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.
Posted on 05/13/2002 1:41:59 PM PDT by KantianBurke
Tuesday, April 23, 2002 - WASHINGTON - Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., renewed his fight with President Bush over immigration laws Monday, mixing his pointed criticisms of the president's policies with lavish praise for Bush's leadership. It wasn't enough, however, to win over the president's aides. Tancredo said he got a second call in four days from the White House, this one complaining about the tone of a letter he sent the president offering "some political advice."
"I want to be polite. I really like the president. I really like him a lot," the Colorado lawmaker said shortly after he was berated by Ken Mehlman, White House director of political affairs.
The president's senior political adviser, Karl Rove, upbraided the two-term conservative Friday over statements he made attacking Bush in a Washington Times interview.
"The president is not on our side," Tancredo told the paper, complaining that Bush supports an "open door" border policy that could lead to another terrorist attack. "Then the blood of the people killed will be on this administration and this Congress."
Tancredo didn't dispute any of the quotations. He was just surprised, he said, that the White House took so much offense at them.
Tancredo, who heads the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus, long has been an outspoken critic of Bush's immigration policies. Earlier this year, he came within one vote of blocking House passage of a Bush-supported bill to allow individuals who are in the country illegally to become legal residents.
None of Tancredo's previous comments stirred the White House to action as much as his interview with the Times, a conservative newspaper with a strong following among the president's senior advisers. In a luncheon meeting with the paper's editors and reporters Thursday, Tancredo argued that the president's policies are a threat to national security.
Hoping he could open discussions between the president and members of his caucus over the issues, Tancredo on Monday sent the president a letter restating his "strong opposition" to open borders. It didn't mention the flap over his Times comments.
"I, like most Americans, am immensely thankful that our nation has the great fortune of having you at the helm of the ship of state to guide us through this difficult time in history," Tancredo wrote. "Your courage and determination have been inspirational, and I will do all I can to support your efforts to destroy every vestige of those organizations that pose a threat to our way of life."
That was neither a retreat nor an apology, Tancredo said. "What I hoped was we could have some sort of dialogue on this."
At the very least, Tancredo said, he hoped it would prompt Bush to issue a statement backing the reorganization of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. In the letter, Tancredo also noted that Rove had not met with him or the caucus over the issue despite repeated invitations.
Tancredo said he has never been involved in so public a dispute with someone he admires.
"This is not pleasant for me. If the issue didn't demand it, I wouldn't do it. This one happens to be enormously important."
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.
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
Is the FAA a private organization?
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.
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.
Even if it doesn't seem to be making any difference!
Lest you accidently create a false impression...
US authorities have poo-pooed it as well.
More grandstanding, it appears.
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.
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 ..
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.
I don't think it matters to those of either foolish consistency... Whether Basher or Bot.
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.
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.
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.