Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

President gets tepid welcome on GOP turf -- Immigration policies vigorously opposed
San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 4/25/6 | Carla Marinucci

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 ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: bordersecurity; bushamnesty; calvisit; illegalaliens; illegals; invasionusa; openborders; presidentbush
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-110 next last
To: SmithL
"Massive deportation of the people here is unrealistic. It's just not going to work."

This administration, like the one before it, is doing almost NO deportation, massive or small. It isn't necessary to do mass deportation to accomplish acceptable results. But rounding up a thousand or so illegals, then turning them loose a few days later, isn't the answer, either.

Round up and deport a few hundred thousand over the course of eight to 12 months, and you'll put many of the rest of the illegals on the run, possibly back to Mexico.

But first, SECURE THE BORDERS.

51 posted on 04/25/2006 8:57:29 AM PDT by savedbygrace (SECURE THE BORDERS FIRST (I'M YELLING ON PURPOSE))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Democratshavenobrains

Yes his stand on the illegals was plain, however he has made and broken many promises of securing the border. If he would truly secure the border I think he would have more support for some sort of a work program for those already here.


52 posted on 04/25/2006 8:59:13 AM PDT by Tammy8 (Build a Real Border Fence, and enforce Immigration Laws!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Democratshavenobrains
Anyonw who didn't know President Bush's feelings on immigration after the 2000 election wasn't paying attention.

Oh, I was paying attention alright. I also believed (naively it seems) that Bush would at least modify his position at some point during his term once he realized the scope of the problem.

I was wrong.
53 posted on 04/25/2006 9:05:06 AM PDT by reagan_fanatic (Someday we'll look back on all this and plow into a parked car)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: HawaiianGecko

"Of course what this idiot doesn't realize"

Ooops!

You will get flamed by the Bushie freepers over that one.

Us conservatives have to remember to avoid critizing G.W. at all costs.

The Bushie freepers prefer that we all go down with the RINO ship.


54 posted on 04/25/2006 9:10:49 AM PDT by KeyLargo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: luvbach1
Welcome to the New World Order. This is Globalization and Bush is one of the chief disciples. This is where the world and it's governments are are run by rich elite business men according to the needs of business.

There are no borders nor are there any laws, Constitutions,free independent Sovereign States,political party or people who will be allowed to stand in the way.

In this brave new world people are assets or liabilities and they are to be given lip service only. What is best for them will be decided for them.

It is governments run by businessmen that will set foreign and domestic policy, direct the spending of government money,and control every aspect of our daily lives.

Bush has given us our first of what it's going to be like where no matter what the majority of the people want or need their voices will be ignored and laws will be selectively enforced or ignored until they can be changed to suit the needs of Wall Street.

Everything will be considered according to it's dollar value and how it affects the bottom line.

55 posted on 04/25/2006 9:19:06 AM PDT by mississippi red-neck (You will never win the war on terrorism by fighting it in Iraq and funding it in the West Bank.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Democratshavenobrains

Some of us thought he was a man of duty and honor, who would enforce the law, even if he didn't like it. We had no idea that he would cut enforcement of immigration law to near zero.


56 posted on 04/25/2006 9:19:09 AM PDT by Politicalmom (If fences don't work, why is there a fence around the White House?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Democratshavenobrains
Anyonw who didn't know President Bush's feelings on immigration after the 2000 election wasn't paying attention.

Ah... I will say something here :), well, you see, at the time we "thought" we knew the president! and we assumed he would at least secured the border against those ugly terrorist who might use it to come here and hurt us...after all, he sent people to die in Iraq... for our SECURITY... The security to country that is, in Iraq as well as in our borders.

Naturally, I am sure, many though he would do this... and had he done this the crossing of illegals would have been stopped or slowed substantially...THEN... the president... having achieved CREDIBILITY on the security of our country, he could have come to the American people and say "ok, i did my part with the border... now I will fix the problem with Illegal Immigration.."

Get my point? that is what truly expected from him but...

57 posted on 04/25/2006 9:20:18 AM PDT by ElPatriota (Let's not forget, we are all still friends despite our differences)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
"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."

