A Few Questions For Die-Hard Bush Supporters

Toogood Reports ^ | June 5, 2002 | Lee R. Shelton IV

[Stand Watch Listen]

Let me just say up front that I am not addressing you if you voted for George W. Bush in 2000 and regret it. The same goes for those of you who voted for Bush and insist on holding his feet to the fire on the important issues. If, however, you cast your vote for Bush, still believe he is the only hope for America and intend to support every move he makes without so much as a raised eyebrow, this is for you.

It has been nearly a year-and-a-half since George W. Bush, the savior of conservatism, descended from on high to begin his earthly reign in Washington, D.C. Republicans assured us that he would restore integrity to the White House and would be a marked improvement over the promiscuous Bill Clinton. Well, in all honesty, that could have been accomplished by electing a neutered chimp to the office of president.

During the 2000 presidential campaign, George W. Bush the man proved to be a nice break from Bill Clinton and Al Gore. Unlike Gore, Bush had a more likable...well, he actually had a personality. He also possessed the unique ability to address the American people without the smug and condescending vibe Clinton exuded. However, when it came to policy, George W. Bush the candidate failed to demonstrate that he would govern any differently than his Democrat counterparts.

Still, throughout the campaign, there was a loyal group of Bush supporters who would take offense at even the slightest implication that their candidate was anything but a staunch conservative. Even now, they continue to stand by their man, and I find this to be rather perplexing.

Perhaps those who have pledged their undying allegiance to President Bush could answer a few questions for me, in no particular order of course:

•  How would you have reacted if Bill Clinton had signed the Patriot Act into law and given the government sweeping new surveillance powers?

•  Would you have criticized a Democrat president for signing a $26 billion education-spending bill?

•  Did you feel betrayed when Bush signed Campaign Finance Reform into law?

•  What do you think about Bush's position on granting amnesty to hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants?

•  Would you have tolerated a Democrat proposal for federally funded faith-based initiatives?

•  What would your reaction have been if a Democrat had said, "No one should have to pay more than a third of their income to the federal government"?

•  What do you think about the president's granting of Permanent Most Favored Nation status to China?

•  What's the difference between Bush and the Democrats on the issue of farm subsidies?

•  How would you react if a Democrat president sent a $2.13 trillion budget to Congress?

•  Would you have stood for a Democrat saying "No!" to arming airline pilots?

•  What would your reaction have been if a Democrat had pushed for the federalization of airport security?

•  Are you willing to stand by and let the Bush administration cater to the environmentalists on the global warming issue?

•  What do you think about Bush's call for a Patient's Bill of Rights?

•  What one thing has Bush done that sets him apart from the Democrats?

•  It's been a year-and-a-half since Bush took office. When do we start to see a decrease in the size and scope of government? For that matter, when do we start to see even a remote indication that this administration will think about doing anything to try to limit the federal government?

This list is by no means exhaustive, but I would really be interested in some answers. Perhaps it would help shed some light on the mindset of modern compassionate conservatives.

The fact that a Republican president is governing like a Democrat isn't surprising. What's amazing to me is that there are a few select Bush supporters out there who cannot—or will not—utter one word of criticism against their president for any reason. In their minds this man is the epitome of conservatism, and to question his actions would be to question their own beliefs and cause them to wonder why they supported him in the first place.

The way I see it there can only be two explanations for this: 1) these people really and truly believe in what Bush is doing, or 2) they do not wish to face up to the real reason they voted for him — he was simply a slightly more palatable choice than Al Gore.

[Satadru]

So, hey, did you ever find the existence of the entire federal bureaucracy hidden within the commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause?

[Sabertooth]

245(i) is not "amnesty", it simply establishes a period of time for illegals, or people whose status is in question for reasons ranging from an INS snafu, to their own ignorance, to step forward, voluntarily, and apply for a hearing to determine whether their status can be adjusted to "legal".

You omitted "entered without inspection." Figures.

Illegals are people who have no right to be here. Most people don't want them here, but you do. But you're uncomfortable stating so openly, so you're force to prance through all of your dishonesties.

Bottom line: Letting Illegals stay = Amnesty for those Illegals

This section 245(i) neither guarantees that a hearing will take place, or that the outcome will be a favorable one to the applicant.

Are you saying that's not true? If you are, can you prove your claim?

It's irrelevant.

When active, 245(i) guarantees that some portion of the Illegals currently trespassing in our country will be allowed to "change status."

That's sorta the point.

If a person who entered the country illegally, gets back across the border to Mexico (let's assume this person to be Mexican...assuming that being an illegal immigrant automatically makes you Mexican seems to be all the rage in FR these days), walks up to our consulate there, and applies for permission to migrate to the US. How would the consulate know that he'd been living in upper Tijuana (A.K.A. Los Angeles) for the past ten years?

They wouldn't. So your Prodigal Illegal would have to get in line and wait his turn, like every decent, honest immigrant candidate should.

