Video from Reconquista California (video and pictures)

http://www.wehategringos.com ^ | 3/20/06

[MAWG]

Wrong site troll. I see you just joined up today. Get lost. Whining, bedwetting losers like you aren't welcome here. Go back to DU where you belong. You have nothing to say that we all haven't heard and discounted years ago.

[MAWG]

Trolls are unwelcome here. You'll be zotted soon. Get Lost. Whining, bedwetting losers like you have nothing to say that we haven't heard and discounted before.

[Alexius]

Trolls are unwelcome here.

Who have I trolled? By pointing out that our "conservative" President is as pro-open borders as his predecessor I've become a troll?

You'll be zotted soon.

Ah yes, ban all those who disagree. That makes sense. Go ahead stick your head in the sand and tell yourself that there are no problems with the Administrations policy on immigration...or should I say lack of policy.

Get Lost.

You first.

Whining, bedwetting losers like you have nothing to say that we haven't heard and discounted before.

Projection on your part? Interesting that you assume those who disagree with your world view are whiners and bed wetters. It must bring you comfort and you blindly follow your leaders.

[MAWG]

Are you a Republican/conservative?

[MAWG]

"...... I am welcome where ever I go."


This site is for conservatives only. Go back and read the intro to Free Republic. You are not a conservative. Get Lost. You dont belong here. Go back to DU where you belong.

[MAWG]

You're a newbie so I'm gonna give you some advice. Siding with obvious DU trolls is a bad idea. Period.

[Alexius]

I don't "side" with people. I posted my views as a Californian and as an American. The fact is that Bush is awful when it comes to immigration. As bad if not worse than Clinton. If DU trolls say that, good on them. I am not going to swallow the party line and just assume that Bush is acting according to our national interest. He is not. I have to live with the effects of his immigration policies as will my children and grandchildren. With Republicans like him who needs democrats. Both are open borders both refuse to adress the problem.

[Indy Pendance]

President Bush is Republican, not Conservative. Right now, the Republican party is the only party to convert to conversativism. The dems didn't change this country in a couple years, it took over 60+ years of incrementalism. (plus the depression didn't hurt their base, ie, social security) Voters will not automatically switch ideals, after years of liberal indoctrination camps, aka public education. We are going to have to use the same plan as the dems did since the early 1900's. Understand, the way to reform is within existing infrastructure such as the Republican party.

Bashing the president, who is president to all the people, liberals as well, isn't going to change who he is. But in time, if we keep winning seats, we'll be able to put into office stronger and stronger conservatives, purging the rinos. It might take another 10-20 years. But, we're way better off now than with an Al Gore or John Kerry presidency. Who knows, maybe the 17th will be repealed and senators like Kennedy, who have no business being in office for over 40 years will be out of the system.

[MAWG]

Let me ask you this then. Would you like to see George W. Bush impeached, yes or no.

[Alexius]

No. He has not committed a crime. He simply won't do the job he was elected to do.

But if an Islamist walks across the border (as many of them are) and blows up Americans he should be impeached right away.

[MAWG]

No , But, as any shrink will tell you means yes. I would have preferred that you be honest.

[Alexius]

I agree with your post but why shouldn't we expect that a president who ran as a conservative, do the job that he is supposed to do? 60 more years of open borders will produce for our children and grandchildren a very different country. I do not want to see that happen. These photos are but a glimpse of what is to come if we have another 16 years of Open borders presidents.

[Alexius]

How am I being dishonest?

[visualops]

"This is are land"

sheesh.

[Indy Pendance]

He didn't run as a conservative, he ran as a Republican. Nevertheless, I don't know why he isn't doing anything about borders (republican pandering?). Honestly, I'm more worried about Canada, no one thinks about that threat, and it's a much larger and porous border. It's troubling. The only reason I can think of is a quote I heard or read somewhere, paraphrasing...

A good president focuses on 3-4 issues during his presidency. Bush had 9-11, the economy, jobs, rebuilding the military (all Clinton legacies). Some say the border is part of terrorism, and I agree. I've seen reports of increased border security, etc, but every time something good appears, 20 new bad things are happening. Perhaps we're just to close to the issue, being politically savvy and all that. Maybe we're focusing too much on the minutia, and not the broad picture of the overall plan?