We're also talking about human beings who have chosen to violate our democratically enacted laws every day that they are in this country. We are also talking about many illegal aliens who are currently filling up our prisons who are not "decent" human beings but are violent criminals who murder, rape and victimize American citizens as well as conduct terroristic rampages like the Washington DC sniper. But most of all, Mr. President, what we are talking about here is whether the 200 plus year old American project in self-government is respected or is distained and considered irrelevant by the highest elected official in the land.

Presenting mass deportation as the alternative demonstrates President Bush's refusal to deal honestly with the American people, and honest dealing is absolutely required of elected officials in a self-governing system in order for citizens to perform their role of holding their government accountable. We all know that strict border control plus enforcemnt of employer sanctions and withdrawal of welfare assistance will accomplish the voluntary return of most people who are here illegally.

Also, the canard that we are a nation of immigrants is a frivolous and meaningless comment and needs to be retired from this debate. From a historical perspective, every nation on earth is a "nation of immigrants" except perhaps portions of Africa. The real question is who gets to have their way on this issue right now, the lawful citizens of this country or the illegal aliens and the political, media and corporate elites who profit from thier presence.

Presidet Bush has demonstrated in every possible way in word and deed that he has absolutely no respect for our democratically enacted laws which reflect the legislative authority of the people through their elected representatives. He has also shown that he feels no obligation to us to observe the oath of office he took to enforce our laws. President Bush feels himself entitled to personally overturn our republican system of government and substitute a system of arbitrary rule based on his personal whim. Our founders called this the very definition of tyranny.

I have come to the conclusion that allegiance to our republican form of self-government and the desire to preserve and protect it for our posterity figures not one whit in President Bush's thinking. I am beginning to believe that he could not express even a rudimentary knowledge of the principles of our founding and what his obligations are to the American people. His repeated denigration of the work ethic of ordinary Americans shows he does not believe we deserve or are capable of self-government.

Benjamin Franklin warned us when the constitution was being debated that it would be up to the people to preserve a "republican" form of government. The founders understood that the right of the people to govern themselves would always be under attack from those who wanted to promote their own private and commercial interests over the common good. The question is whether "we the people" value our liberty and right to self-government enough to demand that our President act in ways consistent with our democratically enacted laws and "republican" principles.

58 posted on 04/25/2006 9:24:28 AM PDT by politeia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

The President just doesn't seem to get it, that he, too, is a public servant and holds office only with the consent of the governed.

While he quite correctly appointed SC judges that will [they say] strictly interpret the Constitution, Bush seems to feel he's free to ignore the electorate and treat us like truculent children rather than give even some small consideration to the consensus of this conservative nation.

I, for one, am long tired of such an attitude.


59 posted on 04/25/2006 9:28:19 AM PDT by citizen (Yo W! Read my lips: No Amnistia by any name! And the White House has a fence around it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mtntop3
Have you noticed all immigrant group, except for Cubans, vote Democrat? Look at California, used to have Republican Senators on a regular basis. Now?

Time to quit singing Kumbaya, and start looking out for our own interests.
60 posted on 04/25/2006 9:35:14 AM PDT by investigateworld (Abortion stops a beating heart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: politeia

bookmark


61 posted on 04/25/2006 9:38:32 AM PDT by Betis70 (moto weather is back)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: mississippi red-neck
In this brave new world people are assets or liabilities and they are to be given lip service only. What is best for them will be decided for them.

It is governments run by businessmen that will set foreign and domestic policy, direct the spending of government money,and control every aspect of our daily lives.

Things might be better if we all lived in "The Matrix", that's pretty much how the American Middle-Class is thought of by the power-elite, we're just "economic batteries."

62 posted on 04/25/2006 9:41:33 AM PDT by citizen (Yo W! Read my lips: No Amnistia by any name! And the White House has a fence around it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Judging from the looks on the faces of some of the people at that meeting, they were, indeed VERY unhappy with Bush. There was one guy who NEVER cracked a smile. He just sat there scowling at Bush.


