What to do about illegal immigrants?

[demsformd]

You know the only thing that conservatives ever do is complain about how we liberals "scare" people. I guess that they forget how President Bush is telling people that he is the only person that can protect us because "our oceans used to protect us." They have a color code system that instead of using terms like moderate we have elevated and it never goes below that. They say how the illegal immigrant next door does nothing but take our tax dollars from us. How is that not a scare tactic?

Vra, you always bring up how the conservatives are the ones that always get rid of dictators. Come on get real. We've taken out Hussein but do you really think that the government we put up there is going to succeed when there are radical Shiites in the majority and there are anti-American protests everday. And prior to this, where did any Republican take out a foreign dictator? In fact we were very open to dictators in the past as long as they were on our side (re: Diem in Vietnam, the shah in Iran). Stop thinking that you are the great liberator of the world. People have to liberate themselves, we can't do it for them. Anyways, conservative ideology has always emphasized non-intervention overseas so stop this bs now.

 

[vraiblonde]

Dems, your jealousy is making you crazy and nonsensical.

President Bush is telling people that he is the only person that can protect us because "our oceans used to protect us."

I must have missed that speech - can you find me a transcript?

They say how the illegal immigrant next door does nothing but take our tax dollars from us. How is that not a scare tactic?

Because it's true.

(re: Diem in Vietnam, the shah in Iran).

Bone up on some history, then come back and tell me why I laughed out loud when I read that comment.

Anyways, conservative ideology has always emphasized non-intervention overseas so stop this bs now.

Uh, that's Pat Buchanan, not any elected Republican official. If you look at our last few Republican Presidents, they've been all over them foreigners.

 

[demsformd]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
Dems, your jealousy is making you crazy and nonsensical.
I must have missed that speech - can you find me a transcript?
Because it's true.
Bone up on some history, then come back and tell me why I laughed out loud when I read that comment.
Uh, that's Pat Buchanan, not any elected Republican official. If you look at our last few Republican Presidents, they've been all over them foreigners.

No my jealousy is not doing that...my anger with the right wing is doing that. It just ceases to amaze me how hypocritical and wrong that side is on almost every issue. I am sick of people letting the right wing scare them into thinking that they are the only type of people that can protect them because it just is not true.

I cannot believe that you have not heard Bush say that? It's been that man's stump speech since 9/11.

Tell me about your whole problem with the historical reference, I have figures on the federal government's aid to both the shah and Diem.

 

[vraiblonde]

I have figures on the federal government's aid to both the shah and Diem.

Good - then you know who was President and authorized those transactions. Those probably weren't the best examples you could have given to make your point about Presidents who harbor dictators.

I am sick of people letting the right wing scare them into thinking that they are the only type of people that can protect them because it just is not true.

Take a look at your own party and some of the "campaign" ad they've been running. Then come back and tell me who the scaremongers are.

 

[SmallTown]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
Take a look at your own party and some of the "campaign" ad they've been running. Then come back and tell me who the scaremongers are.

I dunno, these kinds of comments scare the he|| out of me:

"I'm the master of low expectations." —George W. Bush, aboard Air Force One, June 4, 2003

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by SmallTown
I dunno, these kinds of comments scare the he|| out of me:

"I'm the master of low expectations." —George W. Bush, aboard Air Force One, June 4, 2003

Why? And in what context did he say it?

 

[SamSpade]

He was flying to Qatar after the summit with Abbas and Sharon. His approach is not to set impossible goals right off - while everyone said "it was a failure", Bush's reaction was along the lines of heck, we got them TALKING face to face. The point of the summit was not an agreement, or anything earth-shaking - it was to kick it off.

Bush manages to prevail a lot in these situations because he basically believes in slow steady progress instead of big showy stunts.

He added however that he planned to "ride herd" on the bunch of them, because he believes peace is do-able.

 

[demsformd]

Originally posted by SamSpade
Bush manages to prevail a lot in these situations because he basically believes in slow steady progress instead of big showy stunts.

Sam, would you consider dressing up in a flight suit, flying in a fighter plane 90 miles off the coast to an aircraft carrier, and delivering a so-called "victory" speech a big showy stunt?

 

[SamSpade]

Originally posted by demsformd
Sam, would you consider dressing up in a flight suit, flying in a fighter plane 90 miles off the coast to an aircraft carrier, and delivering a so-called "victory" speech a big showy stunt?

Would you call greeting the troops as they returned a showy stunt? This event ONLY bothers liberals. It pisses them off they were wrong about the war.

Lyndon Johnson flew to South Vietnam to rally his troops, urging them to ''nail that ol' coonskin to the wall.'' FDR joined Winston Churchill and assembled sailors in a spirited chorus of ''Onward, Christian Soldiers'' aboard a warship in the North Atlantic in 1941. Lincoln visited Union troops on the battlefield, just as James Madison did during the War of 1812.

