Slippery Slope to tyranny

[RegisteredAndEducated]

This just goes to show how much you don't get it. How you have never lived under liberty. How once you give up freedom to government, you never get it back.

The situation in the gulf will be handled. Contrary to what you absorb from Obama's media, this isn't even close to the worst spill that has happened in the Gulf of Mexico, not to say that anything and everything shouldn't be done to stop and contain the spill. The federal government in it's usual mode is negligent in it's handling of the clean up is hindering and stopping progress when it's obvious the White House has no plan.

The government using this crisis and every other real or manufactured crisis to take away those liberties, needs to stop.

This happened under the last administration, under the one before that, and under this one like it's on steroids.

You and Builder seem to only know the liberal media/White House talking points on anything dealing with the US.

Whatever. That's why I don't respond to either of you often when you regurgitate what's been fed to you in the media or Builder citing something that happened 5 or 10 years ago, and was media spin then, when it happened, because it's obvious you both don't know what the **** you're talking about when it comes to the truth about US domestic policy and little about it's foreign policy. (just because it's said a hundred times by the MSM, doesn't make it true)

Take illegal immigration, when your own country shares a border with a 3rd world nation where it's people can just walk over by the thousands every day, we'll talk.

Your country considers it a big deal when you get 10,000 illegal immigrants a year. That's what we get per day. You ***** about the Arizona law, obviously another liberal media/White House talking point of view, but it only enforces federal law, when your own country, uses not cops, but it's military to board ships and stop immigrants from landing, turns them away and the US ends up taking them.

As for you and Builder's comments about us being illegal immigrants from Europe (as I've stated I actually have Native American heritage) that somehow we have no rights to our nation, I didn't realize you both were Aboriginies and should point your finger at your own nations history. http://www.eco-action.org/dt/abor.html

As far as Costner, he and hundreds of other people, corporations, and countries have been offering their devices and services since April, but this Obama, federal government has been sitting on it's hands, hoping none of this oil gets on it's hands, while complaining and posturing for your liberal media and after weeks of oil spilling, back room briefings, war planning finally force fed you the talking points you so much believe that they were on this from day one.

Back to my original point. If you aren't willing to fight for liberty, what's the point of fighting.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~ Benjamin Franklin

IWS, everything you said is exactly spot on...

I think the Kevin Costner bit was a allusion to the movie Waterworld.

 

[builder]

That's a big bogus too, cause with Dem's controlling the house, the senate, and the White House, Obama should be able to get pretty much whatever his heart desires.

He can't because he doesn't want to.

Why doesn't he want to? For the same reason the last prez didn't? Cheap labour for the large manufacturing corps to profit from? Emotive responses don't carry any weight in debate, eddo.

--Make it easier to become legal. I am not against those wanting to come here and become part of America- earning their keep, paying their way, making our country better and stronger. I am against those coming here to suckle the American teet at my expense.

Agreed. The tiny country town I am in at the mo has benefited hugely from Malay islamics working their way into the western world.

--A flat tax- so that taxes aren't just coming from legals, but from everyone that purchases anything.

Buddy, we've got it. So does NZ and England. All it does is increase the black market percentage of the GDP.

--Finish the wall. It seems archaic, but there is just to much garbage (drug dealers, mafia, gun runners, etc) that have easy access. We have got to make it harder for them to get in.

There is a wall? JK. Sounds like East Germany all over again.

--More Border Patrol to patrol.

with your military so involved in the regime changes of so many other countries, looks like your own country takes a ticket and waits in line. This is one area where public outcry should be deafening. But it isn't.

--More National Guard in the hot spots- to protect Americans.

Again, the NG is on duty elsewhere. This came to light after Katrina.

--Encourage Mexico to become more focused on their people and their needs. Their government is corrupt and couldn't care less about it's people.

Big call. How long has corruption been endemic there? How would you suggest it be changed overnight?

This issue is real to me, Builder. It is more than just a talking point, or a debate topic. I am an hour away from the Mexico border, and I see this mess all the time. I see the messes in the desert where illegals cross and leave garbage all over. I see the cars with out of country plates dropping their kids off at our schools- where they get an education that I am paying for, but they are not. I have the friends that have had their identities stolen by illegals getting a job with their social security number.

A wealthy country, with a border to a dirt-poor developing country. No guesses as to why this sh t is happening, eddo.

Next week I will go to Mexico for a week to work my **** off to provide housing for orphans- orphans that the church has to support because the gov't couldn't care less about taking care of it's people.

Good for you. The cops/gov/security of Mexico is so hooked up with organised crime, it's no surprise they couldn't give a sh t about the common people.

People in the outskirts live in cardbox box communities with big holes dug in the backyard for a bathroom. Meanwhile the catholic churches are big and elaborate, the officials all live is luxurious houses, and the gov't randomly shuts power off to the city because they can. They just don't care.