63 posted on 04/25/2006 9:50:17 AM PDT by NRA2BFree (NO GUEST WORKER PLAN! IT IS REALLY AMNESTY, SHAMNESTY OR SCAMNESTY - IT IS THE SELL OUT OF AMERICA!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford
Would you grant me the space to admire parts of the legacy of General Nathan Bedford Forrest?

It's not up to me to "grant" you anything. However, in observing your admiration for the founder of the KKK, I would also recall something many of us scorned during the Clinton era -- the concept of "compartmentalization."

64 posted on 04/25/2006 10:11:15 AM PDT by Wolfstar (Not for just an hour. Not for just a day. Not for just a year.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

The ultra liberal Chronicle always bashes the GOP and Bush any chance they can. They love to divide and conquer and talk up (wishfully) the demise of the Republicans.


65 posted on 04/25/2006 10:33:21 AM PDT by Uncle Hal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar
I would expect nothing less than that rant from someone who so deeply admires the founder of the Ku Klux Klan.

This is how it all started a few posts ago with your unsolicited observation that identifies my posts as a "rant" and presumes without any evidence, apart from the nom de plume and the avatar that I "deeply admire" the founder of the Ku Klux Klan.

So I responded in a way that should have been clear to you that there were some parts of Forest's life that I admire and others which I do not.

What most men of reason would describe as an enlightened selectivity and felicity of judgment, you derogate as "compartmentalization."

What all readers of this thread will observe is that you have yet to utter a single syllable addressed to the substance of my original remarks.


66 posted on 04/25/2006 10:45:46 AM PDT by nathanbedford (Attack, repeat, Attack..... Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
[ "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." ]

Propaganda!... pure and simple..
Either Dubya has bought the propaganda OR he is the source..

He(Bush) evidently don't know what ILLEGAL MEANS.. Sandy Burgular would agree.. Poor old Sandy didn't perform some illegality his crime was merely an oversight(hand slapped by the White House).. as old Mary McCarthy did.. The boy is really, "A Unite'er not a Divide'er"..

Ah! BUT what is he Uniting with?.. thats is the question..
Wonder if the Dixie Mafia has threatened Laura and the girls?.. because he seems to operating as tool of the democrat party.. Only ONE thing Bush and the democrats agree on... a WIDE OPEN Mexican Border.. The importation of multi millions of propective democrats and a few RINOS serve WHICH party?..

Is the republican party bewitched?..
Evidently so.. even here a FR.. the bewitching has (some) eyes rolling in their sockets..

67 posted on 04/25/2006 10:49:48 AM PDT by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford
What all readers of this thread will observe is that you have yet to utter a single syllable addressed to the substance of my original remarks.

Quite to the contrary, I commented on the substance of your remarks by observing how you characterize yourself.

As a man thinks in his heart, so is he. [Proverbs 23:7].

68 posted on 04/25/2006 11:14:31 AM PDT by Wolfstar (Not for just an hour. Not for just a day. Not for just a year.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar
...these sources of a doctrine, news item, or any other statement carried more weight than the content of it; the feeling about the source preceded and determined the true believers reaction." In other words, Dennis, Foster and the founders did not credit the overwhelming evidence of Stalin's crimes until an authoritative Soviet leader, Nikita Khrushchev, ruled that they were crimes. (p. 39)

I had read this in a book entitled "In Denial" by Haynes and Klehr, I wonder, if this description applies to you as well as it does to communist apologists? Those apologists resorted to the ad hominem where, in The Soviet Union, it killed people. Here, it merely confounds the high purpose of FreeRepublic because it substitutes appeal to political orthodoxy for persuasion and logic.

When you use language in ways that are utterly incongruent with its plain meaning, as you have here:

Quite to the contrary, I commented on the substance of your remarks by observing how you characterize yourself

you reveal yourself to be worse than a klansman because you wear a verbal mask to conceal your character assination while professing the white robes of political correctness. Sir, you have not addressed the substance. You may quote the Bible out of context just as Soviet murderers quoted Marx, but it does not change the plain meaning of the english language.

