President Bush addresses the nation tonight.

[dposse]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/15/immigration/

President Bush will speak to the nation in a televised speech tonight. In his speech, the President will outline his plans for Immigration. He plans to send about 10,000 National Guard troops to the border to serve a "supportive role" in the mission to keep people from entering the United States illegally. The troops, about 3 percent of all National Guard units, will not be involved in apprehending illegal immigrants.

The troops will be under the control of the four border states: Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California, although the federal government will foot the bill for their deployment.

The speech will start at 8pm EST on all news stations.


Well, at least the plan of sending troops is slightly better than those MinuteMan retards. what do you think? Will you be watching the speech?

[Toastburner B]

Probably...that would be around 6 pm my time...nothing on at all.

...But if it interrupts my 24 I'll...er...complain loudly, more than likely. >_>;;

But a supportive role? What the heck does that mean? Or is it "supportive role ::nudgenudgewinkwink::"? ...Or are we finally going to get it over with and invade Mexico?

[Sock_Munkey]

Glad to see that washington is taking a mature, nonthreatening apprach to immigration.

[dposse]

Glad to see that washington is taking a mature, nonthreatening apprach to immigration.

Yeah....nothing is more mature than ten thousand armed troops inches away from mexico. XD

[Sock_Munkey]

Speaking with my purely arrogant side, I think we should let illegals in simply because it makes us look better.
But seriously, putting in TROOPS is really a step backwards.

[dposse]

Speaking with my purely arrogant side, I think we should let illegals in simply because it makes us look better.
But seriously, putting in TROOPS is really a step backwards.

oh? More or less a step backwards (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=1963525&page=2) than "a temporary worker program that does not include amnesty for illegal immigrants."? I personally think a worker program is the smarter idea.

[Mirai Gen]

Bush making a speech? Oh, what brisk witticisms does this chappy have to offer?

[Sock_Munkey]

oh? More or less a step backwards (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=1963525&page=2) than "a temporary worker program that does not include amnesty for illegal immigrants."? I personally think a worker program is the smarter idea.
Theres no denying that they help our economy, they do the jobs natives do not want to do, and I think we should give them the right to pursuit of happiness like we do our citizens.

[Bob The Mercenary]

I have a quick question on the subject. I was listening to Rush Limbaugh this afternoon (so sue me) and he made a comment that the speech indicates that Bush is caving. What/who exactly, if anything, would he be caving to? I've kinda lost track of the whole issue.

[Toastburner B]

I have a quick question on the subject. I was listening to Rush Limbaugh this afternoon (so sue me) and he made a comment that the speech indicates that Bush is caving. What/who exactly, if anything, would he be caving to? I've kinda lost track of the whole issue.

I'm not sure who he would be caving to, either.

But, in all honesty, I'm waiting for the day that Bush says the sky is blue and some Democrats and Republicians disagree with him just out of reflex. :sweatdrop
::insert "LOLZ Bu$h i$ 2 s1up1d 2 know teh $ky 1$ blu!!!!11!!" comment.

[dposse]

Theres no denying that they help our economy, they do the jobs natives do not want to do, and I think we should give them the right to pursuit of happiness like we do our citizens.

I agree! I wish more people thought that way.

Bob the Mercenary: Perhaps he is caving to people like the MinuteMen who wanted more people on the border? for the minutemen, 10,000 troops is a gift from god.

[Sock_Munkey]

When you guys say "minutemen" are you referring to anti-immigrant types?

[dposse]

When you guys say "minutemen" are you referring to anti-immigrant types?

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

I am refering to the Minuteman Project, which are the people who spend their free time on the US/Mexico border trying to catch illegal immigrants and are trying to build a barbed wire fence.

[Sock_Munkey]

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

I am refering to the Minuteman Project, which are the people who spend their free time on the US/Mexico border trying to catch illegal immigrants and are trying to build a barbed wire fence.
Yeah so I guess they are pretty much anti-immigrant reactionary hicks.

[Mondt]

http://www.drinkinggame.us/

Look, I know this isn't the SOTU, but most of it still applies. Take out a few, probably about 3 (minus some obvious ones), and you have tonights presidential adress drinking game.

[dposse]

it's on, ladies and gents!

He wants 6,000 new border security agents, motion censors and inferred cameras at the border, plus other stuff. how we are gonna pay for that, i have no idea...

[Sock_Munkey]

it's on, ladies and gents!

He wants 6,000 new border security agents, motion censors and inferred cameras at the border, plus other stuff. how we are gonna pay for that, i have no idea...
With more tax cuts, YEEEEEEEEEEHAWWWWWWWWWWWWW....Wait a minute, that didnt solve any problems last time. Hmmm.....

