Words versus deeds
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 02:12:21 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Words versus deeds
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: Words versus deeds  (Read 1776 times)
CARLHAYDEN
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,638


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: January 24, 2007, 02:49:25 PM »

In a recent thread it was pointed out the politicians have changed their publicly stated positions on issues over the years.  Sometimes this is just to achieve political advantage and sometimes it reflects genuine changes in positions.

However, what really irks me is politicians who SAY one thing and DO the complete opposite. 

A case in point.  In the 2007 State of the Union speech, George W. Bush said:

"We will enforce our immigration laws at the worksite."

However, what has Bush DONE?  Well, here's a sampling of government statistics on Employer Investigations conducted by U.S. Immigration authorities:

Year          Arrests          Number of Fines Levied

2000         953                   180
2001         735                     78
2002         485                     13
2003         445                   124
2004         159                     54
2005         251                   143

Now, data is not yet available for 2006, but the record indicates that Bush has been far less like to enforce existing laws against employing illegal aliens than Clinton!

Indeed, under Bush, the ods of an employer being fined is less than the odds of being hit by lightning.
Logged
CARLHAYDEN
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,638


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: January 24, 2007, 04:45:51 PM »

Oh, and here's another empty promise in Bush's State of the Union speech, and contrasting data:

"To secure our border, we're doubling the size of the Border Patrol...."

Bush's record belies that promise.  As Nancy Pelosi correctly noted:

"Under the Bush Administration from 9/11/01 through April 2006, only 1,641 new Border Patrol agents have been hired - less than a 17 percent increase in four and a half years."

Speaker Pelosi also noted that Democrats in Congress had supported expanding the Border Parol more than Bush wanted.

Its really pretty bad when Bush's record on illegal immigration is worse than Clinton and Pelosi!

Remember, watch what Bush does, as his actions vary dramatically from his public statements!

 
Logged
MODU
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,024
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: January 24, 2007, 06:50:18 PM »



Just for clarification:  " To secure our border, we're doubling the size of the Border Patrol, and funding new infrastructure and technology. Yet even with all these steps, we cannot fully secure the border unless we take pressure off the border – and that requires a temporary worker program."

We're = we are, as in presently.

He didn't say "we doubled."  If I remember correctly, the doubling process is suppose to be completed by the end of 2007, and it was started in mid 2006.
Logged
CARLHAYDEN
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,638


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: January 24, 2007, 10:42:14 PM »



Just for clarification:  " To secure our border, we're doubling the size of the Border Patrol, and funding new infrastructure and technology. Yet even with all these steps, we cannot fully secure the border unless we take pressure off the border – and that requires a temporary worker program."

We're = we are, as in presently.

He didn't say "we doubled."  If I remember correctly, the doubling process is suppose to be completed by the end of 2007, and it was started in mid 2006.

Excuse me, but my facts were to point out that Bush is lying.  He will NOT secure our border, he will NOT double the Border Patrol.

His record is one of being more hostile to border security and the border parol than Nancy Pelosi!!!

Now, we've both been on this forum for more than one year, so, lets just see if the Border Patrol has twice the force by the end of 2007 as it was starting in mid 2006.

So, in just under a year I hope you will join me in acknowledging that this was yet another Bushism (i.e. a 'big lie').
Logged
CARLHAYDEN
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,638


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: April 16, 2007, 12:59:38 PM »



Just for clarification:  " To secure our border, we're doubling the size of the Border Patrol, and funding new infrastructure and technology. Yet even with all these steps, we cannot fully secure the border unless we take pressure off the border – and that requires a temporary worker program."

We're = we are, as in presently.

He didn't say "we doubled."  If I remember correctly, the doubling process is suppose to be completed by the end of 2007, and it was started in mid 2006.

In light of recent developments Modu, do you want to withdraw your assertion about doubling the size of the Border Parol by the end of the calendar year?
Logged
MODU
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,024
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: April 16, 2007, 01:02:30 PM »



Nope. 
Logged
CARLHAYDEN
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,638


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: April 16, 2007, 03:30:34 PM »


Excellent!

Given the recent report on the extreme slowness in increasing Border Patrol personnel I was going to give you a chance to back off of you earlier assertion.