Will you at last address the substance of the post?


69 posted on 04/25/2006 11:35:00 AM PDT by nathanbedford (Attack, repeat, Attack..... Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford
you reveal yourself to be worse than a klansman because you wear a verbal mask to conceal your character assination while professing the white robes of political correctness.

I've made myself quite plain. You're hero is the founder of the KKK. All your pseudo-lofty, and may I say quite pompous, rhetoric notwithstanding, that is something YOU want the world to know about you. If there is any character "assassination" being done, it is you doing it to yourself.

Will you at last address the substance of the post?

Nope, I won't play your game. Why? Unlike any other human interaction, the internet allows us to show others who we are unencumbered by visual clues that, in the physical world, often create barriers between people. I can't get past the most prominent thing you want people in this virtual world to know about you, which is that your hero is the founder of the KKK. As far as I'm concerned, that negates anything else you may have to say about any subject.

BTW, this is not the first time I've engaged in a dialogue with you along these lines.

70 posted on 04/25/2006 12:00:07 PM PDT by Wolfstar (Not for just an hour. Not for just a day. Not for just a year.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
The President needs to:

Build a wall.

Register with thumb prints and pictures all people working here in any program and all those deported.

You hold employer's liable to verify the legality of their employee by verifying them in a national data base with their ID and data base picture.

Any employer hiring someone with no temporary permits gets fined and eventually jailed.

If employers want the benefit of employing people, they ought to be help responsible to verify who they are with an available national background check.

The wall would force people to only flow through at check points for the most parts and any one in tunnels or flying over in planes would be prosecuted.

The main reason nobody wants to get serious in the government regarding immigration and Mexico is that they fear sending their people home will cause a revolution at home because their country is such a hell hole.
In a revolution or revolt, there is the fear communism, Russia, China or others could come to control or have great influence in Mexico. That would be the problem and issue.

We can't afford to pay 14k a year to educate each of their children. New laws should define required education for illegals to satisfy the Constitution as being a separate school (A tent) with one teacher and 10,000 kids.
Teach basic math and English and that is it.
Make it only cost us $400 a year to educate them. Getting them out of the classroom will also give those that belong there a better change to succeed and to not be held back to try and catch illegals up.

Constitutional change that gives no birth certificate to illegals.

The other side of the coin is the government wants all the Mexicans hoping to increase the worker base as people get older and need to pay for old people's SS.
Being they come from next door, they will almost never have loyalty to America though.
71 posted on 04/25/2006 12:10:33 PM PDT by A CA Guy (God Bless America, God bless and keep safe our fighting men and women.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VOATNOW1
We have a bunch of 'em around here. Not a one of them is on welfare, nor do they get free housing.

The usual trick is for 20 to 30 young men to rent a 3 bedroom, 1 story house, and bunk in together on shifts.

If you'll take a good look, you'll find it's that way around your neighborhood too.

72 posted on 04/25/2006 5:39:45 PM PDT by muawiyah (-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: marty60
We had a guy running for Governor in Virginia last year who made illegal aliens his major campaign theme.

He lost to a Corporatist Democrat.

You'd better believe the rest of the politicians paid attention to that one.

73 posted on 04/25/2006 5:41:54 PM PDT by muawiyah (-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford
Hey, guarantee that when it comes to "true life experiences" Nathan Bedford Forrest was a mind-numbed, knee-jerk, robot-like Liberal compared to Muawiyah, the founder of the Ummayad Dynasty.

We all pick our pen names for a number of reasons ~ in Muawiyah's case, he was a Dark Ages fellow who did a couple of things that proved he was as close to a Jeffersonian as you were liable to find "way back when".

Folks get upset about Forrest simply because he is so recent ~ and even if you despise the man, he was a He|| of a soldier, and rose through the ranks from Private to General ~ commendable in all armies in all of history.

74 posted on 04/25/2006 5:46:16 PM PDT by muawiyah (-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: mississippi red-neck

It's really not criticism to suggest that we can deport these criminals one at a time and thereby avoid anything smacking of massive deportations.


