Slippery Slope to tyranny

[Anna Perenna]

 

I can't answer any of the questions asked of me, nor can I substantiate any of the baseless assumptions I have made in this thread.

 

So, I'm just going to write some completely lame 'insults' and hope nobody notices.

 

I'm also going to give out negative rep and hope people think someone else gave it.....

 

 

That's right, that's right.

 

Notice how I haven't negative-repped IWS. Because I'm not PATHETIC

[hugo]

Has there ever been a disaster that was handled well by a government?

[builder]

Has there ever been a disaster that was handled well by a government?

 

Barrier reef oil spill.

[ImWithStupid]

I can't answer any of the questions asked of me, nor can I substantiate any of the baseless assumptions I have made in this thread.

 

So, I'm just going to write some completely lame 'insults' and hope nobody notices.

 

I'm also going to give out negative rep and hope people think someone else gave it.....

 

 

That's right, that's right.

 

Notice how I haven't negative-repped IWS. Because I'm not PATHETIC

 

Never pretended anything. Just like with TJ when I read something so moronic it isn't worth replying to, I negative rep it, because it isn't worth wasting energy on and would flat out admit it.

 

Notice how when I do respond to posts Anna doesn't actually read them, she claims they say something they didn't nor do I behave like a child and change what someone says in their posts when I quote them in my reply because it is both juvenile and extremely PATHETIC.

[timesjoke]

 

 

 

This has caused an over the top, angry knee-jerk reaction from IWS, filled with baseless assumptions. He imagines I've written and felt and done so many things that I have never actually written, or felt, or done.

 

Is he crazy? Or does he deliberately misinterpret everything I write, because I dare to challenge his views?

 

And you as well as several other people here do the same exact thing to me all the time, inserting things I never said to discussions so you have an excuse to talk down to me. Don't get angry when you get back what you give Anna.

 

 

 

The point is the abuse of power, your right that there are other great discussions that can be had but answer me a question........why do you think you should try and "STOP" this discussion?

 

Why not take those other topics you mentioned and start some new threads to discuss those things also?

 

 

 

Because your not really interested in those other things, your just trying to create an excuse to take shots at people.

 

 

 

 

This is a great discussion to an America because freedoms are the thing we are founded in, there are still a few people who live here who see these freedoms as important and when someone like Obama comes along and tears down those freedoms that small number of us who feel they are important become vocal about it.

[builder]

 

 

This is a great discussion to an America(n) because freedoms are the thing we are founded in, there are still a few people who live here who see these freedoms as important and when someone like Obama comes along and tears down those freedoms that small number of us who feel they are important become vocal about it.

 

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

 

List the "freedoms" (such an obscure term for a republican) that Obama is "tearing down".

[timesjoke]

 

 

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

 

List the "freedoms" (such an obscure term for a republican) that Obama is "tearing down".

IWS does dodge direct questions on a regular basis but he does so even with me because he does not have the ability to get into small details, he wants people to just accept the general point he offers without going into details.

 

I on the other hand dodge nothing, but I will say this, IWS offered a great example in the first post, where is the freedom in Obama extorting a private slush fund of $20 billion dollars from BP? Obama will have full discretion through his latest Czar to spend that money any way he wants to spend it, including to use that money for more rewarding of political supporters and not send money or less money to those who did not offer him support.

 

 

 

 

"IF" BP owed money to Americans then all of that should have been settled in a Courtroom, not in Obama's private office where Obama bullied his way into getting this slush fund.

 

 

 

 

Another great example of loss freedoms is the healthcare bill that forces every American to purchase health insurance that Obama designed. No matter how it is justified with Liberal (socialist) logic, either we are free to choose or we are not. Obama and his fellow socialists/progressives all want to take away our choices and tell us what to do and how to live and their wisdom comes with the penalty of massive tax increases.........so we have to pay more for less freedoms under their style of Government.

 

 

 

 

So IWS and I as well as other people do give you guys examples but you two seem determined to not see those examples, to ignore them and act like the points were never made. IWS even offered an example of how you guys bash the American immigration issues but your own Country does not allow open borders to all people, in fact your Country is very protective and there are many people there who complain that the boat people issues you have is hurting the Nation. Australia has almost no illegal imigration and yet you guys still cry about it, so why take shots at us when our problem is a million times bigger than yours?

