Bush team strikes back against Tancredo

Denver Post ^

[Sabertooth]

Since when does 'consensus' imply correctness?

It wouldn't matter if there were thousands of you who had the 'consensus' that what we feel is 'blind loyalty.'

Hey, relax... I meant that there was a consensus building (on this thread) that I'm a moron.

Just trying to lighten it up a little.

[Mo1]

That was a post I made to Tuor

And on this Thread .. no you have not YET called me names

But I have come up against you in the past and you ALWAYS resort to the name calling .. which is why I said Whatever earlier

Let's just say .. you have a history

[RamsNo1]

Kudos to Tancredo. At least he seems to have the interests of America and the American People at heart. If this illegal alien bill is signed into law, I hope that the next illegal alien wave goes straight for Wash DC.

[Sabertooth]

Who owns the airports and airplanes? Both you an I don't. Thus why are our rights being infringed? I have no unalienable right to fly on a private plane with a gun. If I decide that flying on a private plane without a gun is dangerous, I then have the unalienable right -- NOT TO FLY!

Is the FAA a private organization?

[RamsNo1]

Exactly!!! Bush strikes at republicans but not democrats. Now we are seeing the true nature of this administration.

[mtngrl@vrwc]

Second, do your CA friends want the Illegals here, or gone?

I live in California and while I don't think that people should enter this country illegally, I do have to say this; California produces half of the fruit and vegetables that the country consumes. It's mostly these illegals that tend these crops. These are jobs that no one else here will do. These people do serve a purpose.

I do also have to say this; for the most part, I would say that Mexicans are very decent, honest, hard working people. They are people who love their families. I have no hard feelings when it comes to them. They come here, do work that no other Americans will do, and then send money back to their families back in Mexico, or return back to their families.

[dsutah]

Bravo! I couldn't have said it better! I get too
long-winded a little emotional sometimes, so I can admire
someone who can put it plainly. As I told someone
on here somewhere, I can usually take what I
dish out, I just wondered if they could!

[Sabertooth]

But I have come up against you in the past and you ALWAYS resort to the name calling .. which is why I said Whatever earlier

Let's just say .. you have a history

Oh not true!

I don't "resort" to name calling, but on occasion, I do it gratutiously after having demonstrated why the name is appropriate.

[ohioWfan]

Thank you! And thank you for your articulate, well thought out posts. You seemed to be one of the only voices of reason on this thread, so I thought I'd jump in and be reasonable along with you!

Even if it doesn't seem to be making any difference!

[ohioWfan]

Gotcha! Missed that one! :o)

[RamsNo1]

If Tancredo is slime then what do you call the unconstitutional CRF law, the big government pork farm bill and Patient's Bill of Rights and the illegal alien bill? Seems to me that Tancredo is trying to be the conservative he was elected to be. As for Bush, well...

[PRND21]

I'm pretty sure Tancredo will be talking about the Mexican military U.S. border incursion outrage that corrupt Mexico is poo-pooing.

Lest you accidently create a false impression...
US authorities have poo-pooed it as well.
More grandstanding, it appears.

[ohioWfan]

They come here, do work that no other Americans will do, and then send money back to their families back in Mexico, or return back to their families.

Right! And the President's hated "Amnesty" is for a few people (not the thousands implied by the haters), who have become illegal because of Government red tape, after being here legally, so that they can be reunited with their families.

It's only a bad thing if you have disdain for Mexicans as a whole, and don't want any of them in the United States.

[dsutah]

Noooo... I don't think I'm that mixed-up. Like I
said, it only involved a certain group of people. Not
large. These people were going through the process,
and he was just helping them out a little. It was not
the millions that someone suggested, and thought some
of the rest of us wouldn't dispute. Please, we have
a bit more intelligence than some of you Bush-bashers
give us credit for! From what I have read in a few
places, he was going to allow these people in on a case
by-case basis. I know I read this in a few places, and
I am capable of reading and deciding for myself what to
read, and who's viewpoint to believe and support. I do
have that right just like you, thank you!

[Mo1]

I don't "resort" to name calling, but on occasion, I do it gratutiously after having demonstrated why the name is appropriate.

Yep .. Sure .. whatever you say ..

Now please excuse me .. I have the flu and I am running a temperature and just want to crawl back in bed and die ..

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

Just watch now as conservatives abandon Bush in droves.

Maybe not for this issue, but watch for the reaction to the spate of liberal policies that Bush has been (and continues to be) signing into law. Seems that Rove is a Dick Morris wannabe. Does "triangulation" mean you get to stay in power by enacting the opposing party's agenda? If so, I want nothing of it. Beyond enacting a CONSERVATIVE agenda (which is why I voted for Bush), I HAVE NO USE FOR HIM. He needs to know that he is VERY CLOSE to losing me. How could he sign CFR, and follow that by increasing farm subsidies by 80% (albeit over ten years -- but I thought the era of big government was over!) He has done nothing to enforce border security (doesn't need Congressional approval for this!). And where are the conservative judicial nominies? I keep hearing of Bush's astronomical approval numbers. But, if nothing comes of the approval rating, to me, it is worth about as much as a bucket of warm spit.

Here's how it goes for me if Bush keeps this up. First, I withhold financial contribution to the party (and I am significant "small" contributor -- thousand$ per year!). Second, I cancel all Republican Party outreach effort (and I do a lot of work in my town). Third, I refuse to vote. Period. End of story.

Sad to say, I am considering step one today.

[Sabertooth]

"But what does the truth matter, anyway? Not one whit to a basher."

I don't think it matters to those of either foolish consistency... Whether Basher or Bot.

[RamsNo1]

The only reason that Bush has for what he does is his re-election in 2004. And then when the republicans take back the senate, Bush can wave a magic wand and get rid of all the stupid bills that he gutlessly signed because he walked in fear of the democrats and their power base. I say, just watch what he doesn't do after this year's election, whether or not the retread repubs take back the senate.

[FreeReign]

Who owns the airports and airplanes? Both you an I don't. Thus why are our rights being infringed? I have no unalienable right to fly on a private plane with a gun. If I decide that flying on a private plane without a gun is dangerous, I then have the unalienable right -- NOT TO FLY!

Is the FAA a private organization?

No.

So I think we both agree that an individual property owner has the unalienable right to determine who carries a gun on their property. Now, what if three people owned a single piece of property together and what if two of those people wanted to forbid guns from that property because they thought they would be safer that way. Identify the unalienable rights in that situation for those three people on that single piece of property.

[ohioWfan]

Ah, but most so-called Bots are not.

The label goes for anyone who agrees with the majority of the President's positions, and doesn't hate him for the others.

Trust me. It's true.