75 posted on 04/25/2006 5:48:05 PM PDT by muawiyah (-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: investigateworld
Depends on the immigrant group ~ San Fran's Italians have traditionally been Republican while those in New Jersey have been Democrat.

There are, of course, exceptions to thoe general rules ~

The Germans, and the English, tend to be both Democrats and Republicans.

76 posted on 04/25/2006 5:49:47 PM PDT by muawiyah (-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: citizen

Good analogy.


77 posted on 04/25/2006 7:20:21 PM PDT by mississippi red-neck (You will never win the war on terrorism by fighting it in Iraq and funding it in the West Bank.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
I guess my big problem is not so much with him saying we can't deport that many people it is that as head of the Executive Branch he is choosing to ignore his Constitutional duty and violating his oath of office by refusing to enforce existing law.

He has made no attempt to stop the illegal invasion of our country that is placing our citizens lives and property in danger.

He is not enforcing the law of our country simply because he doesn't agree with it.

Actually it is worse because he is selectively enforcing it by letting certain ones violate it while arresting and imprisoning others for breaking it.

If he really wanted to he could seal the borders in a matter of a few days.

It bothers me a great deal when the President ,one man, decides he is above the law and refuses to do what the law and his position and oath require him to do simply because it doesn't personally want to.

We are close to losing control of our country.

Our leaders are getting to the point where like Hamas they don't even bother to try to hide the fact that they don't care what the laws says or what millions of their citizens want or say.

They simply do what they want to and hope we forget. It doesn't really matter to them the law is for us not them.

If they get kick out, so what, they're in the rich privileged class and it ain't going to hurt them or cost them anything.

As long as they and their rich friends get what they wanted it doesn't matter,they don't mix or have to face common people. They just go back to their ivy towers.

We the unwashed should just shut up and be grateful we got such as them to take care of and decide what best for us./s

78 posted on 04/25/2006 8:04:14 PM PDT by mississippi red-neck (You will never win the war on terrorism by fighting it in Iraq and funding it in the West Bank.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: SUSSA

Some very good points you make.


79 posted on 04/25/2006 8:15:44 PM PDT by tabsternager
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: tabsternager

Thanks


80 posted on 04/25/2006 8:42:17 PM PDT by SUSSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah; Wolfstar
General Nathan Bedford Forrest has achieved a kind of immortality in his ability to get under the skin of the ignorant and those suffering from myopia.

Our friend Wolfstar might ponder the blemishes on the record of Thomas Jefferson, some of which I outlined for him. He might consider whether Winston Churchill deserves opprobrium to the degree that heaps upon General Forrest because Churchill sent the infamous Black and Tan's into Ireland. Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, jailed dissidents, and otherwise ran roughshod over the Constitution. Should his name or likeness be banned from free Republic? Or do his other achievements justify our regard for him?

Wolfstarr might also think about the fact that it was Forrest who took steps to disband the klan and who, by all accounts, died a man broken to his sins, repentant in his attitude toward slavery, and reconciled with his African-American neighbors.

More likely, though, our friend will soldier on, glorying in his ignorance, resolute in his determination not to deal with the substance of any issue.


81 posted on 04/26/2006 12:44:52 AM PDT by nathanbedford (Attack, repeat, Attack..... Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
"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 has not been a grand tradition, any more than we are a nation of immigrants. I am not an immigrant, my family got here in 1743. At some point during some generation a person becomes a native of a land. I'm tired of hearing this cheap "We are all immigrants" crap.

There is a heck of a lot more here now than the dang deer and the antelope, besides material wealth, there is the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence, and it was built, fought, bled, and died for, and preserved, on the backs and the blood of native born Americans.

Now just because every third worlder on the planet wants to partake of what they didn't build, welfare, wic, SS, free medical treatment, just because they want the chance to vote their bellies, doesn't mean they should get it.

This is the home of Native Americans, it is OUR home, we fought for it, bled for it, suffered for it, and when called on, died for it, we built it, we own it, and we have a right to say when enough is enough without some twit telling us to be respectful, and it is our "duty" to be generous, while our dress is being pulled over our heads in a dark alley.

