Bush team strikes back against Tancredo

Denver Post ^

[Sabertooth]

your answer to my last question is empty.....

Actually, I didn't answer it at all, because your question kept changing.

As for rights denied at airports, there are three inalienable rights mentioned in the Declaration... Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness (these aren't the only ones, just the ones mentioned).

Inherent in the right to life is the right to self-defense... Hence the right to bear arms. We aren't allowed to bear arms on airplanes

Because we won't racial profile at airports, all of us who fly have our liberites infringed. Because we won't allow armed pilots (or passengers) our right to defend our lives is infringed.

Now, you might like flying this way, but I'll tell you what... If you offered identical flights at identical prices, one with the system now in place, and one with armed pilots and racial profiling, I think the latter would get more customers.

But we don't have the freedom to make that choice.

[Sabertooth]

If I recall the last time I responded to a post you sent me .. you called me a neo-leftist nazi

Excuse me for not wanting to be called a bunch of names again.

Ah, so you can blame and flame those who'd dare to cast their vote elswhere than for a Bush, but if I call you on it, you run away with your tongue sticking out ("WHATEVER") and justify it because I was llegedly a big meanie to you on an earlier occasion?

[Tuor]

Sorry pal it is the individual that votes and it will be the voters fault if Hillary get into office...

It is the voter's responsibility, IMO, to vote for the person they think is best for the job, regardless of party. If Bush is unable to convince the majority of voters that he is the best man for the job, then either he is not or he wasn't convincing. I do blame voters for willfully blinding themselves to those candidates who are manifestly not the best man for the job.

People should vote their conscience -- always.

Tuor

[Mo1]

No .. I have no problems with having a discussion on the issue .. what I don't care for is the name calling

So when you grow up .. let me know

[Tuor]

You don't think this sort of inflamatory and hysterical rhetoric is unecessary?

I think it *should* be unnecessary. Sadly, it seems that most people want to avoid the entire subject so that this sort of inflammatory rhetoric is the only way to get their attention. I'd *rather* people wake up and see what is going on without resorting to these sort of tactics and do not, ultimately, approve of them.

Tuor

[Mo1]

People should vote their conscience -- always.

I do and that is why Buchanan or Keys will not get my vote

[dalebert]

I figure Bush has his reasons for what he does. I also figure he is on our side.

[Sabertooth]

No .. I have no problems with having a discussion on the issue .. what I don't care for is the name calling

So when you grow up .. let me know

Tell you what... if your idea of "growing up" means engaging in hit and run argumentation, you're on your own.

You didn't want a discussion, you wanted a blanket condemnation of those who'd dare be disloyal to Bush.

[c-b 1]

Strict immigration control will keep everyone out except the terrorists.

You are saying that it will be bad to keep illegals out?

(Next the Buchananites will say, "see, we told you that international trade was a bad thing.")

I fail to see how importing poverty is good.

[FreeReign]

your answer to my last question is empty.....

Actually, I didn't answer it at all, because your question kept changing.

I clarified my question to you. It was you in your own judgement who then chose not to respond to the clarified question. You -- again in your own judgement -- then blamed me.

On a medium like this, at a time of night like this, most people usually have the courtesy to except a clarified -- reworded -- postition from a poster and to move on -- you don't.

As for rights denied at airports...we aren't allowed to bear arms on airplanes...

Who owns the airports and airplanes? Both you an I don't. Thus why are our rights being infringed? I have no unalienable right to fly on a private plane with a gun. If I decide that flying on a private plane without a gun is dangerous, I then have the unalienable right -- NOT TO FLY!

[Mo1]

I do not recall making a post directed to you ..

I do recall making a comment earlier on the Thread and so far the ONLY decent response I saw towards my comment was from DoughtyOne .. he/she actually had a good response .. Some points I agree with and some I do not and guess what DoughtyOne did not call me names ..

Amazing isn't it

[ohioWfan]

I too fail to see how the Bushbot phenomenon is less frightening embryonic Cult of Personality than that of the Clintonistas.

If you don't see the difference between the support people have for the honor and decency of George W. Bush, and the Clintonistas, you haven't been paying any attention. The admiration for President Bush is in a totally different realm, and I think you know it.

I really thought more of you than that, Sabertooth, to make such a stupid comment. You are intelligent and usually insightful, but this statement is absurd, and makes you sound like the hateful morons around here.....and I don't think you are one. Are you?

BTW, I have a number of good conservative friends in California who don't share your disdain of immigrants, and who support the President wholeheartedly.

[healey22]

I agee with your comments completely. Here are some interesting stats posted numerous times courtesy of Marine Inspector. These numbers would make the average American fall backwards in their chair. However, there seems to be a coordinated media blackout on the subject.

THE LATEST INS APPREHENSION INFORMATION

Date Range: 01/01/2002 To 05/05/2002 EST

(last updated 05/06/2002)

From 01/01/2002 through 05/05/2002 the INS reported apprehending 523,610 illegal aliens in the US. Now some of these apprehensions are what we call recidivist apprehensions, so we will subtract the recidivist apprehensions from the total apprehensions.

523,610 - 204,226 = 319,384.

So, between 01/01/2002 and 05/05/2002 the INS apprehended approximately 319,384 illegal aliens either attempting to enter the US, or already in the US.

Now the fun numbers.

The INS and the Border Patrol estimates that for every illegal they apprehend, 4 slip by. Independent Immigration experts estimate that for every illegal Border Patrol apprehends, 9 slip by. For this presentation, I will also use a 1 to 2 ratio.

So, if the INS apprehended 319,384 illegal aliens, the number of aliens that made it through undetected would be as follows:

1 to 2 = 638,768
1 to 4 = 1,277,536
1 to 9 = 2,874,456
This means, that anywhere from 638,768 to 2,874,456 illegal aliens entered the United States undetected since 01/01/02.

Now for some more disturbing figures.

US and Allied troops that invaded Normandy in 1944 = 250,000+
US troops that invaded Okinawa in 1945 = 550,000+
Illegal aliens that have invaded the US in 2002 = 638,768+

This is an average of 5,110 illegal aliens entering the US, undetected daily.

Now imagine that just 1/10 of 1% of those illegals are terrorist, here to harm the US.

We now have over 638 possible terrorist undetected inside the United States.

What I find interesting is the persons on this thread who rail against Tom Tancredo for exposing this national sercurity issue. Surely, they cannot believe that everyone coming over our Southern Border have honest intentions. Terrorist swim in an ocean of illegal aliens and this is a national security nightmare. For those who are in denial check this article out.

'Arab Terrorist' Crossing Border-Middle Eastern Illegals Find Easy Entrance Into U.S. From Mexico

Why lock the front door when you leave the back door wide open? This smart border policy with Mexico is nothing but a facade to make the masses feel good.

I also find it amazing that when we even mention putting our Military on the border the Mexican government will gasp, howl and scream that we have the nerve to even patrol our own border. Their hypocrisy shows nothing but total arrogance and hostility towards our sovereignty.

However, it's quite acceptable by them as exposed by Tom Tancredo that their military is on their side of the border and they routinely cross into our sovereign nation. It is only a matter of time before something serious happens down there unless Congress has the guts to put their foot up Vincente Fox's ass.

[FreeReign]

People should vote their conscience -- always.

I always vote my conscience too. That is why if a more constitution loving politician can't beat Bush in the primaries, then I will vote for Bush against the most likely liberal Democrat.

[Tuor]

When a person gets into an auto-accident and someone dies, we don't accuse him of having blood on his hands.

What if that same person has had several drinks? That would change things, wouldn't it? What Tancredo is saying, IMO, is that for Congress and the Executive have an obligation to maintain the borders of this country, and if their failure to do so allowed terrorists to enter the country, they would share part of the responsibility for any acts they commit. If this is what he meant (beneath the inflammatory rhetoric), then I would agree with him. In fact, we would *all* have to shoulder some of the blame because we elected officials who failed in their duty and did not remove them.

Tuor

[Tuor]

I do and that is why Buchanan or Keys will not get my vote

I can respect that. It is also why Bush did not get, and will not get, my vote.

Tuor

[Sabertooth]

If you don't see the difference between the support people have for the honor and decency of George W. Bush, and the Clintonistas, you haven't been paying any attention. The admiration for President Bush is in a totally different realm, and I think you know it.

I'm paying attention to those who turn a blind eye to anything Bush does wrong, and will reach for any possible excuse to justify it it. I'm well aware tha Clinton is scum and Bush isn't,,, that doesn't make the blind loyalty any more appealing.

I really thought more of you than that, Sabertooth, to make such a stupid comment. You are intelligent and usually insightful, but this statement is absurd, and makes you sound like the hateful morons around here.....and I don't think you are one. Are you?

Ask around, there seems to be a consensus building!

BTW, I have a number of good conservative friends in California who don't share your disdain of immigrants, and who support the President wholeheartedly.

First, you err in assuming that I have disdain for immigrants... My beef is with the Illegals.

Second, do your CA friends want the Illegals here, or gone?

[Mo1]

If this is what he meant (beneath the inflammatory rhetoric), then I would agree with him. In fact, we would *all* have to shoulder some of the blame because we elected officials who failed in their duty and did not remove them.

I can't speak for others but I don't totally disagree that we need to fix our border problem .. but to put the blame on Bush as Tancredo did was uncalled for ..

[Sabertooth]

I do not recall making a post directed to you ..

Sort of irrelevant, since you posted in open forum about voters you would blame if Hillary got into office, of which I suppose I might be one.

I do recall making a comment earlier on the Thread and so far the ONLY decent response I saw towards my comment was from DoughtyOne .. he/she actually had a good response .. Some points I agree with and some I do not and guess what DoughtyOne did not call me names ..

Well, let's take a look at your post and my reply...

---

If Hillary is voted into office, it will be because Bush screwed his own power base

Sorry pal it is the individual that votes and it will be the voters fault if Hillary get into office .. just like I blamed the Voters for the 8 yr. nightmare of her husband Administration

132 posted on 5/13/02 7:49 PM Pacific by Mo1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

---

To: Mo1

Sorry pal it is the individual that votes and it will be the voters fault if Hillary get into office .. just like I blamed the Voters for the 8 yr. nightmare of her husband Administration

So the politicians have no impact on our votes?

Hmmm... then why do they campaign?

It doesn't really mater who you blame, what matters is reality. In '92, Bush the Elder lost a lot of votes (mostly to Perot) that he won in '88. Was that a deus ex machina for Clinton, or did GHWB alienate a big chunk of his base?

Does he bear no responsibility for that?

Likewise, if Bush the Younger, experiences a net loss of votes while pandering to Latinos on Illegals, whose fault is that?

If Dubya pursues this strategy and it backfires, the blame is his and his alone.

We don't owe him our votes.

141 posted on 5/13/02 7:58 PM Pacific by Sabertooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

---

Did I call you names?

[ohioWfan]

Ask around, there seems to be a consensus building!

Since when does 'consensus' imply correctness?

It wouldn't matter if there were thousands of you who had the 'consensus' that what we feel is 'blind loyalty.' You'd still be wrong. I haven't come across a single person on FR who supports the President, who hasn't thought the issues through completely. We agree with him on most issues, and disagree on others, but have determined that what he is doing for this country is far more important than the issues on which we disagree.

Many of the bashers around here people feed on each other's hatred, and are emboldened when they think they have company. The truth is, they are a tiny minority of the population, and not even a blip on any radar screen. They are insignificant and they know it, which is why they rant all over the place. There are plenty of people around here who hate Bush no matter what he does.......witness the pro 2nd amendment statements from the administration, his stand against the international court, and any number of other very strong Conservative issues, then read the posts of the haters. They're pathetic. They don't care what he says or does. They are against him no matter what. Why don't you complain about their 'blind disloyalty?'

And no, my friends do not like being overrun by illegals, but neither do they misinterpret the President's positions, as most of the anti-immigration nuts do around here (I do not include you in that category). I've read about the so-called 'amnesty.' And what I've read from bashers is not even close to what it really does. But what does the truth matter, anyway? Not one whit to a basher.