Logged
MODU
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,024
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: April 16, 2007, 03:39:40 PM »



I love how you constantly use "assertion" in many of your posts.  Is that the word of the day off of one of those dictionary calendars?  Let's see what your little calendar says:  "to state or declare positively and often forcefully or aggressively."  Sounds more like your style than mine.  Anyway, there is no need to.  The goal hasn't changed.  Just because it's been a slow process doesn't make the goal any less of value. 

Feeling better about yourself now?  No?  I can hook you up with Miss Catholic.  The two of you have a lot in common.  Maybe you'll find happiness in her company.
Logged
CARLHAYDEN
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,638


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: April 16, 2007, 04:29:43 PM »



I love how you constantly use "assertion" in many of your posts.  Is that the word of the day off of one of those dictionary calendars?  Let's see what your little calendar says:  "to state or declare positively and often forcefully or aggressively."  Sounds more like your style than mine.  Anyway, there is no need to.  The goal hasn't changed.  Just because it's been a slow process doesn't make the goal any less of value. 

Feeling better about yourself now?  No?  I can hook you up with Miss Catholic.  The two of you have a lot in common.  Maybe you'll find happiness in her company.

Hmm.

Yeah, very funny.

Stating one will attain a speciied objective by a specified time, and then when it is abundantly clear the objective will NOT be attained in the specified time, one merely needs to aver that "trying," no matter how pathetic and feeble the effort, is sufficent.

Logged
MODU
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,024
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: April 16, 2007, 05:54:16 PM »


hahaha . . . whatever makes you feel better about yourself.  Last time I checked, we can't force people to be border patrol agents, nor just hand them a set of car keys and say "patrol" without training. 
Logged
CARLHAYDEN
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,638


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: April 16, 2007, 07:21:55 PM »


hahaha . . . whatever makes you feel better about yourself.  Last time I checked, we can't force people to be border patrol agents, nor just hand them a set of car keys and say "patrol" without training. 

May I infer that you are now tacitly admitting what I previously pointed out that Bush would NOT double the size of the Border Patrol in the time specified?

Now, non sequiturs aren't by definition funny.

Logged
MODU
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,024
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: April 16, 2007, 09:29:55 PM »


May I infer that you wouldn't be happy even if the border patrol was doubled?  Since you choose to ignore that Bush has NOT stated that he will not now double the border, but rather the fact that people are not wanting to be border agents and/or they have not completed training, simply shows that you are not continuing this discussion after three months because a policy has changed but because you are trying to find some personal glee from the lack of desire by the US public for not quitting their lives to stand on the border.  You are a sorry individual.
Logged
CARLHAYDEN
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,638


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: April 17, 2007, 12:53:55 AM »
« Edited: April 17, 2007, 01:15:00 AM by CARLHAYDEN »


May I infer that you wouldn't be happy even if the border patrol was doubled?  Since you choose to ignore that Bush has NOT stated that he will not now double the border, but rather the fact that people are not wanting to be border agents and/or they have not completed training, simply shows that you are not continuing this discussion after three months because a policy has changed but because you are trying to find some personal glee from the lack of desire by the US public for not quitting their lives to stand on the border.  You are a sorry individual.

Very funny modu.

You really should check the news.

The North County (San Diego, California) has the following information:

As of March 17, the Border Patrol has only been able to hire and train 593 new agents or 9 percent of the administration's goal, according to Javier Rios, a Border Patrol spokesman in Washington.

Screening new agents and a lengthy training process have resulted in the relatively small number of new hires. By the end of 2008, the administration wants a Border Patrol force of about 18,000 agents, up from the 12,000 in place when the president ordered the troops to the border last June.

-----

First,  this means is that Bush did not intend to double the Border Patrol staffing by "doubling" it (according to my math, it would be a 50% increase).

Second, contrary to your previous assertion, the "increase" is not supposed to occur by the end of 2007, but rather by the end of 2008.

Third, even that increase is falling flat.

Fourth, I never heard Bush allege that he would "double the border."  Where did you get that from?

Fifth, you make the erroneous assumption that the reason for the slow process in adding Border Patrol Agents is (to use your words):

"from the lack of desire by the US public for not quitting their lives to stand on the border."

Now, if you check with the Border Patrol, you will find that they have more applicants than they can process, and their agents are typically rather busy and don't "stand" on the border, but rather patrol it (the name is rather descriptive).

Sixth, with respect to the "policy (that) has changed," are you now admitting that Bush is no longer seeking to "double" the strength of the Border Patrol?