82 posted on 04/26/2006 1:58:44 AM PDT by MissAmericanPie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
The president's conservative base is angry with his support for a guest-worker program ...

The President can't understand that a guest-worker program won't work without shutting down the borders first. Close the borders; then, do a guest-worker program.

83 posted on 04/26/2006 2:55:32 AM PDT by JoeGar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JoeGar

He understands all too well.


84 posted on 04/26/2006 6:49:22 AM PDT by MissAmericanPie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: MissAmericanPie

1743 is pretty late you know.


85 posted on 04/26/2006 6:56:34 AM PDT by muawiyah (-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

I don't know who is giving our "Dear" leader advice but how wrong can a person be from any standpoint when you condone lawbreakers and then announce a policy that invites a deluge from Mexico of wetbacks instead of a flood.

It is beyond comprehension that President Bush would think he is right on this issue. In addition, it brings into doubt the rest of his past and current policies in the struggle we are in with the assassins flooding the world from Islamic countrys.


86 posted on 04/26/2006 7:03:49 AM PDT by hgro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Racer1
"Leaders also represent the people who elected them."

That's a nice theory, but in reality, their loyalty belongs to the people who paid the money to get them elected.

The voters are merely election-day fodder.

87 posted on 04/26/2006 7:11:10 AM PDT by Designer (Just a nit-pick'n and chagrin'n)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: varon
"What are you people drinking there???"

They are drinking deeply from the fountain of power and influence.

It is very addictive, by the way.

88 posted on 04/26/2006 7:18:53 AM PDT by Designer (Just a nit-pick'n and chagrin'n)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: reagan_fanatic
"I also believed..Bush would..modify his position.

I was wrong.

Thank You!

Many were wrong, but only one has admitted it.

89 posted on 04/26/2006 7:23:46 AM PDT by Designer (Just a nit-pick'n and chagrin'n)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
Talking to a skeptical audience, Bush said the heated rhetoric surrounding immigration must be cooled.

That's how liberals talk. They always complain about the nature of the debate when they are trying to force some type of garbage on us. The problem is the law isn't being enforced, not the debate.

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."

No GWB, we are a nation of laws. We welcome people who come into this country legally, and we don't reward those who break the law.

90 posted on 04/26/2006 7:26:38 AM PDT by Moonman62 (Federal creed: If it moves tax it. If it keeps moving regulate it. If it stops moving subsidize it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

At some point a citizen, and their following generations become a native population. I won't get into my other side of my families history here, suffice to say they are Cherokee.


91 posted on 04/26/2006 8:14:30 AM PDT by MissAmericanPie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford; muawiyah
More likely, though, our friend will soldier on, glorying in his ignorance, resolute in his determination not to deal with the substance of any issue.

So, Nathan, bringing in the reinforcements, I see. I did not see muawiyah's post to which you replied and pinged me. Since you did involve me in his response to you, I'll quote from it:

...and even if you despise the man, he was a He|| of a soldier...

So was Benedit Arnold, but like all human beings, he is judged not by one part of his life, but by the sum of all parts of it.

Nathan Bedford Forrest was the founder of the Ku Klux Klan, if not the worst, then certainly one of the worst terrorist-type organizations the North American continent has ever seen. No matter what he did in other parts of his life, that part of his life remains as an indelible stain. No attempt on your part to justify Forrest will ever erase that stain.

The fact he is your hero, NB, tells the world something about you. It was YOUR choice of screen name, NB, yours alone. If people judge you by it, it's because you invited them to do so.

You can whine all you want about my supposedly not addressing the substance of "any" issue. However, what you miss, even though I told you otherwise, is that by remarking on your choice of screen names on a thread about illegal immigration, I AM addressing the issue squarely.

You called me ignorant. Hmmmm...if your intellect is so superior, I must assume you know exactly what my point is, and you're deliberately trying to obscure it by changing the subject.