Are you aware that for every Illegal Amnestied by 245(i), one decent immigrant candidate didn't get in? Amnestied Illegals count against their country's immigration quotas.

You would reward the lawless and punish the lawful. Some friend of immigrants you are.

Now, another reality that you ignore are the requirements that the applicant needs to meet in order to even qualify for a hearing, you never even bother posting them.

I didn't post them because the leverage selected Illegals use to take advantage of a 245(i) Amnesty is not relevant. What's relevant is that they are in violation of our laws, and folks like you don't want our laws enforced against them.

This is the reason you defend Section 245(I).

You also claim that I lie when I say that upon being declined for adjustment of status, the applicant is eligible for deportation, you can read it here.

No, I claimed that your attempt to spin 245(i) into some sort of deportation program earlier on this thread was laughable.

Your excerpt immediately above is a lie.

A couple more thoughts, while you are busy bashing Bush on this issue, all the while making light of his signing of the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act, you’ve been giving the Democrats a pass.

I made light of claims that Bush signing that Act without Amnesty was significant, not of the Act itself. Folks interested in the truth can see it here.

Giving Democrats a pass? We'll see.

So now, what have we learned, other than the fact that you must have graduated Summa Cum Laude from the Bill Clinton Institute of Spinology?

Clever. Spinology.

We have learned that 245(i) isn't amnesty...but rather than having everyone just take my word for it, let's quote a leading US Immigration Attorney:

You found an attorney who lies?

Shocking.

I don't care if you find a mathematics attorney who asserts that 2+2=5, it's still 4.

Mind you, this is a person whose job is to interpret the laws in a way that benefits her clientele.

Yeah… she'll have a bigger clientele if a 245(i) Amnesty Extension is passed. So, isn't in her self-interest to keep that unpopular Amnesty aspect of it under the radar?

You're a pretty amusing paradox, Luis. You have no fuel, you bring no heat...

But you're never out of gas.

[Texasforever]

I am sorry but you are a liberal.

LMAO. No, not a liberal but I at least know what I am talking about. You on the other hand come at the debate with nothing but empty platitudes and nasty name calling. Put some ice on it.

[Luis Gonzalez]

The House indicted Bill Clinton on Dec. 18th.

Bill Clinton was ultimately dragged down—though not defeated—by the “character issues” brought into question even before his election. An investigation into some suspect real estate dealings in which Clinton was involved prior to his presidency failed to turn up any implicating evidence. However, Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr managed to unravel a tangled web of alleged sexual advances and affairs in Clinton's past. The trail led to former White House intern Monica S. Lewinsky. After months of denials, including in a videotaped legal testimony, Clinton admitted in August of 1998 that he had had a sexual relationship with the young woman during the time of her internship.

The infamous “Starr Report” outlining the findings of the Independent Counsel's investigation was delivered to the House of Representatives on Sept. 9, 1998 and subsequently made available to the public. Many felt the report, filled with lurid details of Clinton's sexual encounters with Lewinsky, to be a political attack against the President rather than a legal justification for his impeachment. Of the 11 possible grounds for impeachment cited by Starr, four were eventually approved by the House Judiciary Committee: grand jury perjury, civil suit perjury, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power.

On December 19, following much debate over the constitutionality of the proceedings and whether or not Clinton could be punished by censure rather than impeachment, the House of Representatives held its historic vote. Clinton was impeached on two counts, grand jury perjury (228–206) and obstruction of justice (221–212), with the votes split along party lines. The Senate Republicans, however, were unable to gather enough support to achieve the two-thirds majority required for his conviction. On Feb. 12, 1999, the Senate acquitted President Clinton on both counts. The perjury charge failed by a vote of 55–45, with 10 Republicans voting against impeachment along with all 45 Democrats. The obstruction of justice vote was 50–50, with 5 Republicans breaking ranks to vote against impeachment. (See also William Jefferson Clinton)

Clinton was tried, and found "not guilty".

[Starwind]

So, hey, did you ever find the existence of the entire federal bureaucracy hidden within the commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause?

That's a pretty broad brushstroke, and I can't offer any argument at present to make your entire case.

I have read (though I've seen nothing definitive) that the 16th amendment was never properly ratified, upon which the IRS rests. But that might be tin-foil hat stuff...I could not support that position, but it is one I've looked into.

[Satadru]

It was a mistrial. The jury was tampered. No evidence was allowed to be presented. But, the initial point still holds: Clinton was prosecuted, that's what impeachment means - is a completely wrong statement.

[PsyOp]

I'm flattered. Especially coming from you Mister Gonzalez. I've enjoyed reading your Banana Republican essays - I have that right don't I? If not, I'm still flattered and glad you enjoyed it.

Best Regards,
PsyOp.

[Satadru]

Oh you know so much, you can see everything under the sun justified by the commerce clause. If you knew anything, you wouldn't suggest such a preposterous claim. Just come out of the closet with your liberal shirt on.