Fukking don't start me on Catholics. They are probably only there to diddle with little orphan boys.

 

[RegisteredAndEducated]

p.s. You're a moderator on a DEBATE FORUM. You might want to learn how to make a factual argument without flying off the handle.

Where did he fly off the handle? It appears to me as if he addressed the issue. Point out to me where he flew off the handle or didn't use facts.

 

[RegisteredAndEducated]

The difference? the current administration banked it's entire agenda on being "different" than the previous guy and bringing "change" to the country.

Last I checked, doing the same thing isn't change...

and last I checked, Obama has been pres for a year and a half now- time to start blaming that guy int he mirror, not the guy that was pres before...

Point taken, eddo, but every time that the current admistration tries to implement "change", they come up against right-wing try-hards like our good buddies here, IWS and Times.

What would you suggest he, meaning Obama, should do with the "invasion" crisis eddo?

Landmines? A fukking big wall across the country? National guards with orders to "shoot to kill"?

What would you be suggesting if you had Obama's ear, eddo?

I would suggest most of those things Builder.

 

[RegisteredAndEducated]

--Make it easier to become legal. I am not against those wanting to come here and become part of America- earning their keep, paying their way, making our country better and stronger. I am against those coming here to suckle the American teet at my expense.

--A flat tax- so that taxes aren't just coming from legals, but from everyone that purchases anything.

--Finish the wall. It seems archaic, but there is just to much garbage (drug dealers, mafia, gun runners, etc) that have easy access. We have got to make it harder for them to get in.

--More Border Patrol to patrol.

--More National Guard in the hot spots- to protect Americans.

--Encourage Mexico to become more focused on their people and their needs. Their government is corrupt and couldn't care less about it's people.

Idk about making it easier to become a citizen, but I agree with everything else you said.

 

[timesjoke]

I know you were writing to eddo but your taking way too many potshots at all Americans in general and decent people like eddo for me to be silent on your BS.

Why doesn't he want to? For the same reason the last prez didn't? Cheap labour for the large manufacturing corps to profit from? Emotive responses don't carry any weight in debate, eddo.

Facts carry weight, not your brainwashed repeating of talking points that have been spoon fed to you. The last President signed a law to secure the border, this President blocked that law by taking away the funding. You see facts, show the real problem is the Liberal (socialist) blocking solutions.

Buddy, we've got it. So does NZ and England. All it does is increase the black market percentage of the GDP.

There are many ways to impliment a style of "flat tax", not just one, the best way is the fair tax proposal:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax

There is a wall? JK. Sounds like East Germany all over again.

Right, defending our border would mean we are communists, but of course you guys turn away 434 people, some needing emergency medical help and that is okay.........

with your military so involved in the regime changes of so many other countries, looks like your own country takes a ticket and waits in line. This is one area where public outcry should be deafening. But it isn't.

What the **** are you talking about? The only thing stopping the President from using troops is his agenda, we have plenty of available troops both full time and part time in the national guard. This is about politics, not availability of soldiers.

Again, the NG is on duty elsewhere. This came to light after Katrina.

Link please providing proof that all of the National Guard is on duty elsewhere....being as you just took shots at IWS for not backing up his claims I am sure you would not just vomit up something like that and refuse to back it up with hard proof.......right?

A wealthy country, with a border to a dirt-poor developing country. No guesses as to why this sh t is happening, eddo.

I hate to call you names but your acting like everyone in America including eddo here is stupid.

Of course we know why poor people want to come to America, that has never been in question, the same reasons why those 434 people from Afghanistan wanted to come to Australia, the reason why Australia turned those desperate people away was they felt their being poor and desperate was not the fault of the Australian people, just like the po0verty of the Mexican people is not the fault of Americans.

The question is not why they want to come to America, the real question is why the Liberals took away the funding Bush approved to help secure and protect the border just like you Australians like to defend your own coast from invasion.

 

[builder]

I would suggest most of those things Builder.

There'll be no closing of the borders, RaE. Here's why;

Drugs and the see eye yay

Shortly after the kidnapping and brutal murder of the DEA's Enrique Camarena in Mexico, Francis Mullen, the DEA administrator, was taken by the CIA station chief in Mexico City to Mexico's director of federal security, a man who, the station chief confided, was a CIA asset. The gentleman, Mr. Mullen told me, denied any knowledge of the affair. He was lying. A DEA investigation revealed that he had been connected - a man on the CIA payroll, no less - to the murder of a U.S. federal agent.

 

[eddo]

Why doesn't he want to? For the same reason the last prez didn't? Cheap labour for the large manufacturing corps to profit from? Emotive responses don't carry any weight in debate, eddo.

Facts carry weight, not your brainwashed repeating of talking points that have been spoon fed to you. The last President signed a law to secure the border, this President blocked that law by taking away the funding. You see facts, show the real problem is the Liberal (socialist) blocking solutions.