92 posted on 04/26/2006 9:02:56 AM PDT by Wolfstar (Not for just an hour. Not for just a day. Not for just a year.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: MissAmericanPie

Some of them are actually pretty recent too ~ as that sort of thing goes.


93 posted on 04/26/2006 9:35:54 AM PDT by muawiyah (-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford; muawiyah; Wolfstar
Nathan Bedford Forrest was once one of my heroes also. However, that was before I realized that he was one of the founders of the KKK. He was the founder of modern cavalry tactics, and I was much impressed. However being a founder of the KKK pretty much negated that, in my opinion. Even knowing that he later tried to distance himself from the KKK, only helped a little.

Nathan, I think that anyone with your name should stay out of immigration threads, and threads that the KKK might have a position on. This is especially true when you insist on an icon/avatar of your namesake. Even when you have good points, your name alone will inflame opinions against you.
94 posted on 04/26/2006 10:10:19 AM PDT by NathanR (Après moi, le deluge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: NathanR
Hey, one of my cousins destroyed the Ku Klux Klan in Indiana (through his quite successful prosecution of the Grand Kleagle there, D.C.Stephenson.

Stephenson was the smarmy tail end of the Klan ~ and good riddance to them.

Forrest made a mistake. Of course, before the Civil War he bought and sold human beings so it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that he thought it more important that blacks be controlled than that they be free.

Still, his career path and later success in field operations speak well of his fundamental capabilities. I think it's too bad he never realized that he was a better man than he let himself be.

He should have gotten right with God. Apparantly he didn't.

95 posted on 04/26/2006 10:18:45 AM PDT by muawiyah (-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: NathanR; nathanbedford; muawiyah
Nathan, I think that anyone with your name should stay out of immigration threads, and threads that the KKK might have a position on. This is especially true when you insist on an icon/avatar of your namesake. Even when you have good points, your name alone will inflame opinions against you.

Thank you, NathanR. Yours is a very well-stated encapsulation of the point I was making.

96 posted on 04/26/2006 11:18:27 AM PDT by Wolfstar (Not for just an hour. Not for just a day. Not for just a year.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar

Thank you.


97 posted on 04/26/2006 11:59:37 AM PDT by NathanR (Après moi, le deluge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: NathanR; Wolfstar
Nathan, I recall that you and I have had an agreeable exchange in the past and, although I cannot remember the context, I know that we were in accord on some matter. I have read your suggestion with care and have given it fair consideration because I know it was rendered respectfully and thoughtfully, unlike the insulting and thoughtless comments of Wolfstar, whose ramblings are so internally inconsistent and so alarmingly in violation of plain English meaning that they make no sense and are worthy only of display as horrible examples.

But I must respectfully and reluctantly disagree with your suggestion. It might be more cheerful for everyone if those whose comments might give offense, (not out of what was actually said but because of the personal identity of the utterer), were to refrain from posting. Then the sensibilities of those so easily provoked would be spared. Life would certainly be sunnier.

But such is the slippery slope. And I, for one, will not venture down it.

Censorship, like leprosy and syphilis, courses through the body, ravaging it while seeking an opportunistic moment to erupt upon the body as an ugly lesion. It matters not if the censorship is "soft" rather than jackbooted because ultimately the effect upon the body politic is equally ugly. Censorship murders truth. It matters not whether the censor is polite or the manner of its application is subtle, the end result is ultimately murderous to a process which looks for truth within the free exchange of ideas. To suggest that someone ought not to publish his opinion, not because of the contents of the opinion, but because of who he is (or rather what someone else quite mistakenly presumes he is) is a censorship even more to be feared than mere censorship of the material itself. This is censorship of the person! This is the very sort of shameful act which was engaged in by a white berobed night riders. This is why censorship is so damned dangerous: It makes a Klansman of a Wolfstar- the very object of his self righteous contempt. Like slavery, censorship degrades and perverts the master as well as the servant.