[P-Sleazy]

I must hand it to him tho, in the last 10 minutes of the speech I watched, he didn't meantion anything about taxes. Maybe he's accepted that his tax cuts aren't good anymore.

[Lockeownzj00]

I love how he said that we'll be able to send the troops to defend the border and fight the war on terror. Haha. Where? In Terroristan? Ain't no Goldstein for you here, Bush. Sorry. I love ambiguous statements that somehow fool half of the populace into believing his nonsense.

[ZERO.]

Yeah so I guess they are pretty much anti-immigrant reactionary hicks.


The minutemen aren’t anti-immigrant they are anti-illegal-immigrant,
just saying.

[Mirai Gen]

I love how he said that we'll be able to send the troops to defend the border and fight the war on terror. Haha. Where? In Terroristan? Ain't no Goldstein for you here, Bush. Sorry. I love ambiguous statements that somehow fool half of the populace into believing his nonsense.
Man, how many times do I have to link it before it stops being funny?
http://www.comics.com/wash/candorville/archive/images/candorville2006043261710.gif

[Buddha Fett]

Something tells me that this'll get even worse before it gets better...

Oh yeah, and I've got a betting pool going with some of the people I know(the smart money's on Bush to invade Mexico). Any takers?

[Toastburner B]

You know...sometimes I pity poor Bush.

The guy is in a case of "Damn if you do, damned if you don't" for the rest of his term on everything! The poor dude is so unpopular that no matter what he says, someone is going to blast it for it.

He leaves the border as is, people blast him for not doing anything about it.

He opens the border, he gets blasted for people who are breaking the law amesty.

He toughens the border, he get's blasted for being a racists hick.

In all honesty, folks...is there anything he could of said that you wouldn't be making fun of him for?

[Lockeownzj00]

Please, spare me. Whenever people give Bush the flak he deserves, we hear, the "damned if you do, damned if you don't" argument. How can you say that with a straight face? I know you're not some fundamentalist, but how can you even stand the smell of the bullshit they shovel?

Did I make fun of his face? His hair? Certain people do that, and they're just fanatical. No, I criticize the way he subverts the law for his and his administration's conservative agenda. I criticize his policies. I criticize his diplomacy (if you can even call it that. Lack of, rather).

Painting Bush like a victim is a real tragedy.

[Toastburner B]

Oh, Bush deserves plenty of flak. I don't think he's done a very good job as President (didn't even vote for him in 2004...didn't vote for Kerry, either, so that that as you may).

All I'm saying is that, honestly, whatever Bush says, baring balanty obvious facts, at least a handful of high level officials are going to bash him. It's the way the game goes. Bush is the sinking ship, so all the rats are bailing out. I'm not saying he's a vicitim of anything other that finding himself in a position where everything he says for the next 2 and a half years is going to bashed soundly by both sides as they jockey to future their own political careers.

Frankly, I can't stand either side at the moment. The Democrats can't get their act together to save their lives (they can't even decide if Bush is an idiot or a criminal master), and the Republicians are basically doing jack squat as of late.

Yes, I know, I said something about Bush that wasn't negative. That must mean that I'm a Bush fanboy!

No.

All I'm saying that I feel sorry for the guy because, through his own actions, and through the actions of others, is in a situation that, barring Divine intervetion (which some people at the top would surely argue broke the seperation of church and state) Bush won't be able to do a thing dang thing because everyone is trying to distance themselves from Bush, while at the same time demand Bush do something. Even if, by some off chance, Bush actually wants to do something good, he is so far gone that everyone will bash it just so at election time they can say "Look at me! I'm not a bushie!"

I would kill to have a crediable third party pop up.

[Lockeownzj00]

Frankly, I can't stand either side at the moment. The Democrats can't get their act together to save their lives (they can't even decide if Bush is an idiot or a criminal master), and the Republicians are basically doing jack squat as of late.

I understand the logic, but this is another line of thought that makes the situation seem far too polarised. As if "both sides" are equally extreme. They're really not. A disorganised, sycophantic party vs. the party that's in power and actively sending our country in a bad direction? I think one is worse than the other.

[Toastburner B]

I understand the logic, but this is another line of thought that makes the situation seem far too polarised. As if "both sides" are equally extreme. They're really not. A disorganised, sycophantic party vs. the party that's in power and actively sending our country in a bad direction? I think one is worse than the other.

Yeah, but to me, the side 1 is saying that side 2 better stop it, or else...but the "or else" never comes. With the way things are things are at the moment, its like the Republicans are a student driver heading towards a wall, and the Democrats are like the Driver's Ed teacher telling the student to stop without using his own brake. So, to me, both parties are equally bad, one messing up by commission, and the other by omission, as it were.

And I'd like to apologize for being snappy. I think I was in a bad mood yesterday, and I was more agressive than I usually am.