National Guard Patrolling the BorderFollow

That leaves them with the "it's not enough" angle, which is just plain silly given the sparse numbers of Border Patrol in relation to border already. In the process of making that argument, they'll essentially have to emphasize the problems with border security, which also falls right in line with what Republican's want.

Yeah because pointing out how preposterous it is to co-opt the National gaurd into doing yet something else it's not designed to with absolutely no training and zero experience would be far, far, too challenging.

It does follow administration logic fairly soundly though. Terrorists enter country from Canada, send troops to Mexico. Dovetails nicely with Iraq.

I'd rather see the Guardsmen being used to beef up the file clerk numbers at the INS, since they can't seem to keep up with the paperwork involved in tracking and deporting expired visas.

And they could just bayonet the bunny rabbits!

Lol. But this is exactly the argument that the Dems can't make. Because it puts them in the semantic position of arguing that guarding the nation is not something that the National Guard is supposed to do.

The public at large is not aware of the details of the charter and duties of the National Guard. They do know what it's called though. No way on earth will that argument fly...

So, wait. Are you saying that Bush is making this decision just to stick it to or manipulate the big meanie-head Democrats?

Hmmm, how can I make it trickier for people to speak against me... I know!

Just a little FYI, in the Debate Club this would be a fine tactic. As a basis for national policy? Not so much.

This is not so much about defending the Mexican border from terrorists as securing it from those who are crossing it illegally by the millions. I honestly don't see what the big deal is here. What do you propose as an alternative? Grab about 10,000 border patrolmen who are wandering the streets of New York and Boston with nothing to do?

It's a temporary solution. It's a quick 1-year fix until the correct and properly trained personnel can be put into place. It's part of a larger plan of action to deal with illegal immigrants. While I don't agree with parts of Bush's plan, at least it's a real plan of action that's out there for everyone to improve upon if they can.

And it's very curious that no one is jumping up in praise of how Bush is actually for once offering a middle-ground compromise instead of bullishly forcing his own way, come hell or high water. This is the kind of approach you tireless complainers have been whining for, isn't it? Instead your reaction is.... more complaining. Of course.

I thought the arguement was always: "Why are we spending all this money on the War when it could be better spent here at home?"

For me it was never about defending this country, it was about spending money here and not there. Hell I'd rather spend the money on privatizing the schools, like you advocate, than on this war.

Sure. So Bush came up with a methodology that most Conservatives will agree with, even some Liberals will agree with, and which the majority of the population will agree with, and which the far Left will have a hard time playing semantic games with.

Is it a long term solution? Nope. But it's "doing something". As opposed to the endless debating over what to do that has been the hallmark of this issue for the last several decades. It's a step in the right direction at a time when we need a step in that right direction.




I'm speaking in general terms, not on this issue. The "Left" has crafted an opposition position based almost entirely on rhetoric, semantics, and how any specific thing can be spun to make the Right look bad. Need I go down a list for you? NSA spying program. Bush "lying about WMD". Wilson's "debunk of Bush's statements about uranium". Iraq being "unconnected to 9/11". In all of these cases (and many many more), the common theme is that the facts of the issue are grossly misrepresented by the Left in order to make them appear to be something they're not.

In short, they aren't debating the political issues on their own merits, but forming arguments designed to convince an increasingly ill-informed public that the "other side's" solution is bad. Not with facts, but with semantic games.

Those are the "debating tricks" being used by the Left. It's been going on for a long time, but has reached a fevered pitch in the last handful of years. An unfortunate side effect is that the Republicans have to consider the rhetoric response from the Left whenever they propose any action. It would be wonderfully nice if they could propose something and have it responded to on it's merits, but that's not been the case for some time now.



This assumes that it's not equally important to defend our borders at home *and* finish what we're doing in Iraq. You have to essentially bury your head in the sand and ignore foreign policy to make that assumption.

Which, I might remind you, is why 9/11 happened. 9/11 didn't happen because we didn't have sufficient forces to defend our border. It happened because we did not pay sufficient attention to the growing threat that Al-qaeda represented.

Um. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't *you* argue against it? Clearly, the fringe left will try to argue the point. And clearly, they'll only separate themselves from the bulk of the population in the process.

Which is the point. It's a wedge tactic. By taking a position that most people agree with, Bush is counting on the Left Wing nutjobs being absolutely unable to stop themselves from finding some way to criticise it anyway. And they'll do it in more or less exactly the way you did. And those arguments will be trivially destroyed, just as I destroyed yours. The result being that the middle will lean away from the Left as a result.


But those in the fringe wont see it because they tend to honestly believe that everyone agrees with them... Time will tell though. Maybe this time you're right Smash. You've only been wrong the last 3 times we had this discussion (one time for each of the last 3 national elections). Even a blind squirrel will occasionally find a nut. This might be your time.

And yet, your *first* response to the issue was to say this:




Yeah. It's such an obvious trap that you fell right into it.

*chuckle*


Face it Smash. You *are* representative of the Far Left. If that was your first reaction, it's a good bet that you're not the only one. And the ridiculousness of this argument is trivially easy to point out (as I already did).


Again (for the really slow): Are you seriously trying to argue that an organization called the National Guard shouldn't have anything to do with guarding the nation's borders? I think that'll be a hard argument to make without making yourself look ridiculous. But you didn't hesitate to make it. Think about that...

Romantic as that may sound, I think the more likely reaction would be along the lines matter/anti-matter. They'd both be obliterated by the resulting blast and there would be nothing left but a crater where they had stood.

And suddenly I'd be the only one making long-*** rambling posts...

In all honesty it will never happen because gbaji is a wretched shell of a human being who would never go meet or interact with one of us in person because it would shatter the online person that he feels he has created.

Seriously the guy is like Dwight Schrute from the Office. Only more pathetic by a lot.

So what's your proposal Smash? Your massive vortex of charisma is only drawing more illegals into the country. What are we to do?