In 1844, President Tyler visited the Steam sloop Princeton. In 1856, President Franklin Pierce was seen onboard the Steam frigate Wabash. President Theodore Roosevelt boarded the Battleship Illinois in 1902, the Submarine Plunger in 1905, the Battleship Louisiana in 1906, the Battleship Connecticut in 1907; 1909 and the Battleship Mississippi in 1907. William Taft was onboard the Battleship Arkansas in 1912. Woodrow Wilson spent time on the Transport George Washington in 1919. Calvin Coolidge visited the Battleship Utah in 1928 and the Battleship Texas that same year. Herbert Hoover had multiple visits aboard the Battleship Maryland in 1928; 29, the Battleship Utah in 1928; 29 and also a visit aboard the Battleship Arizona in 1931. F.D. Roosevelt appears to hold the record for presidential visits aboard military ships. In 1934; 35; 38 and 39 he spent time on the Cruiser Houston. He could be found aboard the Cruiser Indianapolis in 1933; 36, the Destroyer Phelps in 1937 and the Cruiser Philadelphia in 1938. In 1939 and 1940, FDR visited the Cruiser Tuscaloosa. He was aboard the Cruiser Augusta in 1941 and even saw time on the British Battleship Prince of Whales later that year. He was seen onboard the Battleship Iowa in 1943 on his way to Yalta and even had a special bathtub installed onboard for the trip. He was on the deck of the Cruiser Memphis in 1943 and in the following year was aboard the Destroyer Cunnings, the Cruiser Baltimore and the Cruiser Quincy. Harry Truman had visits aboard the Cruiser Augusta in 1945, the Battleship Missouri in 1945; 47, the Destroyer Lansdowne in 1945 and the Submarine U-2513 in 1946.
In 1957, Dwight Eisenhower was aboard the Carrier Saratoga and the Submarine Seawolf. He visited the Cruiser Des Moines in 1959 and the Cruiser Saint Paul in 1960. President Kennedy liked boats too. In 1962, JFK visited the Destroyer Joseph P. Kennedy Jr. Later in that same year he was onboard the Coast Guard training ship Eagle and the Submarine Chopper following that. He boarded the Submarine Thomas A. Edison, the missile test ship Observation Island, the Carrier Kitty Hawk and the Carrier Oriskany in 1963. Lyndon Johnson went aboard Carrier Enterprise in 1967. Richard Nixon visited the Carrier Hornet 1969. Jimmy Carter was on two vessels, the Submarine Los Angeles in 1977 and the Carrier Dwight D Eisenhower in 1978. 1981 saw Ronald Reagan on the Carrier Constellation. He was also on the Battleships New Jersey in 1982 and Iowa in 1986. George H. W. Bush visited the Carrier Forrestal in 1989 and the Guided Missile Cruiser Belknap in 1991. Former President, Bill Clinton had his share of photo opportunities aboard the Carrier Carl Vinson in 1993; 95, the Carrier George Washington in 1994, the Carrier Independence in 1996 and the Carrier Harry S. Truman in 1998.




Let's just say - it's an old tradition.

What do you mean, "so-called"? We won. It's a victory. Here's a personal bit of advice - calling something "so-called", especially when it IS "so", is an insult and reeks of sour grapes.

You know what IS a showy stunt? Launching a few cruise missiles after a couple embassies get bombed. And for all his bluster, Lyndon Johnson once had a carrier *LAUNCHED* so he could fly out to it and land on it.

I like how one Republican said it "This is handing us an issue, because the Democrats make themselves look so small and petty."

Ask the troops. You know, the men who were THERE. You try telling them what a stunt it was. Don't be surprised if they toss you in the ocean.

 

[Sharon]

Originally posted by demsformd
would you consider dressing up in a flight suit, flying in a fighter plane 90 miles off the coast to an aircraft carrier, and delivering a so-called "victory" speech a big showy stunt?

I'm glad to have a president who is proud of our military and it shows!

We didn't see that with whatshisname.

 

[SmallTown]

Originally posted by SamSpade
What do you mean, "so-called"? We won. It's a victory. Here's a personal bit of advice - calling something "so-called", especially when it IS "so", is an insult and reeks of sour grapes.

Tell the familys of the 33 servicemen that have been killed since the war was "won". Tell that to the iraqi people who are still looking for some sort of leadership in their country. Tell that to the "At least 3,240 civilians were killed in the U.S.-led war in Iraq, including 1,896 in Baghdad, according to a study of hospital records and death certificates conducted by The Associated Press. "

The initial battle was strong and decisive. But since Bush declared "victory", things have not been so rosy in Iraq. It will be interesting to see how it all pans out.

 

[SamSpade]

Originally posted by SmallTown
Tell the familys of the 33 servicemen that have been killed since the war was "won". Tell that to the iraqi people who are still looking for some sort of leadership in their country. Tell that to the "At least 3,240 civilians were killed in the U.S.-led war in Iraq, including 1,896 in Baghdad, according to a study of hospital records and death certificates conducted by The Associated Press. "

The initial battle was strong and decisive. But since Bush declared "victory", things have not been so rosy in Iraq. It will be interesting to see how it all pans out.