Doing something about illegal immigration without repubs in some sort of power to blame it on could alienate much of the Hispanic vote. Can't do that, not while running for re-election anyway!

 

[timesjoke]

Why doesn't he want to? For the same reason the last prez didn't? Cheap labour for the large manufacturing corps to profit from? Emotive responses don't carry any weight in debate, eddo.

Facts carry weight, not your brainwashed repeating of talking points that have been spoon fed to you. The last President signed a law to secure the border, this President blocked that law by taking away the funding. You see facts, show the real problem is the Liberal (socialist) blocking solutions.

Doing something about illegal immigration without repubs in some sort of power to blame it on could alienate much of the Hispanic vote. Can't do that, not while running for re-election anyway!

They certainly need that hispanic vote because just about everyone else is ****** off at them these days, lol.

Well, Times, we can't get IWS to answer any straight questions, so here's one question for you.

I find it interesting you claim IWS is dodging your direct questions so you turn to me and I play your game of line by line comments/questions then you run away, I see several direct questions as well as many comments I have offered you waiting for your reply but you run away?

Don't complain about IWS then you do exactly what you claimed IWS did.

That would make you a hypocrite.

 

[builder]

This is too messy to post in anything other than Blue text

This is a debate site, and he is one of the moderators. If he's not willing to back up his side of the debate with the "small details" and simply rely on generalisations to get people to "just accept the general point" then he should not be posting his generalisations in the "on topic forum". It's that simple really, Times.

You won't get any arguement from me on that point, but IWS has this thing with holding grudges and taking stuff personal, I don't really understand that myself because I find it impossible to get angry over someone who does not agree with me.

 


And a "moderator" should moderate. The guy drops his bundle more times than Sixes used to.

On the one hand, you and IWS are demanding action from the prez, on the other hand, you are accusing him of "extortion" when he demands action. Australians in general abhor hypocrisy. If you can't see the hypocrisy inherent in your demands and recriminations on this point, nobody has a hope in **** of showing them to you.

What is the point of that last part? Why do you feel you have to be insulting? So if I don't agree with you I am stupid or something? Why do you assume your superior to anyone who does not agree with you?


You demand action, and when you get it, you criticise. Which part of that is insulting? It's insulting to anyone with intelligence. You still don't get it, do you? Didn't think you would.

I will let that go because it seems to me your doing that to avoid the fact you made a horrible comment before your insult and you want to not have that pointed out. I don't want Obama to "act" for the sake of actions, I want him to do what he is supposed to do, nothing more. Extorting $20 billion is not action, it is self-serving politicial games, nothing more.


So make a suggestion. What should he do? Lick the oil off the sand, perhaps? Holding a 20 billion dollar downpayment on what is likely to be a clean-up bill of half a trillion is wise business practise. British Petroleum is likely to be sending themselves broke by funnelling cash resources to anywhere they can hide it. Obama would have advisers telling him just what I'm telling you right about now.

Action is conducting a fast but accurate study of what went wrong and putting the people who let this happen in jail for not doing their jobs.


Meaning whom? The brits? Or your own regulatory bodies?

Your possition Builder seems to be "any" action is okay, I give you an example, if I have a bad infection in my right foot that cannot be cured, how does the action to cut off my left foot make the situation better? Well that is exactly what this administration is doing, cutting off the left foot and ignoring the right that is infected.

**** analogy. Read that back to yourself. Makes no sense to me.

20 billion is a drop in the ocean compared to what the final bill will be for this fiasco. Name the "latest Czar" anointed by your prez to oversee this paltry amount, and I'll name the "Czars" appointed by your last prez to "rebuild" Iraq. How many billions went there, Times? It's there for all to see now. That's the "accountable" sums.

The guys name is Kenneth R. Feinberg.

And you could certainly find a few czars in previous administrations and while I did not like them either, and for the same reasons, I still would like you too see that if you compare one-to-one with the current administration you will see that Obama has many, many more than Bush did and not just the number but to me the bigger story is "what these people have power over" that makes the bigger difference. Even a few middle of the road Democrats have expressed concern over how many Czars Obama has.


Name these "middle of the road democrats" please.

And one other thing, didn't Obama campaign on "CHANGE"? Why is it the only excuse people come up with is "well the last guy did it, or something similar"? If the reason people turned to Obama was to get "CHANGE" from what Bush was doing, why is Obama still doing those things and then some?


He's certainly not illegally invading other countries, if that's what you meant.

Slush funds? Twenty bill? That amount wouldn't cover the losses of the shrimp fleet.

The amount and your opinion of it being big or small is irrelivent, the point is was it right or wrong? You asked for an example of a loss of freedom, this is an example, and as already pointed out, your trying to dodge the significance of this very good example.

How is demanding money from a complete fukk-up foriegn national oil company eroding your personal freedom as an American citizen, Times?

That is why IWS does not want to waste time talking to you because you ask a question, given a great exampl then you pretend like the example is nothing.

