Replies

"So was offering amnesty to the illegals a brave thing for Reagan to do, or not so brave?"

I guess you don't listen to Mark Levin who was involved with the Simpson Mazzoli Bill. That bill did grant amnesty but there were provisions tied into that bill which enforced laws against illegal invaders.

This administration, Clinton and Bush I refused to enforce those provisions. The problem with illegal invaders under Reagan was nowhere near the avalanche of illegals now pouring into the U.S. Our Southern Border effectively has ceased to exist, and the present Administration is predominantly to blame.

"So did Reagan, the one you were holding up as an example of the brave man that Bush is not. Would you like to retract that?"

No. Read the above.

"Of course they didn't like him. Doesn't mean he isn't taking a beating from them."

Right. He got elected in spite of them because of US, his conservative base, which has made it more than clear to Bush what we think about his romance with Vicente Fox and his army of invaders. And Bush isn't taking a beating from the Dems on his Amenity program. As a matter of fact Kennedy helped draft it and Jimmy Carter just praised it.

"I was among that group and would do it again. That doesn't mean I agree with everything Bush does. The plain fact is, there will never be a president that you will agree with 100% of the time."

Given the choice, so would I. Obviously two intelligent people aren't going to agree with each other on everything and I don't expect the President to agree with me on everything. What I DO expect from him is to fulfill his oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, which includes defending our borders. He has failed to do so. This is not minor issue problem - its a major issue which most Americans vehemently disagree with Bush and his advisers on. He and his advisers are defying the expressed wishes of the overwhelming majority of Americans on a very significant social and constitutional issue.

I am getting sick and tired, personally, of having to select the lesser of the two evils in electing candidates. Candidates for the Office of President have become more mediocre year by year: Bush I, Bush II, McCain, Kerry, Clinton, Hillery, Algore, Carter, etc. etc. Most of these people couldn't run a department store successfully, but they have the money and support of special interests so they become candidates. The system is broken.

"You know, that one where you and only you get to decide who is a 'true conservative' and who is not?"

If I were the only one saying this, I'd admit I needed a reality check. But others are too - most Americans plus people like Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, etc. etc - all individuals with sterling conservative credentials.

"Post a link to any speech Bush made during the campaigns where he said he was going to do what you want about immigration. Of course, you cannot. So he didn't leave you - you left him."

He gave a speech I recall, about protecting America from terrorists - and any Islamic nut job who really wants to can land in Mexico at this point and sneak across our border. Perhaps many of them have.

Besides, he took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution as a President - TWICE and see my comments about that above.

He left US.

That bill did grant amnesty but there were provisions tied into that bill which enforced laws against illegal invaders.

So you'd be okay with Bush granting amnesty but adding provisions enforcing laws against illegal invaders? By the way, the provisions enforcing laws didn't seem to work too well. Why not just make them enforce the existing laws instead of adding provisions to enforce them?

He got elected in spite of them because of US, his conservative base

What 'us' are you talking about? Bush never promised to build a wall and all that when he was campaigning. So exactly which of his promises did you base your vote upon? (Not something you want him to do, but something he actually said he would do.)

and any Islamic nut job who really wants to can land in Mexico

Actually, I read a book called "Disinformation." Given Mexico's stringent laws and enforcement, the terrorists would rather come through Canada (and have). I've never seen anything indicating any terrorist ever came across the border with Mexico.

I'm all for building a wall, hiring more border patrol agents, etc.. We need to seal our borders. But I think some of the anti-Bush rhetoric over this border issue is simply idiotic.

The reality is, no matter what we do, if a terrorist wants in this country, they will find a way. Letting the terrorists know we will come after them is at least as important as sealing our borders. Bush has done an outstanding job of 'communicating' that to the terrorists.