Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

A rare moment, indeed!Follow

#27 May 18 2007 at 6:57 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Are you seriously saying you've never heard the "even his own party doesn't agree with him!" argument?
As a criticism against immigration reform from the Left? No, I can't say I have. Seriously.

*Shrug*


Dunno what to say Joph. I specifically recall back when GWB started talking about his ideas for a guest worker program, several people panning it almost entirely because a) it came from GWB, and b) his own party didn't like it.


I even recall pointing this out to Smash at one point (when he was in usual rant mode) about how whenever Bush did something that the Republican Congress liked, he was "toeing the party line", but whenever he did something they didn't like, he "didn't even follow his own party's agenda". The issue of Bush's immigration was one of those cases, his economic policies were another (the whole "he's running a deficit so he's not even following supply side economics right!" argument).

I wouldn't have commented on this if I hadn't seen it several times in the past. Tell ya what. I don't feel like digging through old threads. I'll just point it out the next time it happens. Shouldn't take long...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#28 May 18 2007 at 7:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Dunno what to say Joph.
Me neither. If you want to dig up a cite or something, go crazy.
Quote:
I don't feel like digging through old threads. I'll just point it out the next time it happens.
Knock yourself out.

Given that I have $3 more disposible income than you and can afford Premium, I did a search for Immigration under Smash's name. The closest I found to a comment about immigration reform was this thread in which Smash notes that Bush is reaching across to the Left because its his only chance of getting immigration reform passed within his term. He's not deriding Bush for it at all. In fact, he's saying that Bush isn't some single-note Republican monster who can't adjust to get his priorities met.

If you want to consider that evidence that people on the Left are ******** about Bush not carrying the party line re: immigration, then I guess you proved... something?

Edited, May 18th 2007 10:09pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#29 May 19 2007 at 7:16 AM Rating: Decent
Quote:
Dunno what to say Joph. I specifically recall back when GWB started talking about his ideas for a guest worker program, several people panning it almost entirely because a) it came from GWB, and b) his own party didn't like it.



The Dems have no problem with this bill because if they did Howard Dean would be after them with his "Bwayahhh" and nobody wants that. Oh yeah, that'll make anybody hold the party line.
#30 May 19 2007 at 8:16 AM Rating: Good
*****
16,160 posts
Bush has long been at odds with the Republican party on immigration, amnesty, and reform. In terms of sheer audacity, <gasp!> he out-Lefts the Left for the most part. Personally, I don't think he goes far enough. I say open up the borders with May-hee-co in exchange for free access to their markets-- particularly their oil industry.

/shrugs

It's a win-win situation: They become our 52nd state and we become Ed McMahon standing on the doorstep to their adobe/mud hut with a zillion dollar check in hand.

Totem
#31 May 19 2007 at 10:46 AM Rating: Decent
***
2,501 posts
I guess I'll chime in here, since the fed is going to do whatever the fUck it want's anyway.

I like that this bill, from what I've read, doesn't reward illegal aliens with citizenship, yet, allows people to have legal alien status, with little more than a fine. Great, now who's going to collect the fines?

Personally I'm of the mind that when ANY immigrant, illegal or not, commits a crime, they be punished and deported, as quickly as possible. I'm sure all of you know about the two girls killed in Virginia Beach recently, by an illegal alien. We've leared a little more about this kid lately, and not only has he had a drinking problem since he crossed the border, he's had issues with the law in several states, involving drinking. Had this punk kid been booted out of the country after the first offense, two teen girls would still be alive, and their families not grieving. Nevermind the money that the government is going to spend sticking his *** in jail.

I think that this will end up being the legacy of W., after the stigma of the war wears off in a few more years. Right after Iran devlops a nuke, and Israel blows it up in their faces. The Iraq war will be see for being "great foresight", allowing a forward base of operations to take on Iran, rather than a war that could have waited another year or so, while new information was obtained, where it could have been discovered that a nuclear program was at best, a wet dream for Saddam, and that all he could "muster" was chemical.
#32 May 19 2007 at 2:14 PM Rating: Good
Quote:
The Iraq war will be see for being "great foresight", allowing a forward base of operations to take on Iran, rather than a war that could have waited another year or so, while new information was obtained, where it could have been discovered that a nuclear program was at best, a wet dream for Saddam, and that all he could "muster" was chemical.