 

 

There is another freedom for you, the freedom from being invaded, attacked, and killed while Obama refuses to secure the border until Republicans vote for a reform package, and guess what, as happened before, the empty promise to secure the border will never happen because Obama will have his reform and no reason to fund the border security anymore.

[builder]

 

IWS does dodge direct questions on a regular basis but he does so even with me because he does not have the ability to get into small details, he wants people to just accept the general point he offers without going into details.

 

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.

 

 

I on the other hand dodge nothing, but I will say this, IWS offered a great example in the first post, where is the freedom in Obama extorting a private slush fund of $20 billion dollars from BP?

 

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 hell of showing them to you.

 

Obama will have full discretion through his latest Czar to spend that money any way he wants to spend it, including to use that money for more rewarding of political supporters and not send money or less money to those who did not offer him support.

 

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.

 

 

"IF" BP owed money to Americans then all of that should have been settled in a Courtroom, not in Obama's private office where Obama bullied his way into getting this slush fund.

 

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

 

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?

 

 

Another great example of loss freedoms is the healthcare bill that forces every American to purchase health insurance that Obama designed. No matter how it is justified with Liberal (socialist) logic, either we are free to choose or we are not.

 

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

 

 

 

Obama and his fellow socialists/progressives all want to take away our choices and tell us what to do and how to live and their wisdom comes with the penalty of massive tax increases.........so we have to pay more for less freedoms under their style of Government.

 

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 arse".

 

 

So IWS and I as well as other people do give you guys examples but you two seem determined to not see those examples, to ignore them and act like the points were never made.

 

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

 

 

IWS even offered an example of how you guys bash the American immigration issues but your own Country does not allow open borders to all people, in fact your Country is very protective and there are many people there who complain that the boat people issues you have is hurting the Nation.

 

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.

 

Australia has almost no illegal imigration and yet you guys still cry about it, so why take shots at us when our problem is a million times bigger than yours?

 

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.

 

 

There is another freedom for you, the freedom from being invaded, attacked, and killed while Obama refuses to secure the border until Republicans vote for a reform package, and guess what, as happened before, the empty promise to secure the border will never happen because Obama will have his reform and no reason to fund the border security anymore.

 

 

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

 

Would you like an Australian to tell you?

[eddo]

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

 

Would you like an Australian to tell you?

 

about what this one is doing- nothing.

 

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 in the mirror, not the guy that was pres before...

[builder]

 

 

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?

[timesjoke]

 

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.

 

 

 

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 hell 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?

 

 

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.

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

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?

 

 

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. 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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

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.

 

 

 

 

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 arse".

 

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

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."

 

 

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

 

 

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.

 

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

 

 

 

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.

[eddo]

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.

 

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.

 

 

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?

 

--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.

 

 

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.

 

Next week I will go to Mexico for a week to work my butt 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. 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.

[timesjoke]

Great post eddo, real problems, real solutions offered, all factual and honest.

[RegisteredAndEducated]

 

"unilaterally" issue blanket amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants?

 

Really?

 

 

Are you aware the climate change is going to cause the biggest global immigration crisis the world has ever seen?

 

Deny it all you like, argue the causes all you like - but the fact remains that many Pacific Island communities have already been displaced due to rising sea levels. The numbers of people and the different areas affected are just going to keep increasing.

 

The current estimates are that there will be between 200 and 700 million climate-induced refugees by 2050.

 

And since the USA and the EU are responsible for approximately 60% of CO2 emissions to date, they are the ones that are going to be pushed to take responsibility.

 

Are you aware that climate change, f.k.a. global warming, is a natural phenomena? It has been occurring since the beginning of time and will continue to happen until man can no longer measure it. The earth heats, the earth cools, the earth warms up, the earth freezes... it's the natural cycle...

 

Nothing that man does or can do (short of nuclear winter) will change the natural cycle.

 

Period. The End.

[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 hell 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 bitch 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 butt 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 hell 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 pissed 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 hell 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.

 

Crap 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 arse".

 

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...