Replies

Gillespie is always the point man in calling folks racist or sexist for the White House Rokke.

He has done it for Bush over Harrietgate (I was against), The Port Deal (I was reluctantly for), and several times on this Quasi-Amnesty Plan. Sexist, Racist and Racist respectively.....his terms not mine.

I find it disgusting when a "conservative" administration such as this one uses politically correct race baiting to defend it's unpopular decisions.

The 1-200 million figure in 30 years was opined by the Heritage Foundation (are they no grat around here now too?)yesterday. It is also a number that was been floated by many groups that study immigration and these new laws being proposed.

The only Hispanic voters who vote majority GOP are the Cubans and professional class South Americans....Mexicans who come here in particular tend to vote 2/3rds Democrat.

Bush got a little bump from Texas Mexican descendants many of whom are really Spanish descended anyhow having been here since before there was Texas.

Now if you think that this won't grant a Dem majority lock just as sure as ya'll fear this GOP revolt will then you are allowing your love for George Bush to blind the reality to your eyes.....or maybe you'd just like a Illegally founded Mexican plurality in this nation.

I sure don't and if that puts me at odds with you or this forum then so be it.

I can assure you that once upon a time being nice about George Bush or his daddy was hardly a prerequisite to being a FReeper in Good Standing....lol....like you don't know what I'm talking about.

It used to be about being Conservative, maybe Libertarian a bit, non-racist and no crass cursing or nudity of endless flame wars or stalking. Those were the rules.

This notion that one had to support the GOP or George Bush came about after 9-11 (rightly maybe) and has been cemented home as the banning hammer since immigration became an issue here.

What I can't figure out is how much you guys support amnesty or just support anything Bush does?...blindly and justify it as pragmatism or loyalty

and what is truly funny in a sad way is that nearly all the folks trying to stem unhappiness here over Bush's amnesty were themselves furious and ready to bail and opusing like crazy just a year ago over JR's pro-life Schiavo views. Look at ya'll now....you've found your raison de voire around here

So is it really Love of Bush or support of the Guest Worker Program. I know two of you and realize that two of ya'll are at least not Minority FReepers clamouring for the demise of the gringo....quite a few of those here (some newbies even) though they rarely admit it. I find that rather disingenuous....feint conservatism to cloak an anti-"Anglo" majority culture issue

"Gillespie is always the point man in calling folks racist or sexist for the White House Rokke."

Then point me to an example. A quote. I want context. Not Howard Dean talking points.

Next point, do you notice the wide disparity between 1 million and 200 million. Do you really put much credence in such an estimate? If someone told you your dinner was going to cost $1 or $200 would you not question their calculations? I mean, I'd want to know what how much I was going to be forking over before I started eating.

"or maybe you'd just like a Illegally founded Mexican plurality in this nation. I sure don't and if that puts me at odds with you or this forum then so be it."

Someone earlier was commenting on straw men. Your rhetoric here is a perfect example.

"What I can't figure out is how much you guys support amnesty or just support anything Bush does?...blindly and justify it as pragmatism or loyalty"

And what I can't figure out is why you are willing to give everything away because you believe illegals are getting amnesty. There hasn't even been a bill worked out, nevermind voted on. And you are throwing out white flags like a French man. Why are you so eager to quit? Do you realize there is a LOT more at stake here than a problem we've been living with for decades?

"I know two of you and realize that two of ya'll are at least not Minority FReepers clamouring for the demise of the gringo..."

What in the world does that mean?

"I find it disgusting when a 'conservative' administration such as this one uses politically correct race baiting to defend it's unpopular decisions"

Ah, but I found some of the soundytes (and textbytes) about Miers to be sexist before it was ever mentioned publically by the administration (I'm a woman). There HAVE been some extremely racist statements made by what I prefer to believe is the moonbat segments of the close-the-border crowd and that has to be denounced because A:) it's wrong, B:) they're making Mainstream America look bad.

Racism and sexism existed before the left hijacked the terms for use as a political club. It's not President Bush's fault that the left has worn so many terms so thin by terminal overusage. The administration was, in the two cases you cited, calling a spade a spade, not playing Democrat games.

I have the oddest feeling that when the border issue loses the Senate because REpublicans stayed home or voted D in "protest", the sense of immediacy regarding it will mysteriously die down...and in the end nothing will get done. Hopefully I'm just being cynical, but if I am right, then we conservatives will have played right into the Democrats' hands.

To be truthful, I am kinda out of the loop.
I've been babysitting a lot this week, and haven't been able to keep up with goings on.
It's been like a vacation from real life and, from the little I do know, and the little I've seen,
the timing couldn't have been better. ;o)

The Heritage Foundation's study is very troubling to me.
I did manage to hear Cheney on Rush earlier in the week.
It appeared to me that he didn't know what Rush was talking about when he brought up this study.
At best, the VEEP seemed, unusually for him, confused.

"It used to be about being Conservative, maybe Libertarian a bit, non-racist and no crass cursing or nudity of endless flame wars or stalking."

Hey! I vaguely remember that!
It seems that we were, mostly, civil with each other, too.
Or...was it all a dream? ;o)

Oh, thank you so very much, for lumping me into some sort of "club", which you have now decided to trash and bash and slice away at with all sorts of spurious slander. I can't tell you just how very much I appreciate it. /sarcasm in the extreme

I'd happily refute all of the points of your highly emotional tirade, but frankly, your spleen venting isn't worthy of my time and attention.

The ONLY point I will correct and that for the benefit of lurkers and others who weren't reading FR during late '99 and all of 2000, is your completely erroneous statements about what FR used to be like. You weren't here, so you don't know what that time was really like. OTOH, you WERE here and engaged in the late part of the Libertarian wars. If you remember them as being all warm and fuzzy and civil, without nastiness, flame wars, stalking, etc., then your memories are completely contrary to the historical fact. What, you have now forgotten the nights of the ABSINTHE history lessons I gave and the garbage I took for doing so?