You've already explained why IWS doesn't answer questions. "He can't be bothered with the small details" remember?

Let's talk about your previous prez bullying his way into invading Iraq, and the subsequent "slush funds" for his buddies in Kellog Root and Brown, Halliburton et al. It's in the trillions now?

Start a new thread if you want to talk about old and irrelivent news, I may even agree with you a little bit because I did not like everything Bush did while in office either. But that has nothing to do with the loss of freedom your said you wanted to talk about, you seem to be trying very hard to change the subject.


Not at all. I'm citing the past to put the present into perspective for you.

Besides, what is your point in trying to bring up previous administrations? It is your possition that if Bush took away 1 freedom that it is now okay for Obama to take away 20? This is the here and now, blaming everything currently happening on an old President solves nothing.

20 freedoms??? You mentioned three, of which, none are directly affecting you, except for taxation. Were you one of those that benefited from Bush's tax breaks for the wealthy?

Our gov tried that ages ago. Don't buy it. Make a choice. We did.

Again, as IWS pointed out, you ask a question, are given an answer and you dodge admitting the point has been made.

And my point has been made. Don't buy the health insurance. Eat well, and excercise. If you are obese and unhealthy, blame Obama. It's all his fault.

We made a choice, almost all Americans expressed concerns over this plan and Obama ignored the people and did what he wanted to do, sure we can vote against him and the other liberals who passed this garbage but how does that change what is already done? Anyone who thinks this can be completely "fixed" is an idiot, this is how true socialist beliefs get put into effect against the wishes of the people, baby steps, sure many aspects will be changed, but they got their foot in the door, now all they have to do is keep pushing to get that door opened wider.


The thin edge of the wedge? Oldest argument in the book. You just don't like change, do you?

 


Suggest a fairer system.

If the taxes aren't on consumables, you still have the choice of hedging your investments to minimise tax. Don't be thinking a decent investment advisor isn't already figuring a way around it. Like I've said elsewhere here. "Embrace your capitalism. Don't expect it to save your ****".

Again, your dodging the point you asked for and that is an example of loss freedoms, if the American has to jump through hoops to keep his own money then that is another loss freedom, why should these liberals (Socialists) want to take what I earned in the first place? If they believe their money is not earned than give it up themselves, don't try to impose those heavy taxes on me because I don't agree in the concept of "social justice". We are promised equal opportunity, not equal results.


I get it. You're not so good at maths. When was the last time you had to actually labour for money?

The points were made, but never backed up with evidence. I believe you understand that word?

How much evidence do you need? We give you an example and you don't refute the example but you instead try to downplay or sidestep the examples given and claim no evidence was offered.

IWS gave you a great example in the first post but still you will not admit the example was given and you ignored it.


A vague example without any detail or factual evidence. Just more random generalisations. Not acceptable in a debate scenario, and you admitted that yourself a few posts ago. Try again.

Funny. At the moment, we are taking them in by the boatload. Flying them into remote areas to work in our sheep abattoirs. You want some links, just ask.

Taking them by the boatload? Well a boat only has a couple seats so don't bragg too much there Builder, and yes your Country is at odds with that tiny number being allowed to stay. I remember this story from 2001:

http://www.danielpipes.org/50/australias-crisis-of-illegal-immigration

I loved this part "When the Australians realized the Tampa was coming their way on August 27, Prime Minister John Howard forbade it from entering the country's territory, saying that Australia cannot be seen "as a country of easy destination." The captain obeyed, stopping just nine kilometers outside Australian waters."

That's funny, because Howard is from your side of the fence. A ratbag conservative willing to place landmines on the border.

Builder, that was only 443 people and you guys refused to accept them, so don't preach to Americans about our illegal immigration issues.


While the flow of drugs over your Mexican border puts money in the coffers of your so-called intelligence agency, don't expect the traffic to stop, people or otherwise. Face facts buddy, money speaks louder than words.

Less than two percent of our "illegals" arrive by boat. The rest fly in on a visa, and don't leave. Your problem seems larger because of your proximity/land border with your arrivals.

No, our problem "IS" larger because it involved millions of illegals costing us trillions of dollars to support them.


Easy answer. Stop wasting trillions trying to play world cop, and focus on your own backyard. Or is that to hard a pill to swallow?

My point about australia is even you guys complain and you have almost no illegal imigration problem in comparison.


You wouldn't know, buddy. We get your news, but you don't get ours.

What did your previous adminisration do about the border security issue?

Would you like an Australian to tell you?

As with most issues like this, the laws are passed but the next administration blocks the funding, in this case spending bills and cutbacks in the homeland security department took away the money from the project approved by the Bush administration.

Builder, the only "CHANGE" we are resisting is the change to reduce freedoms and serve Obama's personal political agendas instead of serving the American people as he is supposed to be doing.

Resistance is useless. Wall to wall democrats, as RaE pointed out. Get used to it.

