is calling them vigilantes? By your own logic in this post I should....but see I won't claim he said something he did not say.
WHat will you have W do for governors in border states? BYW I am in Illinois and we are fourth on the list in illegal population so do you require help for this govenor also?
Shall he send more money? OOOPS that is congress. Shall he pass a new superceding law? OOOPS thats congress. Shall he issue an executive order? OOOOPS... then he would be called a dictator bypassing the will of the rightful lawmaking branch CONGRESS.
What will you have W do for the govenors? I would really like to know.