It's About Liberty: A Conservative Forum
Topics => Media Bias/Media War => Topic started by: IronDioPriest on September 04, 2011, 10:23:23 AM
-
We need to get used to this, and figure out a way to combat it. If we thought it was bad in '08, look at the mountain the media is going to have to move in '12 to push Hussein over the top.
AP MISLEADS READERS ON RICK PERRY: Cherry-Pick His Statement on Border Security & Lie About Audience Reaction (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/09/ap-purposely-mislead-readers-on-rick-perry-cherry-pick-his-statement-on-border-security-lie-about-audience-reaction/)
[blockquote]Speaking to hundreds of Granite State voters at a private reception, the Texas governor was asked whether he supported a fence along the Mexican border.
“No, I don’t support a fence on the border,” he said. “The fact is, it’s 1,200 miles from Brownsville to El Paso. Two things: How long you think it would take to build that? And then if you build a 30-foot wall from El Paso to Brownsville, the 35-foot ladder business gets real good.”
The answer produced an angry shout from at least one audience member.[/blockquote]
But from a transcript of the actual speech...
[blockquote]“No, I don’t support a fence on the border,” he said, while referring to the long border in Texas alone. “The fact is, it’s 1,200 miles from Brownsville to El Paso. Two things: How long you think it would take to build that? And then if you build a 30-foot wall from El Paso to Brownsville, the 35-foot ladder business gets real good.”
Instead, Perry said he supported “strategic fencing” and National Guard troops to prevent illegal immigration and violence from Mexican drug cartels.[/blockquote]
The AP deleted the part of Perry’s speech that including using “strategic fencing” and National Guard troops on the border.
More on the supposed "angry shout" that witnesses say never occurred, at gatewaypundit... (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/09/ap-purposely-mislead-readers-on-rick-perry-cherry-pick-his-statement-on-border-security-lie-about-audience-reaction/)
-
But, I do believe he supported a Texas Dream Act
-
This may have been a distortion by the AP, but it doesn't change the obvious fact that Perry is soft on illegal immigration. I am wary of him for that reason. Particularly, I'm disturbed by his lack of support for Arizona's SB1070.
-
AP distortion or no, this issue is where I'm most suspicious about Perry. He sounds eerily like Bush in this regard.
For how many years have we been told by the political class that a border fence is not practical? Meanwhile the illegals just keep streaming in.
It's much like the argument that it's pointless to drill new oil wells or build new refineries. "It would take X number of years to come online, so it wouldn't solve our present problem." Well, if you just went ahead and did it instead of telling us why it can't or shouldn't be done, then it would be done by now.
As for the 1200 mile fence, just start construction at six or eight points along the border and build outwards from there. It ain't rocket science.
-
I think Perry's right that without troops, a fence is essentially useless. My question is whether he means it or not. I don't know enough about him to judge.
-
It's an invasion from the Third World and we should treat it as one. That means barbed wire, troops, and machine gun emplacements; perhaps minefields as well.
That also means lots of dead Mexicans. Most people are not willing to go there, but I am. Our military should be protecting our own border and not nation-building in Crapghanistan.
The fact that nobody from either political party is taking this as seriously as it deserves just shows that our leadership has been thoroughly infiltrated by internationalists.
-
This may have been a distortion by the AP, but it doesn't change the obvious fact that Perry is soft on illegal immigration. I am wary of him for that reason. Particularly, I'm disturbed by his lack of support for Arizona's SB1070.
Who is the electable candidate that has the strongest achievable position on border security?
-
This may have been a distortion by the AP, but it doesn't change the obvious fact that Perry is soft on illegal immigration. I am wary of him for that reason. Particularly, I'm disturbed by his lack of support for Arizona's SB1070.
Who is the electable candidate that has the strongest achievable position on border security?
First of all, you'll have to define "electable." I have a hunch that your idea of electable and mine might differ greatly.
Second, why don't you tell me who you think that candidate is? Then we can go from there.
-
It's an invasion from the Third World and we should treat it as one. That means barbed wire, troops, and machine gun emplacements; perhaps minefields as well.
That also means lots of dead Mexicans. Most people are not willing to go there, but I am. Our military should be protecting our own border and not nation-building in Crapghanistan.
The fact that nobody from either political party is taking this as seriously as it deserves just shows that our leadership has been thoroughly infiltrated by internationalists.
This.
In fact, I think the Border Patrol should be eliminated or relegated to operating official border crossings. Responsibility for defending against illegal border crossing (i.e., invasion) should be a military responsibility.
And as to these internationalist Ruling Class turds always and forever telling us what is and is not practical, we could have unmanned drones providing surveillance of every inch of our border 24/7/365 and the costs probably would not even be that significant.
