Is O'Reilly Losing His Grip?

You can't answer my question so you say that I am showing my ignorance without explaining why.

It looks very much like you can't respond to my post because I am right. You don't want me to be right so you just say that I am ignorant instead of describing why you think that I am wrong.

At least you responded with something.

As for the other issue which you chose to respond to :

Of course we can seal our borders. We spend 350 Billion on the military. How much do we spend on the INS ? Enough , I'm sure. We could do it with just the INS with it's current budget if we were willing to use force.

We could seal the southern border tomorrow easily if we wanted to. Well it might take a week or so.

We seal the border with North Korea just fine don't we ? Is that secure enough for you ?
It wouldn't take that kind of effort though. There wouldn't be the need tanks motors etc , or for support troops behind the lines. It would be a breaze.

"BTW. How in the hell are we supposed to "seal our borders"? It's physically, economically and politically impossible. People that demand that are out of touch with reality."

Don't be so hard on Stalin. That is just an extreme statement coming from frustration due to the belief that far too little is being done. We all recognize that it would be impractical if we could, but impossible to actually "SEAL our borders." But we can do far more.

We have a million or more illegals crossing our southern border and tens of thousands crossing in the north every year. Then there are the cargo containers filled with them that enter our ports every day. It's long past time to put a sizable military force in charge of defending our borders.

The argument that to try to TOTALLY secure the borders would devestate our international trade and hence our economy, is a canard. Every other nation of the world does a better job of this than do we. WE CAN SIGNIFICANTLY NARROW THE RISK. The argument that with over 8,00 miles of border, most of which is the world's wildest wilderness (think about the Alaska-Canada border) we can never actually "seal" it anyway is a strawman of extremes. We can never totally prevent crime but few would argue for the eliminatioin of law enforcement efforts. Again...WE CAN SIGNIFICANTLY NARROW THE RISK.

So now the question becomes, "Why aren't we?" The short answer is...politics. The President will do nothing which can be twisted or construed as being anti hispanic. He wants to bring the hispanic voting block into the GOP. He has had a very good track record in doing this. His heir apparant, Jeb, is married to an hispanic woman and will greatly benefit from this effort when he runs for president in 2008. By 2016, after 16 years of Bush presidencies, with the hispanic population firmly entrenched in the GOP voting block, the Republican party becomes the permanent majority party for the 21st century.

When viewed from a purely political point of view it may be brilliant strategy. From the perspective of national security the risks are grave. I hope that by 2016 there will still be a nation for my children and grandchildren to to enjoy.

Now he's just a good "bullshitter"?

You're the one who needs another drink, ass.

Book after book after book has been written in just the last few years, many by those who were not in Reagan's "inner circle" or who cannot be characterized as Reagan synchophants, and almost without exception, the ridiculous assertion that Reagan was nothing more than an ambling, amiable, but stubborn Irish raconteur is shown up as the lie that it is.

Try Reagan's War or The Age of Reagan just for starters.

Geez, I would never have thought that I would have to defend the Great One on FreeRepublic, but fools are everywhere, I guess. And I do not suffer them gladly.

"We seal the border with North Korea just fine don't we ? Is that secure enough for you ?"

Come on Stalin. You know the economic impact of a southern border THAT tight would be devestating. I know, I know, the economic impact of a nuclear explosion in Houston or Denver would be devestating, too. But, we CAN have a secure border and still NOT negatively impact commerce. You do your argument a disservice by taking an approach that is excessively extreme (although emotionally I'm right there with you).

I'm not saying that we should seal it like we seal the border between north and south Korea. I'm using that as an example to point out that we can seal it if we want to.

A few land mines would do the trick without impacting commerce at all and it would be dirt cheap. Of course we would tell the Mexicans that we are mining the border first. They would stop trying to cross illegally immediately.

You're being too hard on Taxed. He already explained that he might have been going too far for saying that he was just an opportunist. Reagan was a good "bullshitter". He had to be. The press was against him and the polls had the public disagreeing with him too. He plodded ahead with the cold war anyway. Politicians have to be good bullshitters.

You have to admit that Reagan wasn;t all knowing and all good. That is silly. He gave us the saving in loan scandal ; remember. He was no genius. It's healthy to question the past.

Sorry, I still think he's a bit over-rated.

I liked him when he was on Rev. Jackson's case -- I don't think Rather or Jennings took on the Racist Mafia.

Really excellent points.

Woodrow Wilson

You should have left him out of your list, unless you want to provide evidence for the opposition.

I didn't want to get omission flak, and adding him wasn't to bad because there was more presidential bad-assedness in any of the first 4's 'roids than all of Wilson ;)

O'Reilly is compelled to defend Kennedy since both are Catholic. Most of his guests are too. He's also against the capital punishment. Most recently he humiliated a former homosexual, Steven Bennent. He is a Protestant. He referred to him as a "religious fanatic" because Steve admitted that the good Lord helped himextract himself forfrom the homosexual lifestyle. He's happily married for 8 years with two kids. That's a slap in God's face to ridicule a follower of Him.

I now avoid him to. His "No Spin Zone" is humanist philosophy. He gets off on humanisitic self righteousness. We need less of that; not more.