I'm gonna ignore the completely irrelevant references to the number of civilian casualties that occurred DURING THE WAR. That's why wars are awful. Civilians die. As awful as it is that thousands die - and an Iraqi doctor was quoted as blaming a lot on Saddam, who placed critical weaponry and troops in civilian areas, schools and hospitals - as awful as it is - it's positively astounding. Pre-war estimates by the naysayers had casualties in the hundreds of thousands, amongst the civilian population. This war was nothing short of amazing, that the civilian loss of life was so incredibly low, and much of it caused by their own munitions.

Let's give you a short lesson. War starts. People die, War ends. Victory ensues. Got it? Anyone who died in the war, that's irrelevant.

Did we win in Afghanistan? Or how about Bosnia, and Kosovo? Did anyone die, after the war was over? How long was there chaos in every war we have fought in the last century? Thirty-three men is a bad thing - but we lose almost that many in accidents. And people die in accidents after the war - ask General Patton.

What you're seeing in the news is NORMAL for a war of this magnitude. Find something ELSE to gripe about.

 

[SmallTown]

Originally posted by SamSpade
Got it? Anyone who died in the war, that's irrelevant.

Oh my.

 

[Dymphna]

We won the BATTLE, the real war (politically) isn't over. We have to prove what we did was right by helping set up a stable, productive government in Iraq, and finding proof, enough to satisfy the world that the WMD's existed at least at the begining of the war.

If we don't do these things, we'll look like heavy handed imperialistic baffoons to the rest of the world. If a bunch of countries got together, they could, if they wanted, ruin our economy. Since it's limping along at the moment, it wouldn't take long. We could easily become the impoverished, overpopulated third world country in a generation or three.

 

[SamSpade]

I'm fairly convinced that if we produce everything we ever claimed, in abundance, with boatloads of witnesses, there will be naysayers, and doubters, and there will never be apologies from those who opposed it. Won't happen. No matter how perfectly you do something, there's always something to complain about.

On the other hand - the rest of the world cannot afford to ever allow the US to sink economically, because it directly affects THEM. I read not too recently a column where someone was railing against our economic policies, because what we did affected THEM, in their country, and we should take them into consideration. Yeah. So we're not only to blame for our own economic woes, we get the rest of the world to get on our case, too. Lovely.

People will call us imperialists, no matter what. I've already heard enough about how our culture is spreading so widely, and that it fosters resentment. The rest of the world needs to get a grip, I think.

 

[Dymphna]

Originally posted by SamSpade
I'm fairly convinced that if we produce everything we ever claimed, in abundance, with boatloads of witnesses, there will be naysayers, and doubters, and there will never be apologies from those who opposed it. Won't happen. No matter how perfectly you do something, there's always something to complain about.

On the other hand - the rest of the world cannot afford to ever allow the US to sink economically, because it directly affects THEM. I read not too recently a column where someone was railing against our economic policies, because what we did affected THEM, in their country, and we should take them into consideration. Yeah. So we're not only to blame for our own economic woes, we get the rest of the world to get on our case, too. Lovely.

People will call us imperialists, no matter what. I've already heard enough about how our culture is spreading so widely, and that it fosters resentment. The rest of the world needs to get a grip, I think.

Of course, SOME people will always be against us, no matter what.

What I mean is if we don't manage to convince the major players, the bulk of the EU and Japan, they could conceivable ban together. Britian and Canada would join them and working together cut us out of the picture. There is nothing the US can offer that is unique to the world, we are just so big that we have multiple resources in one place. It's like going to Walmart. Could you survive if you boycotted Walmart? You may have to pay a little more, you may have to go to several different places, but if you were determined to make a point you could do it. If you got everyone else to go along with you EVENTUALLY, you could put Walmart out of business.

 

[SamSpade]

Nah - you could bet after a while, somebody would sneak in, under the wire. When WE try to isolate someone economically, SOME one always breaks faith with us. They would do the same. They're weasels.

 

[Dymphna]

Originally posted by SamSpade
Nah - you could bet after a while, somebody would sneak in, under the wire. When WE try to isolate someone economically, SOME one always breaks faith with us. They would do the same. They're weasels.

Yeah, but Cuba and Iraq are hardly examples for us to emmulate economically. Granted, we don't have a dictator, but if we can call Iraq's elections a farce, others can say the same about us. We'd have to have a radical change in government policies and the next president would have to kiss some a$$, which won't go over well domestically and shoot consumer confidence all to he!!. It would take us a long time to recover.

 

[SamSpade]

That's the right situation, wrong conclusion. No gang up on the US would work with any of these guys - they would break faith with each other, just as easily as they did with us. When it comes to business, they're about as reliable as France is as a military ally.

Browsing over some material on the US economy - I'm convinced they could never pull it off. The consequences would be too dire for their own economies.

 

[fear nothing]

Not to just jump in, but here it goes. I feel sorry for the immigrants because f the living conditions they have in their own country but how do they expect the conditions to improve if they do not stay home and fight, or work to improve their country? Coming here and to work for almost nothing sending the money home is not the answer. It is a temporary fix. It is especially frustrating when you have illegal immigrants that come here and live yet they are the first ones to bad mouth the USA.

Enough is enough. Depending on the situation, I think they should stay in the homeland and work on improving their home. Just like we and many other countries have.