 

[eddo]

unless IWS is using his mod abilities to direct the debate one way or the other (which I am not seeing,) I really can't see how it is at all relevant in this debate that he is a moderator.

seems like a diversion to me, and a lame one at that.

I got no issue with anyone asking for facts or clarification, but can't see at all how IWS being a mod is relevant here...

 

[timesjoke]

And a "moderator" should moderate. The guy drops his bundle more times than Sixes used to.

Just like your refusal to admit a answer was given and accept it, you spend more time making excuses and putting people down than actually paying attention to the debate at hand.

You demand action, and when you get it, you criticise. Which part of that is insulting? It's insulting to anyone with intelligence. You still don't get it, do you? Didn't think you would.

Wrong, you equate the "wrong" and political action as being the same as the "right" action.

We demand logical and constitutional action while Obama sets aside our rights and freedoms and does what he pleases even when most of the Country says they don't want his actions like the healthcare bill.

Your insult calling people stupid for not accepting Obama's "wrong" actions as "right" proves you really are not interested in honest debate and your instead only wanting to sing like an uninformed canary in support of a socialist.

So make a suggestion. What should he do? Lick the oil off the sand, perhaps? Holding a 20 billion dollar downpayment on what is likely to be a clean-up bill of half a trillion is wise business practise. British Petroleum is likely to be sending themselves broke by funnelling cash resources to anywhere they can hide it. Obama would have advisers telling him just what I'm telling you right about now.

We are a Nation of laws, how about using the legal system to punnish the guilty and hold responsible the careless as is set forth in existing laws of the land?

Breaking the law to extort money from a company just because "you think" they may run out, or hide their money is not supported by the laws of the land. That is a loss of freedoms when someone like Obama sets himself above our system of laws.

Meaning whom? The brits? Or your own regulatory bodies?

I am using english, meaning anyone who is responsible, it seems logical that the regulatory was way, way too comfy with the industry, several should go to jail in my opinion. They are more responsible then BP, BP was leesing the rig, they did not own it, but the regulatory people were always in charge of making sure the rig was safe.

**** analogy. Read that back to yourself. Makes no sense to me.

Not ****, dead on, Obama is wasting time building up this slush fund and trying to make political points and none of that directly addresses the problem. Obama even completely ignored the experts that said shutting down oil production was a bad idea, why ask the experts their advise if Obama is just going to ignore them and do whatever he wants anyway?

Name these "middle of the road democrats" please.

So do you admit Obama has more than your example? You ask questions then when your given the answers you seem to do everything you can to dodge the negative results your scared to admit to.

Anyway before I answer your question I have to say you seem horribly uninformed about the political points your attempting to make, how can you talk down your nose about this czar issue when you don't even know that even fellow Democrats are concerned about how far Obama has reached? Try reading this and educate yourself a little if you want to toss stones at our system.

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/02/25/25greenwire-byrd-questions-obamas-use-of-policy-czars-9865.html

He's certainly not illegally invading other countries, if that's what you meant.

According to who? Does your tiny and insignificant Country dictate laws and policies of America? Last time I checked we made our own decisions and America even saved your Country in The Battle of the Coral Sea where we stopped Japan from taking destroying Australia, so how about showing a tad bit of respect for the only Nation to save your *****?

How is demanding money from a complete fukk-up foriegn national oil company eroding your personal freedom as an American citizen, Times?

For starters it artifically drives up the cost of oil products but I am an American and I don't have to be personally damaged to have the right to say something done by Obama is wrong. As I already pointed out, we are a Nation of laws, if BP did something wrong then there is a system of laws to follow, Obama went outside of those laws because he feels himself above those laws. And if someone like that is being abusive in one way, he will do it in other ways as well.

What is your point Buildre? That is a guy kills your neighbor it does not bother you because you are alive?

Not at all. I'm citing the past to put the present into perspective for you.

No, your trying to divert attention away from what is happening in the here and now.

What Bush did or did not do is irrelivent to what is right or wrong now. Obama is his own man and took the job, now he is responsible for what he does, it is lame to the extreme to try and claim Obama doing wrong now is okay just because you think Bush did something wrong in the past.

Ever hear two wrongs don't make a right?

20 freedoms??? You mentioned three, of which, none are directly affecting you, except for taxation. Were you one of those that benefited from Bush's tax breaks for the wealthy?

Nice dodge attempt but I don't fall for that kind of childish tactic.

Why are you completely ignoring the points made of real harms and broken rights by trying to divert attention to a previous President? Either Obama is doing this or he is not, you have not offered one defense to the actions not being wrong so obviously you admit that Obama has taken away rights and now your trying to justify that by saying it is okay because in your opinion, Bush did something similar.

Again, I go back to the promises of "change". Even if you were right in your comparison (but your not) Obama said himself he would not do what other Presidents did, he promised "change" and "hope" as well as a completely new Washington where people worked together.