Let's be clear about one thing, our border is porous and insecure because that's exactly how the powers-that-be want it. Nothing raises my ire more than when they spout off with their fait accompli arguments, that the sociopolitical trajectory that they have placed this country on is now inviolate and inalterable just because they say so.
-
Who is the electable candidate that has the strongest achievable position on border security?
None of the above
-
This may have been a distortion by the AP, but it doesn't change the obvious fact that Perry is soft on illegal immigration. I am wary of him for that reason. Particularly, I'm disturbed by his lack of support for Arizona's SB1070.
Who is the electable candidate that has the strongest achievable position on border security?
I think troops on the border is about as hard a stance as I've heard from any of them.
-
This may have been a distortion by the AP, but it doesn't change the obvious fact that Perry is soft on illegal immigration. I am wary of him for that reason. Particularly, I'm disturbed by his lack of support for Arizona's SB1070.
Who is the electable candidate that has the strongest achievable position on border security?
I think troops on the border is about as hard a stance as I've heard from any of them.
Anybody thought to ask the next, most obvious question; "will they be armed -- and with ammunition -- and with orders to shoot to kill?"
Want to see the wind-chill effect from the spinning away from that answer.
-
This may have been a distortion by the AP, but it doesn't change the obvious fact that Perry is soft on illegal immigration. I am wary of him for that reason. Particularly, I'm disturbed by his lack of support for Arizona's SB1070.
Who is the electable candidate that has the strongest achievable position on border security?
I think troops on the border is about as hard a stance as I've heard from any of them.
Anybody thought to ask the next, most obvious question; "will they be armed -- and with ammunition -- and with orders to shoot to kill?"
Want to see the wind-chill effect from the spinning away from that answer.
No sh*t!!! ::bows::
-
This may have been a distortion by the AP, but it doesn't change the obvious fact that Perry is soft on illegal immigration. I am wary of him for that reason. Particularly, I'm disturbed by his lack of support for Arizona's SB1070.
Who is the electable candidate that has the strongest achievable position on border security?
First of all, you'll have to define "electable." I have a hunch that your idea of electable and mine might differ greatly.
Second, why don't you tell me who you think that candidate is? Then we can go from there.
Who is the most electable and what about that person's border security plan
makes it the more likely to be successful?
-
This may have been a distortion by the AP, but it doesn't change the obvious fact that Perry is soft on illegal immigration. I am wary of him for that reason. Particularly, I'm disturbed by his lack of support for Arizona's SB1070.
Who is the electable candidate that has the strongest achievable position on border security?
I think troops on the border is about as hard a stance as I've heard from any of them.
Anybody thought to ask the next, most obvious question; "will they be armed -- and with ammunition -- and with orders to shoot to kill?"
Want to see the wind-chill effect from the spinning away from that answer.
IRRC, Perry has dispatched a unit of Texas Rangers in conjunction with Texas Highway Patrol, they have 5 helicopters and stuff and they are armed. ROE, who knows, gotta tread lightly around the Fed.
-
First of all, you'll have to define "electable." I have a hunch that your idea of electable and mine might differ greatly.
Second, why don't you tell me who you think that candidate is? Then we can go from there.
Who is the most electable and what about that person's border security plan
makes it the more likely to be successful?
Electable by what criteria? Why don't you tell me what YOUR criteria is? Then maybe I can understand the point of your question, and figure out how to answer it?
-
The traditional criteria: being selected to represent the Republican Party as candidate for President of the United States, then winning said election by garnering more votes from the electoral college than his opponent.
-
The traditional criteria: being selected to represent the Republican Party as candidate for President of the United States, then winning said election by garnering more votes from the electoral college than his opponent.
And the key to doing that is to attract enough independents without simultaneously pissing off the base. Unless and until we (as a party) come to terms with that we are going to end up with sloppy seconds like maccain.
-
The traditional criteria: being selected to represent the Republican Party as candidate for President of the United States, then winning said election by garnering more votes from the electoral college than his opponent.
And which candidates meet that criteria, in your opinion?
-
The traditional criteria: being selected to represent the Republican Party as candidate for President of the United States, then winning said election by garnering more votes from the electoral college than his opponent.
And which candidates meet that criteria, in your opinion?
I'm waiting for that answer with bated breath, too.
-
This may have been a distortion by the AP, but it doesn't change the obvious fact that Perry is soft on illegal immigration. I am wary of him for that reason. Particularly, I'm disturbed by his lack of support for Arizona's SB1070.
Who is the electable candidate that has the strongest achievable position on border security?
I think troops on the border is about as hard a stance as I've heard from any of them.
Anybody thought to ask the next, most obvious question; "will they be armed -- and with ammunition -- and with orders to shoot to kill?"
Want to see the wind-chill effect from the spinning away from that answer.
