Freedom Folks

Friday, February 02, 2007

Smart, Serial?

Source: WSJ

President Bush entered the hostile (heh!) lair of the Wall Street Journal laying down the law and letting them know that, well, he was still their lapdog...
WSJ: How concerned are you about the issue of immigration dividing the Republican Party?

GWB: Getting hammered is what happens when you take tough, principled positions. I don't want our party to be viewed as anti-anybody. If you get labeled as anti-people, you can't win elections. I believe the philosophy of our party is the most hopeful philosophy. It says to any person from any country: 'You have a chance to succeed.' It relies upon individuals. It empowers individuals to be able to realize their potential, as opposed to saying the government is going to do it for you. I know that sounds trite, but that's how I view the difference of philosophy.
So, and follow along please, this gets complicated (it doesn't really but it's fun to say). So, if enforcing the law is "Anti-people?" What options does that leave one? So, if I understand this pitiful nonsense correctly the only way to be "Pro-people" is to remove our border and allow anyone in the world, in any numbers to stroll in? Yeah, I'll pass thanks!

As to "tough, principled?" Nice try sir, but aiding and abetting illegal activity, especially illegal activity that hurts the citizens you have sworn to uphold? Makes you a bigger POS than my poor language skills can describe.

The farce continues...

I hope I can get a bill through the Congress so that the issue is dealt with in a rational way, before the [presidential] election process [begins].
WSJ: Do you think that will be easier with a Democratic Congress?

GWB: I think it's going to be hard either way. I think it's going to be [a] hard bill to get through. And I'll tell you why. The ultimate question is what happens to 12 million people who are here. My view is that you can't kick them out, nor should you grant them automatic citizenship. And so there's got to be rational middle way.
His view is also that illegal aliens each deserve a pony, a sugary lollipop and tickets to a Christina Aguielera concert. He could not be reached for comment as to his feelings about, you know, the people he's sworn to protect and serve.
WSJ: What is it about this issue that causes so many conservatives to abandon their free-market principles? Raiding businesses, becoming protectionists, etc.?

GWB: I think raiding a business is more about enforcing the law. And conservatives tend to want to enforce the law. . . . This is an emotional issue. It's interesting. There have been periods in our history where nativism has had a strong appeal. Sometimes nativism, isolationism and protectionism all run hand in hand. We've got to be careful about that in the United States. The 1920s was a period of high tariff, high tax, no immigration. And the lesson of the 1920s ought to be a reminder of what is possible for future presidents.
Nativist? George, you motherF*cker. How about we be careful who we allow to stroll into this country. Here's what's interesting to me about this exchange. Has anybody ever just told this president to go screw? Suggested that maybe he pick up a dictionary as he clearly doesn't understand the English language? I genuinely hope, in my lifetime to see this worthless, lying, faithless sack of crap dangling at the end of a scratchy piece of hemp rope.

As to free markets? This has precisely nothing to do with free markets. Unless you see people as a marketable good? And countries as a distraction from the important stuff like profits?

I made this comment to a friend recently, it seems that on certain issues, illegal immigration being an awfully good example, we are no longer debating policy, but our very existence. How nice of our president to be playing for the other side.

You know the only thing this president truly excels at? Calling the American people names! Nicely played sir, nicely played!

H/T Lonewacko

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

powered by performancing firefox

Labels: , ,