[Satadru]

It is a fascinating story with the 16th amendment. First of all, only 36 out of 48 states(exactly 3/4!!!) ratified it. Secondly, there are huge problems with the votes in the Missouri legislature, because due to influenza epidemic a quorum was not present, but the vote was taken anyways. Anyways, I am surprised to see that self-proclaimed conservatives here at FR keep sighting the commerce and the n-p clause to make their case. What has the world come to?

[Starwind]

You are correct in that the Senate failed to muster the required votes to convict. What I recollect (and need to go back and look up), is that the Senate only heard argument from the House managers and Clinton's lawyers, and then took a procedural vote to not conduct a trial. That not conducting a trial could be construed as an 'acquital' might technically be true, but the Senate proceedings were not a trial in the spririt of the constitution. The evidence was never presented for the 'trier of fact', the Senate. This is what so angered the House managers, Schippers, et al.

[Texasforever]

Oh you know so much, you can see everything under the sun justified by the commerce clause. If you knew anything, you wouldn't suggest such a preposterous claim. Just come out of the closet with your liberal shirt on.

Wipe your chin you are drooling. LOL Calm down, or take your Ritalin or something.

[Satadru]

So mature!

[Luis Gonzalez]

"...because it was more appropriately a mistrial..."

In order to have a mistrial, you must have a trial.

"You are such an imbecile and a complete dork."

I am not in the habit of talking to children, and I am certainly not lowering myself to the level that you've descended.

Grow up.

[Satadru]

There was a trial in the Senate. It was a mistrial because of the stated facts. Dont get all sanctimonious now. You have been just as dirty as I have.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"You omitted "entered without inspection." Figures."

I also left out snuck in, jumped el Rio Grande, caught a rail...that's all you got left?

"Most people don't want them here, but you do. But you're uncomfortable stating so openly, so you're force to prance through all of your dishonesties."

"This is the reason you defend Section 245(I)."

Just so no one fails to notice, having absolutely no retorts to my post, you are now reduced to personal attacks, and lies.

I posted facts, and backed them up, you can't.

My goal is to expose you for the pompous fraud that you are, not to defend 245(i).

"It's irrelevant."

No, on the contrary, it's quite relevant. You basically called me a liar because I stated that 245(i) neither guaranteed a hearing, or a favorable outcome.

I proved you wrong, and substantiated my statement.

That proved you to be a liar.

"You would reward the lawless and punish the lawful. Some friend of immigrants you are."

Once again, you avoid the point, and indulge in personal attacks and emotional rants, rather than address the point I made, and substantiated.

Loser.

"What's relevant is that they are in violation of our laws, and folks like you don't want our laws enforced against them."

Are you ever actually going to even attempt to refute a single point I made?

Or are you simply going to hurl bovine manure at the wall?

Can you address one single point with anything other than an emoptional rant, and some insults?

“You also claim that I lie when I say that upon being declined for adjustment of status, the applicant is eligible for deportation, you can read it here.”—LG

"Your excerpt immediately above is a lie."—Saber.

Well, you said it here. I’m not the one lying, that seems to be your trick.

"Giving Democrats a pass? We'll see."

I figured that you would be all over Daschle for introducing 245(i) once again, an even more Liberal version of it, this past month.

Maybe I missed your posts attacking him. Link me to them?

"You found an attorney who lies?"

Personal attack in lieu of any sort of substance.

"Shocking."

What's shocking is your degeneration into petty personal attacks.

"I don't care if you find a mathematics attorney who asserts that 2+2=5, it's still 4."

Is this sort of you putting your hands over your ears, and squeezing your eyes shut?

"You're a pretty amusing paradox, Luis. You have no fuel, you bring no heat..."

"But you're never out of gas."

And you?

All magic and mirrors, an illusion, a mirage.

Without any sort of substance whatsoever, you'll fade into nothingness with little fanfare, real soon.

And you'll leave no void behind you.

[Marine Inspector]

I may well have to call my Congressman to check this out if you continue to insist I have it wrong, but that is my honest understanding of this policy, which has been in effect for some time, and is simply being renewed.

Section 245(i) was enacted in 1994 and repealed in 1998. President Clinton extended it for four months when he left office in 2000.

Section 245 of the INA (Immigration and Nationality Act) deals with the adjustment of status of aliens from a non-resident to a resident. Subsection (i) deals with illegal aliens adjusting their status of as an illegal non-resident to a legal resident.

Call your Congressman, your understanding is wrong

[RJayneJ]

Thanks for the heads up! };^D)

[Marine Inspector]

Would you stop using logic, it really confuses some of these folks on FR.

[Marine Inspector]

If you are trying to enter illegally by jumping the border, you get prison time and then get deported.

Which country are you talking about. Surely not the United States.

In the US, if you get caught by the INS, you get your finger prints taken and a nice photo. After that we give to a stern lecture and then we take you back to the border and ask you politely not to return.

[PsyOp]

Would you stop using logic, it really confuses some of these folks on FR.

I've been a baaaaad boy!