Seventh, while I politely ask you to answer my questions, I will answer one of yours.  Yes, doubling the strength of the Border Patrol would be desireable, but, as I orginally noted in this thread, I do NOT (to use a word for which you have considerable fascination) believe that Bush will allow this to occur.

In conclusion, I previously noted that Bush not only had no intention of "doubling" the strength of the Border Patrol, but that he had a history (which I cited) of opposing increases in Border Patrol personnel.  You previously dismissed his past poor performance and asserted that he would do what he said he was going to do in the future, i.e. "doubling the size of the border patrol."  Well, some time has passed, and the objective is no longer "doubling" the size of the Border Patrol, and the performance has been abysmal.

Yes, your posts are truly amusing! 

Oh, and BTW, you really should check out the segment in the move, The Best Little Whore House in Texas, where the Governor (played by Charles Durning) explains how he avoids dealing with touchy issues.

You really need some work on your 'side-step.'



 




Logged
MODU
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,024
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: April 17, 2007, 07:20:31 AM »


Whatever son.  Just because you haven't quit your job yet to become a border patrol agent, along with a bunch of other people, doesn't mean the goal of doubling the number of agents has been scrapped.  You really need to get over yourself.
Logged
CARLHAYDEN
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,638


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: April 17, 2007, 09:39:46 AM »


Whatever son.  Just because you haven't quit your job yet to become a border patrol agent, along with a bunch of other people, doesn't mean the goal of doubling the number of agents has been scrapped.  You really need to get over yourself.

First, so you are still alledging that Bush has as his objective the "coubling" of the Border Patrol?

Also, did you not read, or were you simply unable to understand the concept that there are more applicants for Border Patrol positions than the Border Patrol can process.

In short, its not a lack of applicants that is the problem, but rather an inability to meet the previously stated goal.
Logged
MODU
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,024
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: April 17, 2007, 09:43:15 AM »

In short, its not a lack of applicants that is the problem, but rather an inability to meet the previously stated goal.

Which doesn't discount the goal, which you seem to fail to understand.  But I doubt that would matter to you anyway.  You aren't going to be happy until you get exactly what you want.  I'm sorry to disappoint you, but that isn't reality.
Logged
CARLHAYDEN
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,638


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: April 17, 2007, 10:10:34 AM »

In short, its not a lack of applicants that is the problem, but rather an inability to meet the previously stated goal.

Which doesn't discount the goal, which you seem to fail to understand.  But I doubt that would matter to you anyway.  You aren't going to be happy until you get exactly what you want.  I'm sorry to disappoint you, but that isn't reality.

Again, are you asserting that the Bush administration still has as the "goal" the doubling of Border Patrol personnel?

Also, while having a stated goal is nice, if no sufficent efforts are not made to achieve the stated goal, doesn't it just become an "empty" committment?

Let me again be very clear, the earlier Bush statement about "doubling" the personnel in the Border Patrol was simply an empty promise which he could not keep without taking extraordinary steps to increase the capability of the Border Patrol training system (which Bush did not seek) and contrary to his prior record of opposing increases in Border Patrol.
personnel.

Now, to me, it would be nice of politicians would actually make credible efforts to implement their promises.  This has NOT been the case with Bush.
Logged
MODU
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,024
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: April 17, 2007, 10:33:46 AM »

Again, are you asserting that the Bush administration still has as the "goal" the doubling of Border Patrol personnel?

No, I am "stating" that the goal is in place.  You are the one "asserting" that the goal has changed.  Until you find something showing that he has changed that goal, quit wasting our time with this.  And change your calendar already.  "Asserting" was yesterday's word, and you are still using it wrong.
Logged
CARLHAYDEN
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,638


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: April 17, 2007, 10:45:22 AM »

Again, are you asserting that the Bush administration still has as the "goal" the doubling of Border Patrol personnel?

No, I am "stating" that the goal is in place.  You are the one "asserting" that the goal has changed.  Until you find something showing that he has changed that goal, quit wasting our time with this.  And change your calendar already.  "Asserting" was yesterday's word, and you are still using it wrong.

Let me again give you the two relevant quotes:

“By the end of 2008, the administration wants a Border Patrol Force of about 18,000 agents, up from the 12,000 in place when the president ordered the troops to the border last june.”

In his State of the Union speech (this year) Bush stated tgat “to secure our border, we’re doubling the size of the Border Patrol...”

Sure sounds to me like the goal has changed, unless you are arguing that 18,000 is twice 12.000.

Logged
MODU
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,024
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: April 17, 2007, 12:15:01 PM »
« Edited: April 17, 2007, 12:29:33 PM by MODU »

Again you come off as being a jackass without posting information on it first.  Since I haven't seen the source you referenced, how would I be able to comment on it accurately?  All I got from you was "In light of recent developments..."  Now, if you would please be so kind as to provide the source of what you are talking about, then I might be able to discuss something with you.  And in the future, provide a basis/source for your attacks.

-----

And let me just add one thing.  If you go back to where the 2008 goal comes from (HR 5441), and note the speech made by the President at the signing of said bill, you will see where the "double" comes from.

We have increased the number of Border Patrol agents from about 9,000 to 12,000.   ....   The bill also supports our efforts to increase the number of Border Patrol agents to about 18,000 by the end of 2008.

"President Bush Signs Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act"

So look, if you can't handle that, then that's fine.  No one here really gives a damn.  However, you've got to get off you high horse and quit harassing those that don't agree with you.  The goal is to double the force to 18K by the end of 2008.  They might make it, they might not.  No one knows.  Now if that doesn't meet your desires, call your representative and take it up with him/her.  This debate has been finalized for all I care (reference the material above).  Now, if you've got something better, then please, by all means provide the necessary quotes and link while trying to make your case.  Otherwise, quit wasting mine/everyone's time.
Logged
CARLHAYDEN
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,638


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: April 17, 2007, 12:50:57 PM »

Again you come off as being a jackass without posting information on it first.  Since I haven't seen the source you referenced, how would I be able to comment on it accurately?  All I got from you was "In light of recent developments..."  Now, if you would please be so kind as to provide the source of what you are talking about, then I might be able to discuss something with you.  And in the future, provide a basis/source for your attacks.

-----

And let me just add one thing.  If you go back to where the 2008 goal comes from (HR 5441), and note the speech made by the President at the signing of said bill, you will see where the "double" comes from.

We have increased the number of Border Patrol agents from about 9,000 to 12,000.   ....   The bill also supports our efforts to increase the number of Border Patrol agents to about 18,000 by the end of 2008.

"President Bush Signs Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act"

So look, if you can't handle that, then that's fine.  No one here really gives a damn.  However, you've got to get off you high horse and quit harassing those that don't agree with you.  The goal is to double the force to 18K by the end of 2008.  They might make it, they might not.  No one knows.  Now if that doesn't meet your desires, call your representative and take it up with him/her.  This debate has been finalized for all I care (reference the material above).  Now, if you've got something better, then please, by all means provide the necessary quotes and link while trying to make your case.  Otherwise, quit wasting mine/everyone's time.

um. lets see.

First, I cited the quote and the source in post no. 12 on this thread.

Second, I really suggest you calm down.  Or do you think its funny to call those who point out to you the inconsistency of your posts names?

Third, when I wanted to look at the past Bush record, you rejected that.  So now, you want to go back and count the three thousand agents which were added against Bush's opposition?  Hmm.

Fourth, I agree you don't really give a damn, except to engage in name calling.

Fifth, you want to make a bet about achieving the 18,000 agents by the end of 2008?
Logged
MODU
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,024
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: April 17, 2007, 01:14:48 PM »



Whatever Mr. Verba non acta.
Logged
CARLHAYDEN
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,638


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: April 17, 2007, 01:28:41 PM »


So, will you give a mea culpa when Bush leaves office and there are NOT 18,000 Border Patrol agents?
Logged
MODU
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,024
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: April 17, 2007, 01:44:44 PM »


So, will you give a mea culpa when Bush leaves office and there are NOT 18,000 Border Patrol agents?

If the policy changes, then ok.  However, I don't see that happening.
Logged
CARLHAYDEN
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,638


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: April 17, 2007, 01:56:37 PM »


So, will you give a mea culpa when Bush leaves office and there are NOT 18,000 Border Patrol agents?

If the policy changes, then ok.  However, I don't see that happening.

Excuse me, but I'm about reality, not pie in the sky promises.

When 2008 comes to an end and there are NOT 18,000 Border Parol agents, will you acknowledge that the promises made by Bush were false?
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.054 seconds with 11 queries.