Title: bush just said he wants illegals to stay in the country SO THEY CAN DO ALL THE JOBS LAZY AMERICANS WON'T - FOX NEWS Source:
WHITE HOUSE URL Source:[None] Published:Oct 11, 2006 Author:BUSH Post Date:2006-10-11 12:05:54 by TLBSHOW Keywords:None Views:14328 Comments:26
PRESS CONF - HARD TO SECURE BORDER
Poster Comment:
Bush: "You Can't Kick 12,000,000 People Out Of Your Country" [ tells ILLEGALS HE IS ON THEIR SIDE NOT THE AMERICAN PEOPLES SIDE = BUSH IS A TRAITOR ]
The Kool-Aid-sipping morons over at TOS are saying, "See, he SAID he is building a fence. < exasperation > Will they be satisfied NOW!?"
This bastard needs to be impeached.
I have never heard such a mealy-mouthed pile as his comments on border security at today's presser. He may have barely uttered the words that we are building a fence but it was utterly whiney, without conviction, qualified and requalified. And then he told us that "you can't fence the whole border." And, of course, his first priority (only priority, really) is his amnesty program.
Most people would be willing to talk about "guest worker" if the government showed any resolution whatsoever to stop illegal immigration FIRST. But Bush and his business buds, Democrats, and liberal Jews (Neocons and otherwise) are determined that they WILL HAVE massive immigration. They are afraid that the country -- while it probably would support some level of guest workers -- would not allow this country to have its essentially Christian, European culture submerged into a third-world stew. So they want to enshirine virtually unlimited immigration into law BEFORE any discussion of security. Fortunately, most of the country understands this and is rightly demanding, SECURITY FIRST! FENCE (or WALL) FIRST! A DEMONSTRATION OF WILL TO CONTROL THE BORDER FIRST. Then we will talk.
A leading senator on immigration-reform says he has serious doubts the 700-mile fence on the country's nearly 2,000 mile-long border with Mexico will ever be built despite a bipartisan Senate vote of 80-19 last week.
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, chairman of the Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship Subcommittee, told WND "we have not yet appropriated nearly enough to complete the job."
A leading senator on immigration-reform says he has serious doubts the 700-mile fence on the country's nearly 2,000 mile-long border with Mexico will ever be built...
Only a fool really ~expects~ it to be built, although we could always hope. Yes, I am aware of this specific prediction.
I think I might depart these many years of fervent conservatism and go over to the Lou Dobbs left. Lou, of couse, is easy to love on immigration. But I am thinking of taking up with his real leftist ideas. I mean, afterall, the people with money in this country are the ones most fervently pushing for immigration. They do not give a rat's ass about anyone's small town or middle- class neighborhood. All they care about is international business, which needs labor, customers, the free flow of materials, and a ruthless attitude toward the enviroment. They are already internationalists, living and investing all over the world. They are destroying my country, and I am warming up to the idea of destroying their fortunes! Bring on the confiscatory, highly progressive taxes and let's start doing to the big boys what they are doing to the rest of the country.
They are already internationalists, living and investing all over the world. They are destroying my country, and I am warming up to the idea of destroying their fortunes! Bring on the confiscatory, highly progressive taxes and let's start doing to the big boys what they are doing to the rest of the country.
I like Lou Dobbs too. What you mentioned sounds a lot better then the current circumstance we find ourselves in.
FORGET the taxing (which can effect US as well as the Big Boys) and start working on COPYRIGHT LAW!!! Virtually ALL of the large internationalist fortunes today (Particularly Micro$oft's and the entertainment industry giants) are being built in the PIP (Permanent Intellectual Property) concept of Copyright and Patent law. I would recommend Jury Nullification in so called "piracy" or criminal copyright violation cases based on the folling ideas.
That Copyrights should last no more than 5 years on computer software and other wortks of art subject to deliberate forced upgrading and "planned obsolecence" schemes.
That Copyrights, union contracts, royalty contracts and other types of "inteleectual property" arrangements should last no more than 28 years in toto on books, songs, movies, television shows, and other works of art.
The reason I reccomend Jury Nullification is that I believe that the Jury Box has become the only place where your vote counts for CRAP anymore in our two party Diebold "election" system.