I know you're frustrated, most of us are. Let's say the president says, from here on out, we'll place military ever 100 feet at the borders, round up every illegal and deport them. How would congress react? Is the border issue totally one man's responsibility? Like I said earlier, we have too many rinos in all areas of government, and it's our responsibility at the state level to elect conservatives to federal office, not just republicans. I'm just pondering...

[Alexius]

He didn't run as a conservative, he ran as a Republican.

He did run as a compassionate conservative but I understand your point. I voted for him twice and I knew that he was not Pat Buchanan.

Nevertheless, I don't know why he isn't doing anything about borders

If we actually tightened up the borders the houseing market would slow as would the economy. Also, there is an erroneous belief that if the GOP plays nice on the illegal immigration issue that it will win hispanic voters.

Honestly, I'm more worried about Canada, no one thinks about that threat, and it's a much larger and porous border. It's troubling.

I agree. Canada has it's own issues with immigration, particularly from the Islamic world that will directly effect us if we do not tighten our northern border as well.

In the end you are correct that this is a bigger problem than one man. However, when he places himself to the left of Hillary Clinton on this issue (yes I know she is full of it and would be worse) than as a conservative I can no longer support him. As I have said, I voted for him twice but I can no longer support him or his policies as long as he is creating our own little Kosovo in the Southwest. I live here and see it happening.

[Indy Pendance]

Well, then, I suppose he'll just not get that third term election bid. He's not going to run for anything, and spouting here isn't really going to help. You don't support our efforts in Afghanistan or Iraq? You don't support the 4.something unemployment rate? President Bush has done a lot of good as well. Look at 9-11 and where we are today. (God forbid Gore was president then, I'd be sporting a burka right now) There's a ton of red tape to overcome, that's why we need to get rid of rinos in the house and senate. You need to get down and dirty in your area. That's where the real stuff happens. Expecting one person to take care of it all isn't going to get squat. Removing feinstein and boxer would be a start, for example. (we're working on feingold and kohl here, kohl is a gazillionaire, and uses his own money for his elections, hence term limits)

Speaking of terms. What about removing the 17th, or placing term limits on all branches of gov, including the judiciary? Back in the 1770's people didn't normally live into their 90's and serve on the supreme court. I'm thinking 2 terms for house and senate, and maybe 20 for the supremes. That would go a long way to government reform. Pols wouldn't be pandering for votes. And, more regular joes could be elected to office, as intended. And, remove the bennies. It's supposed to be a temporary position, not a life long career choice. I think you'd see a huge improvement in our government if something like this was implemented. Including immigration.

[Alexius]

Well, then, I suppose he'll just not get that third term election bid.

Indeed. But then being a Californian, my votes for him in the last elections didnt do much either.

He's not going to run for anything, and spouting here isn't really going to help.

Yeah but it helps to vent.

You don't support our efforts in Afghanistan or Iraq?

I support both. However, I think he has handled post-war Iraq terribly.

God forbid Gore was president then, I'd be sporting a burka right now

Probubly so! :-)

You need to get down and dirty in your area. That's where the real stuff happens.

I used to work for the GOP.

Expecting one person to take care of it all isn't going to get squat. Removing feinstein and boxer would be a start, for example.

Boxer and Feinstein are here as long as they want. This state is insane.

What about removing the 17th, or placing term limits on all branches of gov, including the judiciary?

I've yet to make up my mind on that. I would love to get rid of Ted Kennedy in the Senate and Ginsberg in the SC but that would mean we would lose Scalia. I lean towards getting rid of it frankly because I want Kennedy gone. However, in CA we had a great Governor in Pete Wilson who was termed out and we got Gray "Rolling Blackout" Davis. Davis killed 187 and redistricted to make sure Dems win this state for the next 30-40 years. So in essence we gave the Dems the rope to hang us.

[Indy Pendance]

All your comments are feel good platitudes. What about actually working to remove people or elective real conservatives? (you said you used to, maybe you should reconsider it, or another venue in your state politics) I know it feels good to vent, but unless we actually roll up our sleeves and do something, the status quo will be what we get, and what we deserve. Keyboard warrioring won't get us anything more than notches on our posting history, and it certainly won't get liberals out of office.