Thread: The President's Last Gasp

Well now..........FLY ON THE WALL?

If they read some of the comments that I've read throughout blogland...
I'll say they've pulled out the scotch and are physically pouring it down his throat just to ease the pain!!

Wow, people are very, very angry. Really angry.

His problem is that he thinks everyone else is as stupid as he is.

Welcome Qflash. Nice to have you join us. Impeachment seems a logical step. I also would try him for treason since he is blatantly allowing another country to invade us.

2ndamend...a fly on the wall. You know, an eavesdropper. Do not you youngsters say such things? Perhaps a more appropriate modern term would be: I wish I could hack into his email. There, does that make more sense?
It is good that the people are angry. We Americans are slow to anger, but once angered I hope we have enough people to continue to apply pressure to the house. There is no way these "comprehensive reforms" must be allowed to happen. It surely is the downfall of our nation. I also wander what other nations thought of his speech. Certainly other people see it for what it was -- the sell out of America.

Nighty night.l

Silly, KICK.........I was pretending to be the FLY.

Darn but I'm a bad actress

France must be having a field day with this one

Let me see if I follow GW's logic. We need to secure our Southern border. However, we CANNOT secure this border without a "guest worker program". So, if we were attacked again, as in 9/11 fashion, and our CIA, FBI, ICE officials backtracked the purps. entry into our country through the Southern border, then we would not secure the border until we had a "guest worker program" even though we had just lost countless American lives? Would he wait until a "guest worker program" was established to secure the border? You know, a fence, moat, .50 cals mounted on Humvees, 50,000 troops, etc. or would he just sit and wait in his own morass until a "guest worker program" was established? Because you can't secure the border without a "guest worker program". Yeah, makes perfect sense to me......I guess he thinks we all just fell off the turnip truck....

Originally Posted by mrmiata7

Through his actions including tonight's comedy central speech this Mr Ed's posterior of a president has shown he is not serious about securing the border and will continue to allow the flow of millions of illegal aliens in our country. I only hope it hardened the conservative base, especially in the house so that Tancredo, Hayworth, Hunter and others of the conservative cloth will be more resolute in opposing any garbage passed by our treasonous Senate.


Gotta like that kiss and make up session with Gadaffi. A country who was on our most wanted list for membership in the international terror club is now our friend. And El Presidente Vicente Bush outsourcing critical parts of our defense infrastructure to countries that have coddled terrorists. And I thought we are fighting a war on terror.

As much as the Bush administration-especially its second term-disgusts and infuriates me, e.g. Harriet Miers, DP-World, Doncaster's, capitulating to Red China, The Religion of Peace , open borders, deracinating the American middle class, policy outrages ad nauseam, I have to disagree with respect to normalizing relations with Libya.

Yes, it's being driven in large measure by corporate interests-what policy in this administration isn't-but also by the fact that Muammar Gaddafi's noxious regime has cooperated-for the most part-with pertinent UN Security Council resolutions and demands made by the United States and United Kingdom, e.g. handing over the Lockerbie bombers, decomissioning and handing over every critical components to its nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programmes-as well as the blueprints they're based upon-in addition to information about A.Q. Khan's nuclear proliferation network, fighting Al Qaeda, albeit out of venal self-interest, etc...

Again, I detest his contemptible regime-and in an ideal world, we wouldn't have to deal with him at all-but in terms of a carrot and stick approach, this makes sense, at least in comparison to the alternative, i.e. spending millions of dollars fomenting an internal coup or bombing the crap out of Benghazi and Tripoli. It certainly makes more sense-in my opinion-than cossetting Vietnam, which hasn't done anything to comply with international law, abide by human rights protocols, or address our concerns about unaccounted for POWs.

I apologize for the tangent.

Anyway, I agree with you on this speech.

Same old bill of goods.

The things that Bush didn't say in his speech say more than the words he spoke. If he were really serious about ending illegal immigration and enforcing our laws, he could have said: "If you are in our country illegally, you should go back to your home country and apply to enter the U.S. legally. Until you do that, you will not be welcome here", "If you are an employer of illegal aliens, you are breaking the law and you should stop, otherwise, we will find you and we will prosecute you". But, of course Bush is not serious and he will never say those words that need to be spoken.

I agree Wavtek, he will not say those words and enforce the laws of our country, this was in fact a poor effort to try to appease all sides on this issue and it did fail miserably.

AS far as the National Guard is concerned, they are just going to watch how many cross the border illegally.

Illegal immigrants are not risking their lives to enter our country for low paying jobs.

They are sneaking into our country for the free cash and benefits that our government hands out to them.

Bush needs to address this fact.

Originally Posted by ArticleIV

I loved how said "new technologies." He must have a cousin in the IC card business

What you need is to take away the incentives, and put people on the border and/or build a wall with entry points. We could start right now if they wanted.

Check this out. How long will it take to ID millions?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/14/wa...e34&ei=5087%0A