Jury nulification is a great cause. I was in court once for driving without government permission slip (license) I tried to tell the jury that they were the trier of facts and the law. The Judge got pissed and called me up. I told him that John Jay said the same thing and doesn't he respect John Jay. He said something like Yes but.......
as for the diebold problem. I am considering running an unofficial election at the place I vote. It will be paper ballots. Perhaps enough people would participate to see if the governments numbers are accurate.
The judge didn't let me say what I wanted. I kept trying but he kept calling me back for a "sidebar" or whatever they call it. I had a copy of the constitution. I told the jury this is the constitution. Then I ripped it up and said that is what this court is doing to it. Then I rested my case. I lost.
There was another time where I defended myself to a jury trial and won though. When I used a public defender one time I also lost. The public defender was the worse outcome as I got house arrest for one month.
Driving ~is~ a practical necessity for most people these days. I can certainly understand why someone who is competent to drive but had -- for whatever reason -- lost his license might choose to carry on doing what he had to do (driving) to live his life, earn his living, feed his family, etc.
I haven't particularly heard of strong libertarians opting out of the licensing system on purely philosophical grounds -- as some opt out of the income tax system -- but I can readily imagine it. I was just curious if you were taking that kind of position. Sounds like you ~were~ in the system and lost your license (something I am not criticizing at all) rather than just deciding on libertarian principle that you would not participate (although you do seem to be endorsing that position now).
(It seems a bit rude to try to tease you out without revealing my own position. I am not a libertarian. I am more of the facist brand of right winger! LOL I want law and order, ESPECIALLY ON THE BORDER, but also elsewhere. I am more afraid of criminals and general social disorder than I am that Hillary will track me down if my SSN is in the wrong government data base. My impression is that your board is fiercely libertarian, although I have not scrutinized people's opinions enough to say that with certainty. Opposition, on libertarian principle, to the licensing of drivers seemed to me a good marker by which to gauge where you are. My intent was not to attack or ridicule that position...I am interested in what folks think.)
Ok I lost my license probably about 8 years ago. I was taking a friend home in my wifes car. The tail light was out. It was in December before Christmas. I readily admit that I let my insurance lapse. They suspended my license automatically. I had insurance the November before. Things were kind of tight and and I didn't have the money to pay the insurance. So they suspended my license automatically. What happened to my right to a trial by jury. There was no law and order there. I later learned that driving was a right. So I refused to pay the reinstatement fee and I kept driving. I have probably been busted for driving without a license about 8 or 9 times. I still don't have a license and I still drive. I will be eligible to get license back next Year. I am thinking about getting it back. I hate to "cave", but it has cost me a lot of money. Also I get real nervous when cops get behind me.
Interesting. Although my strong principles don't tend to be in the libertarian direction, I do have a few (strong principles). But I often roll over. Better to pick some important fights at times and places of your own choosing. Definitely a struggle to be a driver's license resister.
We've had a couple of recent extreme cases in my community of habitual DWI offenders killing other motorists. One had gotten out of prison that very day for his latest DWI, got drunk, stole a car and smashed someone head-on.
I am not a prude about DWI -- I have never been nailed although I should have, in my younger days -- but I do believe that it is a very serious problem. Of course, the prudes have gone nuts and people are being busted for DWI at very marginal levels of intoxication. I suppose that is the libertarian argument: Give government a little authority and they never know when to quit.
But there are a dangerous number of chronic, serious alcohol abusers, who, IMO, need to be kept off the roads. To me, this alone justifies the state's authority to decide who drives. I am sure that most of these very dangerous people feel that they, also, have a "right" to drive. My attitude is that the community has a more important right to use the roads in reasonable safety. Everyday on the highways, I see very aggressive drivers seriously speeding and dodging in and out of traffic as though they were playing some video game. I would like to see the state ~more~ aggressive in taking these people off the roads, as well as drunks.
Your case seems to me much less cut and dried. You were not flagrantly endangering other people which, to me, is the condition that clearly justifies forceful state action. I talked about DWI and habitual reckless and aggressive driving, because I think it makes the case that libertarianism, as appealing as it is in some respects, is often not the answer in modern life. Unfortunately, giving the state authority means a constant battle to keep them from abusing it.