Stop being a blind supporter of anything Obama does and be strong enough to admit the point that has been made, otherwise you prove your not interested in honest debate.

And my point has been made. Don't buy the health insurance. Eat well, and excercise. If you are obese and unhealthy, blame Obama. It's all his fault.

Again, your uninformed about what your trying to talk about and it makes you seem foolish.

The purchase of health insurance is mandatory, if you don't buy it, your hit with a heavy fine, the same is true for emplouyers, Obama made it mandatory and if the employers do not do it, they also pay the fines.

The thin edge of the wedge? Oldest argument in the book. You just don't like change, do you?

Suggest a fairer system.

The system we had before the socialists started turning it on it's ear.

I don't mind change, but I detest change for the sake of change. Some people like you seem to love change even if it makes everything worse, I tend to be more logical and only embrace the change that brings improvements.

I get it. You're not so good at maths. When was the last time you had to actually labour for money?

Insults?

And what exactly does "you had to actually labour for money" mean?

I don't understand what you were trying to say but I have my MBA and I run a couple companies to include being a general contractor and I also own a HVAC business so I understand math very well, especially the taxes I pay part.

A vague example without any detail or factual evidence. Just more random generalisations. Not acceptable in a debate scenario, and you admitted that yourself a few posts ago. Try again.

Vague?

It was a very specific example of Obama taking $20 billion and creating a slush fund giving him full discretionary spending out of that fund without oversight, how much more specific can someone get?

You are not being truthful Builder, you just done have a good answer for the points so your trying to dodge them.

That's funny, because Howard is from your side of the fence. A ratbag conservative willing to place landmines on the border.

Not funny, he never represented America in any way, shape, or form. This story is a prime example of how you guys try to put down America for trying to stop millions of illegals from invading America but you guys cry over a couple hundred. You don't have an illegal problem, we get more illegals in an hour than your Country gets in a year so stop pointing your finger at us when by comparison, your a lot less accepting of illegals than America is.

While the flow of drugs over your Mexican border puts money in the coffers of your so-called intelligence agency, don't expect the traffic to stop, people or otherwise. Face facts buddy, money speaks louder than words.

Again, nice attempt at deflection but as much as you like to claim some things do not belong in a honest debate, deflection and avoiding the point is also not an honest debate style. Australia turned away 443 people who needed help, you clearly defend your coast against illegals, but you point your finger at America?

Easy answer. Stop wasting trillions trying to play world cop, and focus on your own backyard. Or is that to hard a pill to swallow?

More deflection I see.

You again refuse to admit the point and try to divert attention away from being proven wrong. But I will not dodge your comment as you dodge mine, sure we sometimes play world cop, but playing world cop saved aven Australia so without someone like America being willing to get involved, you would not now have the cooshy life you live. You own America your life, and all you can do is insult us and put down the same policies that saved your Country from distruction.

You wouldn't know, buddy. We get your news, but you don't get ours.

Did I not just post the story about you guys turning away over 300?

The wonderful thing about the internet is I can look directly at even your own sources:

http://australia.gov.au/topics/immigration

No, you do not have an illegal problem, in fact you guys have such a small issue with illegals you stopped calling them illegals, lol. Information like this is very easy to get:

http://www.immi.gov.au/managing-australias-borders/detention/_pdf/immigration-detention-statistics-20100528.pdf

So when I speak about Australis having no illegal problems to speak of, I know what I am talking about because I take the time to educate myself on the facts while your stuck not knowing anything about the things your trying to address about America.

Resistance is useless. Wall to wall democrats, as RaE pointed out. Get used to it.

So these liberals/socialists are really the Borg?

Now, back to my question concerning a claim you made talking to eddo.

Again, the NG is on duty elsewhere. This came to light after Katrina.

You took IWS to task for refusing to offer proof to his claims so now I ask you to do the same thing. You claim that there are no National Guard to work the border because they are all on duty "elsewhere". Please provide proof of that claim, don't just vomit up something so foul and run away from it, either what you said is true or a lie, now stand up to what you said Builder.

 

[builder]

Too long. Didn't read.

But I can understand why you end up talking to yourself, TJ.

To paraphrase all I've uttered here,

• [ ]I did not enter this thread until the soopa mod mentioned my name
  [ ]Your negativity towards your prez means whatever he does, he's done the wrong thing in your book.
  [ ]Border breaches have been a major problem since your forebears established the US. Obama inherited the issue from all previous administrations. I've asked you what you would do, but you have no answers.
  [ ]While the drug trade is worth billions of dollars, and your own secret service is party to that trade, you don't have a hope in **** of stopping the "invasion".
  [ ]The most popular US president in decades happens to be from the other team, so you and your ilk are hellbent on belittling his efforts to change what was a supremely corrupt system. And you have the gall to say he's stealing your freedom? Pathetic is what you are.
  [ ]George W Bush dragged your collective reputation into the gutter as a nation. Obama is well liked internationally. Let him get on with the job he was voted in to do. Your repubs don't have a viable alternative, and the elections aren't far away now. Get used to ******** about it.
  [ ]Check the news. No mention of the rants you and IWS are fixated on. You're on your own dudesses.
  

