Posted on 06/05/2002 1:20:54 PM PDT by 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.
The student tracking only computerizes what we already have, which does not track anyone. The INS and Clinton killed the best hope for a great student tracking system a few years ago.
All the high-tech visas in the world will not stop the 2 - 4 million that cross the border illegally every year.
Nothing in this bill would have prevented Atta from getting into the country. It would have slowed down their training, but the terrorist are pretty patient and would have waited.
Tell me, are they actually sitting on the ground? Is that why the paperwork is backlogged for a year?
Ignore the feeble joke. I'm actually interested in your opinion about what the problem is and what would fix it, if you would be so good as to opine on the subject.
Which is far better than punishing someone who is trying to sneak in by keeping him here, feeding him, clothing him, providing medical care, and weight-lifting equipment for a period of time, with the option of staying longer as a reward for bad behavior.
FWIW, I think the GOP really needs to step back and define what they stand for as well. When you're the opposition party, it's easy to become obsessed with gaining power - to the point where your platform becomes secondary. It's been a couple years now, and examining where they're looking to go would be a great idea. I suspect it would sell to the public as well, if the public believed this was an honest, nonpolitical effort.
With Bin Laden's millions, even an extensive background search would have been useless.
You should take it as a compliment. Your post was insightful enough to preclude any canned responses claiming you're a Bush-basher. Job well done.
To be perfectly honest, In five years of working for INS, I have only seen one Immigration Lawyer who had a good grasp of Immigration Law.
Personally I don't trust immigration lawyers and do not recommend them to immigrants. There are many free or low cost services out there that know more about immigration law than most immigration lawyers.
Just my opinion and your lawyer may know what he is saying, but most immigration layers never went to school to study immigration. If you wish to know about immigration law, the best person to speak with is an Adjudicator or Inspector.
If you want the problem fixed, this is what needs to be done:
1. Cut off all welfare to anyone not legally in the US. No health care, emergency services, food stamps, drivers licenses, ect...
2. Punish those people and businesses that hire illegals. Through the subject in jail and seize the assets (selling the assets to fund the INS).
3. Stop sending billions of dollars to our middle east enemies and get it into Mexico in a very controlled fashion and bring there economy in line with ours and Canada’s.
If there is no welfare` benefits and no jobs and Mexico is not a bad place to live, then Mexicans would not be heading north and would be more pro active in keep illegals out of there country that are heading north.
If you want to stop the Att's of the world, you need a functional intelligence apparatus that passes along its intel.
LOL Twy not to make youaw posts incompwehensibew! Love BABA
"You're a pretty amusing paradox, Luis.
You have no fuel,
you bring no heat...
But, you're never out of gas."
lmao
"If you want to stop the Atta's of the world, you need a functional, international intelligence apparatus that passes along its intel."
Now remember, folks, this discussion about Clinton, impeachment and his "guilt" started when Luis chimed in, on a discussion I was having with William Tell, to claim that Clinton was properly investigated and prosecuted in the Monica and BJGate matter. So I guess he thinks the impeachment trial was "above board". Not a very conservative sounding notion, is it? And if it was above board then he must also agree with the "not guilty" verdict? Is that true Luis? Do you agree with the "not guilty" verdict of the Senate in the impeachment trial? Why that sure doesn't sound like something a conservative would believe, does it?
And I guess Luis thinks that trial was all that was all that was need, justified or ever possible where Clinton AND Clinton related crimes are concerned. He wants you to ignore the possibility that Clinton AND MANY OTHERS could have been tried in a REAL COURT after Clinton left office for the lies told DURING the impeachment investigation and for MANY, MANY other crimes that weren't even covered or investigated during the impeachment. Again, that sounds like something a liberal would want, doesn't it folks?
So just don't forget where and why this conversation started as Luis tries to distract you from the issue at hand. Instead, notice that Luis doesn't say one word about the lies under oath that both Sid Blumenthal and Vernon Jordan were caught making during the impeachment. Notice he has no response to the fact that Starr allowed the Whitehouse to keep the FBI files for YEARS after they were discovered to be illegally in the Whitehouse. Yet, he claims that those matters were properly investigated and prosecuted.
sarcasm alert on ... Right, Luis ... sarcasm alert off
This little trick of yours of addressing what people DON'T talk about instead of what they do talk about is old as your cut-and-paste rants.
"...to claim that Clinton was properly investigated and prosecuted in the Monica and BJGate matter."
You're posting from that alternate universe you occasionally slip into once again, show me where I ever said that Clinton was properly investigated or prosecuted.
Your continued lies and distortions have become the laughing stock of FR. You are our official FR buffoon, I can close my eyes and see the hat and pointy shoes.
What I think, and what I believe in are amply documented in FR, the fact that you believe that you can openly misconstrue what's available for all to see, confirms my opinion that you are simply insane.
Funny, but I never asked you about any of those. But I did ask you specifically how you could claim MonicaGate was properly prosecuted if they didn't follow up on the lies by Blumenthal and Jordan during their impeachment trial questions under oath? I did ask you SPECIFICALLY why you think you could trust Starr's investigation in MonicaGate when he allowed the Clinton Whitehouse to keep the FBI files in FileGate after he told us it was illegal for the Clinton Whitehouse to have them? But you don't want to talk about that do you?
This little trick of yours of addressing what people DON'T talk about instead of what they do talk about is old as your cut-and-paste rants.
There is nothing tricky about this, Luis. You make a claim. I present FACTS that seem to demolish that claim. You then ignore those facts and just repeat your claim along with trying to again deflect the discussion away from the question that started it.
"...to claim that Clinton was properly investigated and prosecuted in the Monica and BJGate matter." You're posting from that alternate universe you occasionally slip into once again, show me where I ever said that Clinton was properly investigated or prosecuted.
Oh Boy. Another one that wants to go the way of RedBloodedAmerican. And in this case I don't even have to quote from another thread to prove your LYING. The following if from this thread:
************
To: William Tell
I challenge you to show me even one Clinton crime which is recognized by a majority of Americans.
I challenge you to show me even one Clinton-era crime which was properly investigated and prosecuted?
You won't get a majority of Americans to recognize Clinton crime if you don't do that first.
1163 posted on 6/6/02 6:07 PM Pacific by BeAChooser
To: BeAChooser
"I challenge you to show me even one Clinton-era crime which was properly investigated and prosecuted?"
Monica Lewinski and BJgate.
1165 posted on 6/6/02 6:09 PM Pacific by Luis Gonzalez
********
Your continued lies and distortions have become the laughing stock of FR.
Really. Read the above posts and then tell us whose LYING and DISTORTING.
You are our official FR buffoon, I can close my eyes and see the hat and pointy shoes.
And you are a stealth democRAT, as I've said for months ... as I'm sure most people now suspect. You debate like a democrat and you hold views that only a democRAT would hold. But most important of all, you RUN from all facts that might put democRATS behind bars.
What I think, and what I believe in are amply documented in FR,
sarcasm alert on ... Right, Luis ... sarcasm alert off
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.