The Final Straw? Accountability for President Bush

1/13/2004 | Andy Obermann

[Redleg Duke]

Nope, that wasn't the post I was responding to. I was just frustrated listening to the Bush-Bashers ranting about how there is no hope. For your own life and challenges, I respect and salute you. We make of life what we are willing to work for. Like they said, when life serves up lemons...make lemonaide.

[Redleg Duke]

Well, I guess you really ought to give up then. Just stop breathing and we will all feel sorry for you.

[TigersEye]

Thanks. I don't consider myself a Bush-basher but that's my view. I'm sure many of my posts well fit the criterion for others and it's not my business to set criteria for anyone else.

I do feel rather bleak about our country's direction and prospects at the moment and the President's spending agenda and some other domestic plans weigh heavily on that POV. I don't like coming to conclusions like that.

I would like to see whatever dwarf gets the Dem nomination buried in a landslide of epic proportions. I would like this fall's election to ring like a bell the size of Mt. Everest tolling the death knell of liberalism. Well like the man said you can't always get what you want. Hopefully we will get what we need.

I'll always be making lemonade with my personal lemons; that's not a problem. But there's no reason this country should go into the lemon production business. We need to export success not import the losers to vainly try and share in glory they haven't earned and we need to continue the tradition here not pass on a hollow image of it for future generations to pretend they have it too.

[exmarine]

saying muslims and Christians worship the same God (decidedly unbiblical and contrary to Christian doctrine not to mention just plain dumb)-- jeesh, are you that dumb??? ARe you suggesting that there are more than one creator????

No, but apparently you are, since you have no clue about logic and the law of contradiction. Muslims and Christians say there is one God, but contradict each other on who that God is. BOTH CANNOT BE TRUE. BOTH GODS CANNOT POSSIBLY EXIST AT THE SAME TIME. Logic wins, you lose. Who is dumb?

[exmarine]

-- Expansion of the govt and spending at a clip only democrats can admire (this is socialism - a philospohy that is antithetical to personal responsibility, to limited government and to biblical principles)-- what a bunch of baloney. Again this has nothing to do with Jesus Christ and love one another as he loved us.

Obeying and enforcing the law is what he is sworn to do. Obeying the law and correctly doing his duty has everything to do with Christianity, which commands honesty and duty and obedience to just laws.

his letter of praise to the gay Metropolitan Church--(contradicts biblical values and his putative family friendly platform); not true, President Bush never praised gay church. (contradicts biblical values and his putative family friendly platform);

Are you in denial? This was reported by more than one news organization with actual quotes, and pro-family organizations reacted to it. It was the Metropolitan Church I believe. Get with it.

; signing of unconstitutional and anti-freedom bills like Patriot Act and CFR (so much for the Bill of Rights!)-- this is unchristian? HA!! are you confused!!!

Well, since the Constitution is the LAW OF THE LAND, and Bush swore on a bible to protect and defend it, what do you think?

[MegaSilver]

Gotta use the primaries to get better repubs in. House races are best for that because they're very localized, senate races are tougher, national (the presidency) toughest.

If a conservative can eek his way through to governor, though, and demonstrates just how much conservatives are needed, then we can get a conservative president (ala Ronald Reagan). It's been done before, and it can be done again.

[MegaSilver]

You keep saying amnesty--amnesty means total forgiveness and no strings attached.

Not in the political arena. Bush's plan will grant legal status to illegal aliens, and that is amnesty. "To suggest otherwise," as the National Review put it, "is an insult to our intelligence."

[olliemb]

I disagree with you and the National Review. President Bush is the only one who has tried to do something about the millions of undocumented illegals who use our hospitals, social services, schools, etc. Instead, the National Review, yourself and others such as Tancredo, believe that sending them back is the only solution. There is no workable situation considered.

Just imagine troops raiding homes and sending back in trains and buses under guard the illegals. Imagine inquiring of all that look like illegals (that might include me)as to identification proving I was an American.

Many of the illegals have children born in the United States and therefore what would you do with their children.?

The brazero program used to exist in the United States. At least President Bush is attempting to tackle the problem. For 8 years under Clinton nothing got done and even before that nothing got done. Why do you think that the immigration laws are not enforced? B/c they are very difficult to do and no one wants to do it is my guess.

And Tancredo wants to pass a bill that denies all illegals medical/social care. Back to asking everyone in the ER if they have insurance, American ID before being treated. Is this what the conservatives really want?

I am curious--what do you think is a good solution to the millions of illegals already living here in the United States?

[MegaSilver]

I disagree with you and the National Review. President Bush is the only one who has tried to do something about the millions of undocumented illegals who use our hospitals, social services, schools, etc.

You have a right to your opinion, but if you haven't already, I'd suggest picking up a copy of the latest edition of National Review. The "Amnesty, Again" article deals with this objection ("Well, we have to do SOMEthing.") It's a valid point, but keep in mind that we already DID something, back in 1986. The reasoning was, "We'll give some amnesties, then work on sealing the border."

Well, that was a crock. After the plan, illegal immigration actually INcreased. We should have sealed the border first, actually enforced the laws against hiring illegal aliens, and after we'd proven that we were reducing the illegal population, THEN we could talk about granting a few amnesties.

Just imagine troops raiding homes and sending back in trains and buses under guard the illegals. Imagine inquiring of all that look like illegals (that might include me)as to identification proving I was an American.

Obviously, that wouldn't work. But it would be a start to first round up and deport all KNOWN illegal aliens.

The brazero program used to exist in the United States. At least President Bush is attempting to tackle the problem.

Yes, I will give him credit for that. I don't think he's doing the right thing to tackle the problem, but at least we've sparked a debate, and I suppose that's the light in this tunnel.

I am curious--what do you think is a good solution to the millions of illegals already living here in the United States?

Personally, I favor the model proposed by the National Review:

1. Deport all illegals who are currently on the list to be deported.
2. Round up all KNOWN illegal aliens and deport them.
3. Actually enforce the laws against hiring illegal aliens. Punish businesses who hire them.
4. Once illegal aliens see that there isn't a job market open to them, a lot of them will take the hint and leave.
5. Begin work on an infrastructure that can support the sealing of our borders.
6. Once the infrastructure is in place, test it for 8-10 years, make sure that it is actually decreasing the illegal population, and THEN discuss possibly giving amnesty to some of the remaining illegals.

It's not that I'm opposed to any and all amnesties. It's just that I am highly skeptical of them, and I think that they should be saved for last, not enacted first. Basically, I think Bush has it backwards.