 

[builder]

Oh, and what exactly did you learn from this link of your?

Immigration

Applications and forms - Visas, Immigration and Refugees

Department of Immigration and Citizenship index page linking to online and printable applications, information forms and booklets. Includes information on fees and charges, and health and character requirements for visa applications.

http://www.immi.gov.au/allforms/index.htm

Australia needs skills recruitment expos

Department of Immigration and Citizenship Index page for information on the Australia Needs Skills expo program. Includes links to information on previous expos & Exhibitors.

http://www.immi.gov.au/skillexpos/index.htm

Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC)

The Department of Immigration and Citizenship provides information and application forms for migration to Australia, and information about settling in Australia, Australian citizenship, and multicultural affairs.

http://www.immi.gov.au/

Face the facts : some questions and answers about Indigenous peoples, migrants, refugees, and asylum seekers

Face the Facts education resource is designed to complement the material in the Face the Facts publication and forms a part of the Australian Human Rights Commission's human rights education program. The activities are suitable for use in a range of key learning areas for secondary students across Australia. Teaching notes, student activities and worksheets are provided, plus a range of recommended online resources and further reading.

http://www.humanrights.gov.au/education/face_facts/index.html

Information booklets

Department of Immigration and Citizenship booklets designed to help you understand who qualifies to migrate to Australia, and how to make an application. Information booklets are far more detailed than information forms and describe the procedures to follow for migration or some temporary entry visas.

http://www.immi.gov.au/allforms/booklets/booklets.htm

Information for Australian employers

Help for Australian employers in their dealings with people in Australia who are in the country temporarily and who wish to work. Includes links to the Visa Entitlement Verification Online (VEVO) for organisations, employer obligations and an easy guide on how to check whether prospective employees are entitled to work in Australia.

http://www.immi.gov.au/managing-australias-borders/compliance/info-employers/index.htm

Managing Australia's borders

The Managing Australia's Borders section will help you find information about securing Australia's borders, entry requirements for travelling to Australia and how the department prevents illegal entry into Australia.

http://www.immi.gov.au/managing-australias-borders/

Migration agents

You do not need to use a migration agent to lodge any kind of visa application or asylum claim. However, if you do not feel confident in lodging an application, or if your case is complex, you may want to use a migration agent to help you.

http://www.immi.gov.au/visas/migration-agents/index.htm

New Zealanders in Australia

New Zealanders in Australia is a fact sheet produced by the Australian Department of Immigration and Citizenship detailing visa, access to benefits and citizenship issues relating to New Zealanders in Australia, and some relevant statistics.

http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/17nz.htm

Settlement grants programme

Department of Immigration and Citizenship information about the Settlement Grants Programme (SGP), a Federal Government grant programme which provides funding to organisations to help new arrivals settle in Australia.

http://www.immi.gov.au/living-in-australia/delivering-assistance/settlement-grants/

Statistics [immigration]

Index page for statistical information from the Department of Immigration and Citizenship. It links to statistical publications, detention statistics and a glossary of statistical terms. It also has links to community information summaries and other statistical information.

http://www.immi.gov.au/media/statistics/

 

[timesjoke]

Too long. Didn't read.

But I can understand why you end up talking to yourself, TJ.

Funny as **** Builder, your post was just as long and I answered every point from you line by line but your "too good" to do the same thing? Answering line by line is beneath you but you can do it to someone else? You took IWS to task for refusing to answer direct questions but you DODGE the same number of questions you ask of me? You sir seem to be a chickensh!t, you want to toss insults and ask what you think are brilliant questions but once I shoot down your every attempt and prove you are not even informed about the American politics your trying to look down your nose at, you run away and talk trash?

Now, if you want to turn tail and dodge the many points as you called IWS out on then fine, you can be a hypocrite as most socialists do tend to be, but don't think your impressing me or anyone else with your garbage.

How about this, why not address this one question if the rest are just too difficult for you, I have asked this question to you three times now, let's see if your man enough to stand up to your own words:

Again, the NG is on duty elsewhere. This came to light after Katrina.

You took IWS to task for refusing to offer proof to his claims so now I ask you to do the same thing. You claim that there are no National Guard to work the border because they are all on duty "elsewhere". Please provide proof of that claim, don't just vomit up something so foul and run away from it, either what you said is true or a lie, now stand up to what you said Builder.

 

[builder]

Arizona ranchers site

The Arizona Cattlemen’s Association, (ACA) — hit hard by the brutally shocking death of one of their own after Arizona rancher Robert Krentz was killed on his property on March 27 — is demanding a militarized response to the porous southern border.