IRRC, Perry has dispatched a unit of Texas Rangers in conjunction with Texas Highway Patrol, they have 5 helicopters and stuff and they are armed. ROE, who knows, gotta tread lightly around the Fed.
And you know this how?
I want the question answered. By the candidates.
And f**k the Feds, Charles.
-
How do I know they are armed?
The Texas Rangers and the Texas Highway Patrol are armed 24/7, it's the law.
Haven't you seen the movie?
Lyle Lovett - Long Tall Texan (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtGdJQrnnkQ#)
-
And f**k the fantasy of a movie.
I want the question of armed and dangerous answered by the candidates, and I want you to answer Janny's question, if you please, because I'm feeling a bit cantankerously frosty right now. Savvy?
-
With the exception of Reagan, when, in the last 50 years have we had a conservative?
What are the chances in 2012?
Slim and None.
I will qualify that by saying 2012 could be different
-
With the exception of Reagan, when, in the last 50 years have we had a conservative?
What are the chances in 2012?
Slim and None.
I will qualify that by saying 2012 could be different
It won't. Not enough anyway. We've been tied into a Gordian Knot tied so there's no way to unravel it strand by strand. Our only salvation is to hire a fighter with the strength, but perhaps not the intellectual might to not "know better" than to cut it straight through, to free us.
The fallout will be instantaneous and horrible and then the rebuilding can begin.
The alternative of slowly dying, death by bureaucratic totalitarian strangulation, is even more horrible to contemplate.
-
I have not researched all the candidates to know what they propose to do about illegal immigration, but I will tell you that this is what I want and EXPECT of a real conservative Republican candidate.
I want to stop the flow of illegals coming into this country, and I say that as a resident of the border state of Arizona, which is directly affected by the FAILURE of the feds to secure the border. Will a fence do it? A strategically placed fence? Perhaps, if there indeed patrols along it who are, as has already been said, authorized to use FORCE to stop interlopers.
As far as what to do with the ones already here? I want no form of amnesty. I don't care if they have jobs. If they are here illegally they should be deported. Period. There are a lot of, IMO, appeasers, on the right who insist we can't "send them all back." Why not? We wouldn't be doing it "all at once." We would be doing it incrementally, as they are rounded up, just as Joe Arpaio is doing here. Having no penalty and allowing them a "path to citizenship" will only encourage more to come illegally. This is not rocket science, it's common sense, and once we start doing that, then the rest will get the message and self-deport. Problem solved.
And I am not swayed by this horse manure argument about the children of illegals "not being punished for their parents' sins." If you are a child of an illegal, your parents are responsible, and they -- and you -- should be deported back to their own country and not educated and taken care of by our healthcare system. I don't care if you have been here since birth. We've already spent our tax dollars with you ILLEGALLY in our system, and you should not get breaks on college tuition as an ILLEGAL.
/rant
-
I have long proposed a simple, three-pronged approach to solving illegal immigration that addresses the root cause, and would certainly eliminate the problem, at least down to a manageable if not negligible level.
The cause of illegal immigration: disparity between Mexican and US economies, leading desperate people to seek work illegally in the US.
1) Close the border. Fence, troops, drones, whatever. Stanch the bleeding.
2) Make it a felony punishable with prison time to knowingly hire illegal aliens.
3) Prohibit all forms of taxpayer-funded welfare, including education and medical attention.
Under such a plan, we would need to increase border security just to manage the flow of illegal aliens back across the border into Mexico.
Jobs would become available for the unemployed. Supply, demand, and employment would steadily become more balanced.
The GOP ox would be gored by eliminating cheap labor. The Dem ox would be gored by eliminating taxpayer leeches. The politician, party, or movement that could usher in and implement such a plan would have the gratitude of about 85% of the American people who are desperate for answers to the economy, and see the illegal alien scourge as a huge contributor to employment woes.
-
I have long proposed a simple, three-pronged approach to solving illegal immigration that addresses the root cause, and would certainly eliminate the problem, at least down to a manageable if not negligible level.
The cause of illegal immigration: disparity between Mexican and US economies, leading desperate people to seek work illegally in the US.
1) Close the border. Fence, troops, drones, whatever. Stanch the bleeding.
2) Make it a felony punishable with prison time to knowingly hire illegal aliens.
3) Prohibit all forms of taxpayer-funded welfare, including education and medical attention.
Under such a plan, we would need to increase border security just to manage the flow of illegal aliens back across the border into Mexico.
Jobs would become available for the unemployed. Supply, demand, and employment would steadily become more balanced.
The GOP ox would be gored by eliminating cheap labor. The Dem ox would be gored by eliminating taxpayer leeches. The politician, party, or movement that could usher in and implement such a plan would have the gratitude of about 85% of the American people who are desperate for answers to the economy, and see the illegal alien scourge as a huge contributor to employment woes.
I like it!
