Posted on 03/24/2005 7:52:05 AM PST by mikemikemikecubed
Edited on 03/24/2005 5:24:25 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
WACO, Texas -- President Bush yesterday said he opposes a civilian project to monitor illegal aliens crossing the border, characterizing them as "vigilantes." He said he would pressure Congress to further loosen immigration law. More than 1,000 people -- including 30 pilots and their private planes -- have volunteered for the Minuteman Project, beginning next month along the Arizona-Mexico border. Civilians will monitor the movement of illegal aliens for the month of April and report them to the Border Patrol. Mr. Bush said after yesterday's continental summit, with Mexican President Vicente Fox and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin at Baylor University, that he finds such actions unacceptable. "I'm against vigilantes in the United States of America," Mr. Bush said at a joint press conference. "I'm for enforcing the law in a rational way." The Minuteman Project was born out of a long-held perception among many residents that more Border Patrol agents are needed to handle the flow of illegal immigrants. Mr. Bush was criticized by both Republicans and Democrats earlier this month for failing to add 2,000 agents to the Border Patrol, as set out in the intelligence overhaul legislation he signed in December. The president's 2006 budget allows enough money to add only 210 agents for the U.S. borders with Canada and Mexico. Mr. Bush said he will "continue to push for reasonable, common-sense immigration policy." He has proposed legislation to grant guest-worker status to millions of illegal aliens already in the United States. The legislation has attracted scant support in Congress, where it is widely regarded as another amnesty that will encourage even more illegal immigration.
thread please if u have it ;)
Well I guess we know whose side Bush is on.
I'll try, here goes:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1369732/posts
If this does not work perhaps you could search by title, it is "Boycott the Republican Party".
I had forgotten how much I missed your "Suzy One Note" race card flinging uber-righteous Meocratic predictability.
Good to see you again, CJ.
thanks
Maybe, but the team who lost to Perot, or any other third party candidate, would have to change their platform to be more in line with that third party candidat to have a shot. No?
They will realize the will of their voter-base, and have to gravitate toward that will. It make take some time, but do you really want another two years of voting "the lessor of two evils"?
A vote for a third party is not a wasted vote. It's a friggin message. And they either get the message, or continue to lose. It won't be easy, you'll have to endure a few adminsitrations of the opposition (which aren't that different, BTW).
But rarely are things worth doing .... easy.
A vote for one of the two major parties, IS a vote wasted, and further erodes the country. It's also intellectually lazy. You get the government you deserve.
Like President Bush is on our team?
People vote third party exactly because neither of the two main parties are on their team. If I vote third party it will because I don't give a damn if the Republicans win or not because whether they do or not they won't represent me. As far as I can tell the Republicans and the Democrats are both the other team.
It won't be easy, you'll have to endure a few adminsitrations of the opposition (which aren't that different, BTW).<<<<
True. Unless we can get someone like Tancredo on the Repub ticket. He is interested an active in Border Control issues.
Well, if you aren't willing to sacrifice, they you will ensure that the system continues as-is in perpetuity. Somewhat cowardly, IMHO ... but do what you think is right.
And if Kerry happened to win, dare I say you would notice very little that is different right now. Maybe a few things here and there, but for the most part - your life would continue as it has for the last 4 years or so.
Let's not go nuts. The two major parties have few practical differences. Currently, we just vote in the people who take the bribes. Elected officials don't make laws. Lobbyists do.
What would we boycott?
sorry, I'll try again:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1369732/posts
Bush: "I'm for enforcing the law in a rational way."
Translation? I will only protect the lives and property of Americans and the sovereignty of the United States when it fits my political agenda.
I'm sickened.
I understand what you are saying. I just don't see any point to boycotting one company of a corporate entity and throwing the business to another company owned by the same corporate entity. Those in control do not give a damn. Seems as though you have to boycott the corporate entity or the monopoly product before anything will change.
So. . . what are you saying? Open borders are just fine, so long as a Republican president throws the gates open?
So Pres. Bush is for enforcing the immigration laws? You could've fooled me. He's done an even worse job than Bill Clinton and seems oblivious to the invasion of our country. Is there a picture of him kissing Fox's brown butt?
That's a great idea - thanks.
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.