“It’s time for people to awaken and see the foreign invasion,” said association member Basilio Aja. “We feel like we have been abandoned. We’ve been crying out for 10 years and no one has listened. We have the laws we need. They just need to be enforced.”

“If we had 2,500 National Guard troops on the border to protect the boundary and provided them with the equipment and technology that equals what the cartels have, there would be a difference,” Aja said. “We want a military response. We want our border protected. And really, another result of shutting down the border will be of benefit to our fellow Mexican ranchers on the other side. They have to submit to the aggression of these criminals, too, who use their land for bases of operations.”

The group is crafting an 18-point plan which will be called Restore Our Border (ROB) as a tribute to Krentz.

This past Sunday morning, there was another home invasion near the Arizona-Mexico border. According to the ACA, border patrol agents were able to catch the suspected illegal aliens believed to be responsible.

Syndicated columnist Michelle Malkin reports that today, April 13, Arizona ranching families will gather at the state Capitol to demand action to secure our border. For 18 months southern Arizona ranchers have been meeting with local officials to improve conditions.

We’ve heard the rhetoric. It’s long past time for action. Our hearts and prayers are with Arizona’s ranching community. Perhaps these dedicated people can accomplish what Sens. John McCain and Jon Kyl have so glibly only given lip service to.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

No mention of your dodgy Australian "immigration" link, TJ?

Why am I not surprised. :lol:

 

[timesjoke]

Oh no you don't there big mouth.

You said there was no National Guard to send because "the NG is on duty elsewhere".

Your words, not mine, now back that claim up.

Yes, many people have been asking for the Federal Government to help with the border issues but the program and fences Bush signed into law were defunded by Obama. If Obama would just stop blocking the funds we could make huge improvements to the border issues. No, nothign will ever be a 100% solution, but I believe doing nothing has already been proven to not help.

And what the heck are you talking about on "dodgy" link? I assume dodgy is australian for not working right but I clicked on both links in my post and they work fine for me, maybe there is something "dodgy" about your internet looking at local links?

 

[builder]

And what the heck are you talking about on "dodgy" link? I assume dodgy is australian for not working right but I clicked on both links in my post and they work fine for me, maybe there is something "dodgy" about your internet looking at local links?

I listed every word of your link you weirdo.

Nothing to back up your bullshit there.

________________________________________________________

View attachment 2832

Heheheheheh

The President doesn't formally deploy National Guard troops himself, what he can agree to do is pay their costs under Title 32 if requested by the state.

“The White House is doing the right thing,” said U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) who called for the Guard’s deployment “Arizonans know that more boots on the ground means a safer and more secure border. Washington heard our message.”

“The fulfillment of my request is a clear sign that this administration is beginning to take border security seriously,” said Giffords.

Within moments of the announcement by the White House, Arizona Senator John McCain said that “it’s simply not enough,” and stressed that 6,000 troops were needed. Part of the problem, McCain argued, is that it will take time to train the National Guard troops once they get to the border.

---------------------------------------------------------

Six thousand troops is what Bush sent. But they weren't to use their weapons under his command. Heheheheheh

 

[timesjoke]

Again, you dodged the question.

"YOU" said "the NG is on duty elsewhere".

Now back that statement up, or did you just tell a lie?

I am an informed american, I know what the President has the power to do and what he does not have the power to do, he issued a command to send 1,200 troops, that means he can send 20,000 troops "IF HE WANTS TO".

Of course a fellow Democrat kissed Obama's azz and praised the tiny number that Obama agreed to send, but that is not enough. There are warnings on American soil warning Americans not to travel in certain American owned areas because it is too dangerious for Americans, now is that not a shame that Americans have to be scared of being on American soil because of invading Mexicans?

You cry because we are putting down Obama for not doing enough, and you can't refute the "FACT" that Obama is not in fact doing enough, all you try to do is try and justify why Obama refuses to take action, and there is no justification under logic why an American President would intentionally ignore this massive problem. Those of us who care about America complain because as Americans that is our right to be vocal about the things we do not agree with. That is one of the rights that make being an American great.

So get off your high horse and stop being a blind supporter of everything socialist, the least you can do is educate yourself on the things your commenting on, you look pretty stupid when you coment on things like "don't buy the insurance" when under the law, you "must" buy the insurance or the IRS will go after you and take the money it would have cost anyway.....There is no choice, that was my point that choices are taken away by force.

Lastly, what does any of this have to do with Bush? The problem is here now, Bush signed a bill that was defunded by Obama, Obama has all the power now, everything that is done, and everything that is blocked is the responsibility of the Obama administration. Each time you try to blame Bush you prove that your not interested in debating actual events but instead your just trying to play blocker and defender of the socialist mindset.

 

[hugo]

Six thousand troops is what Bush sent. But they weren't to use their weapons under his command. Heheheheheh

Even Barney Fife got one bullet.