More dangerous because it kills discourse because of the messenger rather than his message, this kind of censorship has other characteristics which make it worse than garden variety censorship, if that were possible: It is utterly dependent on the subjective sensibilities of anyone professing to be distressed. In short order we would be utterly without standards of any kind whatsoever. We have seen the baleful consequences of establishing the moving target of the victim's subjective feelings in sexual harassment laws. It matters not whether the gesture or remark or joke was intrinsically offensive it matters only that the alleged victim thinks it was. This is not a standard, this is an invitation to legal extortion. And what sort of person has standing to force his subjective feelings upon all of us? The likes of Wolfstar- a man who, by his own admission, utterly refuses to learn the facts of the life of the man he cites as a reason to censor as he declares them to be irrelevant. Worse, despite all the explicit evidence to the contrary, Wolfstar persists in post after post to conflate me with a pen name and avatar. I have made it clear that there is much about Forests life which I do not approve much less admire. But so long as Wolfstar can continue to deny this reality, he can conflate me with Forrest. As long as he does, he would hold the censor's red pen.

Finally, to submit to this sort of censorship would be to invite it. Once a Philistine like Wolfstar learns that he can rule these boards merely by conjuring up some suitably politically correct contrivance, he will start to swoon like a character from a Jane Austen novel.

I for one will not pander to someone who simply, flatly, declines to deal with the issues in the original post or with the issues concerning his alleged distress over Nathan Bedford Forrest. In refusing to pander to the likes of Wolfstar, I am rendering you a service and every other FReeper too.


98 posted on 04/26/2006 1:58:22 PM PDT by nathanbedford (Attack, repeat, Attack..... Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford
...unlike the insulting and thoughtless comments of Wolfstar, whose ramblings are so internally inconsistent and so alarmingly in violation of plain English meaning that they make no sense and are worthy only of display as horrible examples.

Finally, to submit to this sort of censorship would be to invite it. Once a Philistine like Wolfstar learns that he can rule these boards merely by conjuring up some suitably politically correct contrivance, he will start to swoon like a character from a Jane Austen novel.

In refusing to pander to the likes of Wolfstar, I am rendering you a service and every other FReeper too.

Oh, please. Your faux antebellum Southern manners are silly.

If you think anything I said to you is an insult, you don't know what an insult is.

Let's get down to basics, beginning with the fact that I'm not a "he." In my long participation on FR have I never even remotely suggested I should, could, or would want to "control these boards." Say what you will. Just be prepared for others to express equally strong opinions to the contrary.

I did not call for you to refrain from posting on this or any thread. Not once. I merely pointed out a truth, as I have done one other time in the past when encountering you for the first time. You call clear attention to something about yourself through your unusual level of admiration for the founder of the KKK, that it makes your comments about anything to do with racial and ethic tensions suspect.

Once again, the fact that the founder of the KKK is a hero of yours is something you choose to advertise about yourself. You shouldn't, therefore, be surprised when someone comes along and calls you on it. Resorting to whining about "insults" merely reinforces the impression your hero worship of Forrest suggests.

Lastly, this comment of yours is particularly funny: "I for one will not pander to someone who simply, flatly, declines to deal with the issues in the original post or with the issues concerning his alleged distress over Nathan Bedford Forrest."

I have dealt with the issues -- issue in this particular case. You simply either refuse to or are incapable of recognizing that fact. So let me be as blunt as I possibly can:

In your first post on this thread (#8), you wrote some things with which I can agree and some with which I cannot. However, your concluding paragraph contained this statement: "We did not need, and we do not need now, new laws to choke off this noxious inflow." It was followed, as is your custom, by your iconic image of Nathan Bedford Forrest. Say whatever you will to and about me, but "noxious inflow" and Nathan Bedford Forrest are a volatile mix. At least for me, it negated anything else you might have to say on the subject of immigration, legal and illegal.

That was the issue I chose to focus on. Nope, I'm not playing on your turf, but focusing on something that matters to me. Too bad.

99 posted on 04/26/2006 3:10:51 PM PDT by Wolfstar (Not for just an hour. Not for just a day. Not for just a year.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Ping


100 posted on 04/26/2006 4:34:01 PM PDT by GOP Poet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-110 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson