WHAT A SPEECH!!!!!!!

and sorry greg, anti-govt was meant as a poke to the people on here who are against bush, the liberals, etc. I was just looking for somthing positive, and most of the threads here were all negative.
 
we have had worst presidents!! i am sick of hearing about how terible he is! i prey that we all arnt wishing for him back in a few years. it cant be a easy job, and there is no way that he can make everyone happy, if any of you think that you can do a better job i would like to hear how! you might get my vote.
Clint
 
azcowboy, he's terrible. Sure, I'm glad he is doing things for the war on terror, but we could of had a strong conservative guy in there doing the same thing that could actually get in front of a crowd and talk without embarassing the country.

His approval rating was down to 34%. Any time that happens it means that the president has LOST his base. When you lose your base that means you're doing something wrong. Something VERY wrong.

I imagine his rating will spike now that he came out and said he is sending troops to the border (something that he should have done a LONG time ago) but when us Americans see that it's just a political move (he doesn't really want to stop illegals from getting over here, if he did he would have done this a long time ago) his rating will drop again.

You will learn, as I did, that you have to take your republicn blinders off, as difficult as it will be to do, you will have to do it to see reality in this country. I know I was in your boat at one time, "Republican good, democrat bad".

I hope the best for you.
 
Quote:
I think he stepped up to the plate tonight, and while he didnt hit a home run, he at least got on base


He didn't even take a swing! He walked to first.

Quote:
anti-govt was meant as a poke to the people on here who are against bush, the liberals, etc.


Who would that be? There is opposition to his limp wristed policies and ineffective decision making. The liberals?
 
Nasa, let me try one more time. And So. Dak has it right, I know he has lost his conservative base. But heres the thing, he still and always will support the thing that everyone of us treasure, the 2nd ammendment. For that reason and only that reason, slamming him like every bleeding heart liberal does nothing but hurt our cause as well. My only point in this whole thing is that we need to be easy throwing him under the bus, as it only serves the purposes of the left, and defeats our own. I never said bow down to the man, he is the greatest president ever, we all know he is far from it. But he is trying at least, and thats something. I know its not what you want, and its not good enough for you, or myself for that matter, but i recognize the fact that in wholeheartedly saying he is a fool and incompetent, and this border thing is crazy, and he wants amnesty( which i believe he said he doesnt), doesnt do us any good, because it further distances the good americans like us from ever coming up with a plan that will work. The immigration thing is totally f-d up, and what is going to happen is not good enough. But isnt it better than nothing, which is what we got for so long? I dont care what the reason is behind it, if he can stop a few more people from coming over here, he has done more than anyone else has on capital hill. I just have to believe that if we support him on this, then it opens the gate for tougher legislation and tougher enforcement down the line. We have to start somewhere, and I think he did that. Its a start, and only a start. Never said it was anything else.
 
Speech is right, no policy nothing new ,same ole same ole
Blah blah blah. I respect Geo. Bush and the office of the president however he must stop trying to please everyone and become the LEADER we elected. this is not an easy issue but but we must enforce our laws or were screwed.We cannot allow those that have broken the law to be rewarded in any way I dont know whats so hard to understand about that. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused1.gif
 
I don't think any of this is 'invention'. As was stated, the existing laws already address most of what needs to occur. The issue seems to be more one of funding and execution. I don't really appreciate the issue of 'militerizing' our boarders and why the national guard could not be fully utilized as a tactical tool until a 'different flavor of military - BP' was fully staffed and capable. I think we have either ignored or not understood the true costs and implications of a pores boarder since the beginning and should take the immediate steps available to us to secure them and maintain them. BTW - it is a national need and cost. Not just something that the boardering states should have to fund.

I keep hearing the retoric 'we are a nation of laws' and we certainly have a boat load of them and they each have their requiste associated penalties for infraction and we spent countless dollars on politicians to have them established. But it seems to me we [as a nation] have been consistently willing for them to be a pharse and have even created elaborate and costly charades to maintain them while at the same time ignoring them. I wonder what percentages of those commiting infractions actually serve the requisite penalty for them? Seems to me we fund and execute at our boarders in the same way we do with the rest of our legal system. This is not a negative statement of our LEO's, but directed at how we fund them and the court system of plea bargins and revolving doors behind them.

I feel the speech was more political than anything else. If the true desire is to correct the problem quickly, maybe the action should have been to in fact militarize the boarders through presidential action and put the pressure on congress to drive funding & execution of the existing laws we paid them to establish.

I still don't get the sense that we are any closer to 'walking the talk' when it comes to enforcing the laws we so proudly espouse.

I also have empathy for what is probably a large portion [but not all] of the individuals whose lives were so desperate as to drive them to immigrate illegally. I don't support breaking laws and don't view doing so as a way to get entry to a country that is supposedly based on them is a good approach. But I hope we have enough clarity and disernment to recognize they are not the sole villian and as a matter of politics [or whatever] hold them to some righteous standard above what we expect of the rest of ourselves and what we as a 'nation of laws' enforce on the rest of the illegal activities in our society.
 
Quote:
You will learn, as I did, that you have to take your republicn blinders off, as difficult as it will be to do, you will have to do it to see reality in this country. I know I was in your boat at one time, "Republican good, democrat bad".




That's what I'm talking about!!! Just because the ticket says Republican does not mean that everything is going to be OK. Politics have taking a nasty turn towards "all for me and none for the rest" on both sides on the fence. There is some definate reading between the lines that needs to be done. And then sometimes that does not help. Our new Govenor just out right lied to us on several issues and made alot of empty promises during his campaign. And he is a republican. he on alot of issues has done the exact oppisite of what he said he was going to do.

I am going to take a good look at the CP So.dakota.
 
I voted for GWB in both elections. GW hasn't been that great but don't forget what we had for alternatives in those two elections.

GWB woke up from a long nap to realize that he and the Republican party have a huge problem, a problem that could be disastrous at the polls. Now we have a proposed solution of calling up thousands of National Guard troops as a band-aid until we hire more Border Patrol agents.

I find it somewhat humorous (although none of this is funny) to read some articles from the past.

Border Patrol News

Budget Proposal Falls Short on Border Patrol Agents

March 8th 2005

President Bush's proposed 2006 budget for the Department of Homeland Security calls for 210 additional Border Patrol agents instead of the 2,000 mandated in legislation signed last year, an agency official acknowledged Wednesday. Still, Homeland Security officials told a Senate Appropriations subcommittee that the U.S. was safer than before the department was created in March 2003. Democratic senators questioned whether Bush's $12.9-billion budget request for fiscal year 2006, which begins Oct. 1, was sufficient for three customs and immigration agencies charged with maintaining the integrity of the nation's borders.

"For the third year in a row, the president has submitted a budget for the Department of Homeland Security that ignores the stark reality of the resources needed to secure the homeland," said Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.).

The 210 additional Border Patrol agents are earmarked for the Southwest, specifically for high-traffic areas such as the Arizona corridor.

It is also interesting to go back into the Clinton administration and see similar cuts to the Border Patrol.

Another post, that is forthcoming, following some more research, will touch on the allegations that either the Border Patrol or others in the federal government are alerting the Mexican governament of the Minute Man activities in this country. From what I have seen so far, it is alarming.
 
Yep. Our government is selling us down the river! What's worse is they all think the American people are too stupid to see what's happening! Sadly, there is quite a large percentage of our population that just doesn't care about these kinds of things as long as 'they get thiers'. Living in the Dallas area I can attest that there are a bunch of people that don't care about anything else other than making more money, having the latest Hummer and living in houses they can't really afford. These people don't feel any need to wrap their pathetic minds around tough issues that are affecting us now and will be a very heavy burden on our children!

On another note, we have too many people that have fallen for the 'middle of the road' mentality. Jeb Bush said it the other day-'we can't afford to round up 12million people'. WELL I SAY BULLCRAP! How can we afford NOT to!?
 
Before we start spending incrementally to 'round up' folks, we need to secure the border and end the catch and release process for those that are currently being found. Until then, we are just wasting time and money bailing a very leaky boat. Once we begin to see success in these areas [I ain't holding my breath] we can then figure the best approach for resolving those that are already here.
 
Quote:
Before we start spending incrementally to 'round up' folks, we need to secure the border and end the catch and release process for those that are currently being found. Until then, we are just wasting time and money bailing a very leaky boat. Once we begin to see success in these areas [I ain't holding my breath] we can then figure the best approach for resolving those that are already here.


Exactly! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grinning-smiley-003.gif And dumping homeland security money on every dink town isn't helping anybody.
 
Exactly, and if we hold bush to what he said in his speech, and DONT LET IT BECOME MORE POLITICAL RHETORIC, then it wont be a waste of money to do what needs to be done after the major holes are filled.
 
You know what I heard? Doubletalk.
Paraphrasing:
"I don't support amnesty"
"We need a path to citizenship for those who are here"

Bush and the Repubs are starting to realize that they are sinking because of immigration. They're stuck, do they cater to their big-business money men or pander to their voter base? So, in my opinion, Bush is pandering to us on TV, but either won't do anything or will give amnesty to the illegals. Gotta have the cheap labor.

And Bush is weak on the 2nd amendment. He said that he'd sign an assault weapons ban renewal if it reached his desk.

I voted for Bush, but I continue to be disappointed by him.
 
Quote:
But heres the thing, he still and always will support the thing that everyone of us treasure, the 2nd ammendment.



Just a quick question and it is a hair off topic but how do you know this to be 100% true?
 
One, he hunts, two, he allowed and wanted to let the assault rifle ban, signed by clinton, to expire. Three, he surrounds himself with sportsmen, i.e. cheney, even though he needs to be a little more carefull!
 
Quote:
he surrounds himself with sportsmen, i.e. cheney



It's going to take more than one person to justify that statement. People who take a gun to the field only once or twice a year hardly qualifies being called a "sportsman". /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
Back
Top