-
IDP your second point is a big one, and one that does not get sufficient attention from conservatives. I have known local businessmen who not only hire illegals because "they're the only ones who will do the job", but they actively seek them out and provide them with ramshackle housing as part of the deal. They are the plantation labor of the 20th/21st century. The people who employ them sometimes even gloat about doing it, how they're getting such a bargain on the labor. What they're doing is taking an illegal taxpayer subsidy to make up the difference in what they pay them vs. what it would cost to hire legal labor. Their personal saving is more than canceled out by the cost to the taxpayers in the form of school, medical, and so on.
It produces a system that almost requires all competitors to participate in as well. A landscaping company that hires only legal labor will be underbid every time by a competitor who uses illegal labor. Their choice is to either start using illegal labor themselves, or get pushed out of the market by their competition.
It's not just a fluke that decades have gone by with no meaningful action on border security. There are deeply vested interests in keeping the flow going.
-
IDP your second point is a big one, and one that does not get sufficient attention from conservatives. I have known local businessmen who not only hire illegals because "they're the only ones who will do the job", but they actively seek them out and provide them with ramshackle housing as part of the deal. They are the plantation labor of the 20th/21st century. The people who employ them sometimes even gloat about doing it, how they're getting such a bargain on the labor. What they're doing is taking an illegal taxpayer subsidy to make up the difference in what they pay them vs. what it would cost to hire legal labor. Their personal saving is more than canceled out by the cost to the taxpayers in the form of school, medical, and so on.
It produces a system that almost requires all competitors to participate in as well. A landscaping company that hires only legal labor will be underbid every time by a competitor who uses illegal labor. Their choice is to either start using illegal labor themselves, or get pushed out of the market by their competition.
It's not just a fluke that decades have gone by with no meaningful action on border security. There are deeply vested interests in keeping the flow going.
Precisely.
And I make it a point to nevertheless only hire American labor. I have to pay more for the privilege, filling the government's coffers through Unemployment Insurance/SS Taxes/Income Taxes/Medicare, but I choke that down because I see it as adhering to the greater good, gawdamn them for putting me in this position.
In about five minutes, I'm 'bout to lose my sh*t all over this board because I can't stand it a minute longer, God help me.
-
Yup. A whole new supply/demand equilibrium would have to be discovered by the market in a host of industries that have profited from illegal labor, and perverted the retail pricing of services. But the market would eventually solve it.
-
1) Close the border. Fence, troops, drones, whatever. Stanch the bleeding.
2) Make it a felony punishable with prison time to knowingly hire illegal aliens.
3) Prohibit all forms of taxpayer-funded welfare, including education and medical attention.
Move #3 to #1, cost to government and taxpayer only the ink to print the bill and sign it. Then get out of
the way, they're leaving. Add a part B to prohibiting freebies; if arrested committing a felony or injury to any person or property you will do the maximum sentence, no plea bargain no reduced sentence. Misdemeanor offenses, I'm sure someone has a creative answer for that. As soon as America is no longer the land of the free-lunch 1/2 the problem will clear itself for free allowing more resources for remaining techniques, steps 1 and 2.
-
Self-deportation has happened in Arizona. It does work! In 2008 AZ passed a law, via a ballot proposition, to make it a criminal offense for businesses to knowingly hire illegals. Many fled then, and many more fled after SB1070 was passed. Then O-Hole put the brakes on by having his justice dept. Sue us to stop the law from going into effect. ::gaah::
We could do a lot by simply enforcing the laws we have now. The failure to enforce the laws already on the books is what has led to the mass of illegals we have now. Joe Arpaio still has the guts to enforce the law. Unfortunately, in other AZ counties, we have other sheriffs like Dupnik, who have their heads buried in O-Hole's anal orifice, and they cater to the businesses who hire the illegals. ::bashing::
-
Eliminate the minimum wage, too. It makes American labor artificially expensive.
-
Altgough the numbers were much smaller, Ike had the illegals deported.
No reason not to do it again.
Well, there are "reasons" not to do it.
Less Dem voters and the Chamber will be pissed at the Pubs
-
...Well, there are "reasons" not to do it.
Less Dem voters and the Chamber will be pissed at the Pubs
That's why I say gore both oxes. The only possible way it'll be solved is for both the GOP and the Dems to NOT get what they want in regard to illegal aliens. It'll take a President unafraid of either, strong enough to force congress to enact the will of the people.
-
I think y'all on the right track. Can only do so much with the border, but it has to be done, if the freebies here dry up that will make the former easier. And there have to be a lot more rollbacks in all the silly crap on the books and sanctuary crap has to end, period. Not a citizen, no SSN, no job, period. No free education, nothing but a free bus ride back the mehico. And states have to be allowed to execute their laws if they are within the boundaries of Fed statutes!