Selling the Iraqi war as "great forsight allowing a forward base of operations to take on Iran" wouldn't have worked either.

He sold the war using WMDs, which didn't exist, got us stuck in Iraq, and will leave office with us still stuck there.

Hell of a legacy.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#33 May 19 2007 at 2:53 PM Rating: Good
****
8,619 posts
Even a broken clock is right twice a day, Bush still has a way to go to make it twice in an adminstration though...

Half way G.W don't give up yet, although invading Iran is NOT the answer!

I may not know how to spell, but at least i hold the book the right way up

Edited, May 19th 2007 6:54pm by tarv
#34 May 19 2007 at 5:26 PM Rating: Good
*****
16,160 posts
Not a digital clock, tarv. So in that sense on a daily basis Dubya is correct two more times than his Lefty opponents. RACK Bush.

Totem
#35 May 19 2007 at 9:52 PM Rating: Decent
****
8,619 posts
Quote:
Not a digital clock, tarv.
They have digital clocks in Texas??? Say it ain't so!! That would ruin my wild stereotype of gungho primative Texans.
#36 May 20 2007 at 1:15 PM Rating: Default
****
9,997 posts
Personally I think we should just cut out the middle man and go manifest destiny all over Central America. They want America? Let's bring it to them!

#37REDACTED, Posted: May 21 2007 at 5:38 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Flea,
#38 May 21 2007 at 6:10 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
achileez wrote:
But hey let's applaud Bush because he's catering to his mexican amigos.
Why do you hate your president? Is it because you love terrorism? Smiley: frown
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#39REDACTED, Posted: May 21 2007 at 6:53 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophed,
#40 May 21 2007 at 7:01 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
You're dodging the question. Probably because you don't want to admit you hate our president. You should be ashamed; both for your hatred of our leaders and for your panty-waisted attempts to avoid answering for your hatred.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#41REDACTED, Posted: May 21 2007 at 7:27 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophed,
#42 May 21 2007 at 7:32 AM Rating: Decent
***
2,501 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:
Quote:
The Iraq war will be see for being "great foresight", allowing a forward base of operations to take on Iran, rather than a war that could have waited another year or so, while new information was obtained, where it could have been discovered that a nuclear program was at best, a wet dream for Saddam, and that all he could "muster" was chemical.


Selling the Iraqi war as "great forsight allowing a forward base of operations to take on Iran" wouldn't have worked either.

He sold the war using WMDs, which didn't exist, got us stuck in Iraq, and will leave office with us still stuck there.

Hell of a legacy.


I quoted it all, and will add this for you:

Quote:
Link
"We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons," Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., said in a quickly called press conference late Wednesday afternoon.


Taken from this report: http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf

Now, we've found chemical weapons of mass distruction, so...your argument again was? Oh wait, there were no WMDs, that was it. Stop blabbering the same useless bullShit as the rest of the ignorant masses. We didn't find nukes. THAT was the major part of what we were sold. THAT's what we haven't found. At least be honest.

Now, to clarify something that you didn't get: My comments on Iraq being "great foresight" were sarcasm. The lack of planning astounds me. I'm flummoxed that ANYONE in a position of power in the Pentagon allowed something like this to happen. The only person that I can recall attempting to stop it was Powell, and he was dismissed for being a darkie, rather than one of the men that brought Iraq to it's knees once before. Had there been a real plan we wouldn't have half the problems that we have now. We should have taken the majority of combat forces out of Iraq after disposing of Saddam. Rebuilding the country wasn't our problem to begin with, and shouldn't have been factored into the victory.

I do believe that Iraq isn't going to be the greatest legacy of W. Iraq will be "won" before we leave. It will be as stable as most countries in the ME within a few years. Well, that's my opinion anyway. I'm basing that on two years of world history classes, and studying countries postwar. A similar trend of "crisis" persists for a couple of years afterword. Usually resolved when the majority gains the political power they request.

