Skip to comments.President gets tepid welcome on GOP turf -- Immigration policies vigorously opposed
Posted on 04/25/2006 5:51:39 AM PDT by SmithL
Irvine -- President Bush, aiming to shore up sagging support in a Republican bastion, came for a heart-to-heart talk on immigration Monday, acknowledging that some were puzzled by his choice of Orange County -- the heart of an area opposed to his immigration policies.
"That's what a leader does," Bush told a crowd of 450 business leaders at the Hyatt Regency Irvine as he roamed the room with a microphone during an hourlong town hall-style meeting.
The president, before a phalanx of signs decorated with flags and eagles proclaiming "Securing the American Dream," emphasized securing the borders, dealing with the nation's estimated 12 million illegal immigrants and passing immigration reform in Congress.
Talking to a skeptical audience, Bush said the heated rhetoric surrounding immigration must be cooled. Conduct the debate, he said, "in a respectful way that recognizes we are a nation of immigrants, that we have had a grand tradition in this country of welcoming people into our society."
"It's an emotional debate, but one thing we cannot lose sight of is that we're talking about human beings, decent human beings," he said. "Massive deportation of the people here is unrealistic. It's just not going to work."
But even as he spoke, the breadth of the president's political problems on immigration was evident in Orange County -- a longtime GOP stronghold that is being transformed by a vast influx of immigrant laborers, mostly from Mexico. From Republican-dominated Newport Beach to Democratic-leaning Santa Ana, interviews found few supporters for Bush's positions.
The president's conservative base is angry with his support for a guest-worker program,
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
At 6:10:51 you posted this:
I did not call for you to refrain from posting on this or any thread. Not once.
Had you forgotten that on 2:18:27 you had posted thus (first quoting NathanR and then in the second paragraph noting your approval of what you had quoted):
I think that anyone with your name should stay out of immigration threads, and threads that the KKK might have a position on.
Thank you, NathanR. Yours is a very well-stated encapsulation of the point I was making.
Had you forgotten? Did you think we would forget? Madam, I am done with you. You are either a liar or afflicted. In either case I have no more time for you.
In fairness, I think you might do well to do some more research into Nathan Bedford Forrest's postwar history.
You might be surprised.
Of course not! I agreed with the overall point (which you clearly understand) is that your participation in such discussions while using the name and image of the founder of the KKK is inflamatory.
I'm delighted you finally resorted to attacking me on a personal level, because it reinforces -- for me, at least -- the idea that you probably have more in common with your hero than you may wish to let on.
Now I am done with you.
I commented earlier about this point, but let me try to restate:
There are many parts to every human being, including historical figures. Benedict Arnold was a genuinely great general. Ted Bundy was a charming, exceptionally intelligent man. Adolf Hitler loved dogs and was a fair architectural artist. John Wilkes Booth was one of the top actors of his day, celebrated and admired until April 1865.
You get the point, I hope. Whatever good the dark figures in history may have done in some parts of their lives, their hideous deeds forever mark them and their memory. Whatever good they may have done cannot outweigh the enormity of the bad.
If someone were to sign onto this or any forum using both the name and likeness of Hitler, Arnold, Booth, Stalin, Bundy, or any other such historical figure, that person would not be well thought of by most others on the forum. In my eyes, at least, Nathan Bedford Forrest is in that group of historical figures.
Countless times, people here on FR have skewered Sen. Robert Byrd because he was a member of the KKK? Yet here we have someone who apparently reveres the founder of the KKK, but presumably because he's on "our" side of the political divide, we're supposed to turn a blind eye to the screen name and NBF image posted over and over again.
He got sucked in ~ it wasn't his idea.
JFC, 2008 can't come fast enough.
The Klan was founded in Polaski, Tennessee, in 1866 by six Confederate officers. One of them was Nathan Bedford Forrest, the first Imperial Wizard of the KKK.
You are disputing the historic record. Forrest did not originate the idea. Even if he attended the first meeting, it simply wasn't his idea. He never claimed to have originated it. Another man is always identified as the originator.
This is kind of like getting closer and closer and closer to the Schwarzschild radius. Before you ever arrive at the singularity, time will have slowed to such a crawl that an outside observer would see that you were near, but not "at".
A distinction without any substantive difference. So he's one of the six founding members and the first leader of the KKK. Sheesh!
Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto, but Lenin, Stalin, Hitler and Mao were the ones who used the ideas to butcher millions. So Marx gets a pass, is that it? Unbelieveable.
Forrest was a butcher, the ugliest sort of racist, a liar who denied his involvement with the Klan before Congress, and a 19th century terrorist. Admire him if you want, but stop trying to convince me that he's pure as the driven snow.