Then again, what will it matter with the world "ending" on December 21, 2012 anyway?
#43 May 21 2007 at 7:32 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
achileez wrote:
I just don't feel the need to answer such an absurd queston.
I understand. I'd try to dodge the question too if I were you.

For giggles, I'll also reply to:
Quote:
free to explain why you support one type of criminal as opposed to another.
Are you implying that there is an equivalency between all crimes? You need to become acquainted with our legal system.

Edited, May 21st 2007 10:39am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#44REDACTED, Posted: May 21 2007 at 7:42 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophed,
#45 May 21 2007 at 8:00 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
achileez wrote:
Still waiting for you to answer why breaking the law should have no consequence.
Waiting for an answer as to why it should in this particular instance. Our legal system has the capacity to dismiss charges and give non-punitive sentances depending on numerous factors. In fact, the proposed legislation contains several punitive measures required to attempt legitimacy so I'm not sure what it is you're crying about.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#46REDACTED, Posted: May 21 2007 at 8:15 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophed,
#47 May 21 2007 at 8:20 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
achileez wrote:
and what "numerous factors" are you referring to?
Severity of charges, past history, circumstances, yadda yadda. I'm not about to go over Principles of Law 101 with you to have a decent conversation just because you're ignorant. You're on the web, go use Google.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#48 May 21 2007 at 8:21 AM Rating: Decent
***
2,501 posts
Anyone see this from Fred Thompson?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQLFfTd2l44

For those of you who are like me and without speakers at work, here's the transcript:

Quote:
We are all very well aware of the fact that we have an illegal-immigration problem in this country. As usual, we avoided the problem for as long as we could and when we couldn't avoid it any longer we were told that, indeed, somewhere between 12 and 20 million people had somehow come into this country unnoticed.

It's like we went overnight from "no problem" to a problem so big that it now defies a good solution. It's become one of those "there are no good choices only less bad choices" that Americans are becoming all too familiar with.

We know that the overwhelming majority of illegals come across the Mexican border. Fortunately, we've got someone who is all too willing to tell us what we should do about it — the president of Mexico Philipe Calderon. President Calderon doesn't think much of our border policies. He criticizes our efforts to secure the border with things such as border fencing. He says that bottle necks at U.S. checkpoints hurt Mexican commerce and force his citizens to migrate illegally in order to make a living (and of course send money back to Mexico). He apparently thinks we should do nothing except make American citizens out of his constituents. Calderon also accused U.S. officials of failing to do enough to stop the flow of drugs in to the United States. Mexican politicians gave President Bush an earful of all of this during his recent trip to Mexico.

I think its time for a little plain talk to the leaders of Mexico. Something like: hey guys, you're our friends and neighbors and we love you but it's time you had a little dose of reality. A sovereign nation loses that status if it cannot secure its own borders and we are going to do whatever is necessary to do so, although our policies won't be as harsh as yours are along your southern border. And criticizing the U.S. for alternately doing too much and too little to stop your illegal activities is not going to set too well with Americans of good will who are trying to figure a way out of the mess that your and our open borders policy has already created. My friends, it's also time for a little introspection. Since we all agree that improving Mexico's economy will help with the illegal-immigration problem, you might want to consider your own left-of -center policies. For example, nationalized industries are not known for enhancing economic growth. Just a thought. But here's something even more to the point that you might want to think about: What does it say about the leadership of a country when that country's economy and politics are dependent upon the exportation of its own citizens?


He makes a very valid arguement.
#49 May 21 2007 at 8:38 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Metastophicleas wrote:
He makes a very valid arguement.
And yet provides no solutions, particularly in regards to the existing illegal immigrants.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#50 May 21 2007 at 8:43 AM Rating: Default
jophed,

Quote:
And yet provides no solutions, particularly in regards to the existing illegal immigrants


Deport them.

Varus
#51 May 21 2007 at 9:06 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
achileez wrote:
Deport them.
Your simplistic views mesh well with your stunted knowledge Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 273 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (273)