However, it was clear he was attempting to provide link-less evidence to support your statement.
Giuliani: Not Impossible to stop Illegal Immigration
- Thread starter Damocles
- Start date
Please show me the qualification. He said he would end it in three years, not disincentivize it. End. Why is that so damn difficult for you to understand.
Moreover, I 'm sick and tired of the context dodge. There is plenty of context provided on the first statement and Rudy's meaning was unequivocally clear and if you look at his other policy positions on illegal immigration at the time. For example:
LINK:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3459498&page=1
Why are you so obtuse on this point?
Further, Rudy's current position is that he can end illegal immigration. Your interpretation of what he means by that, while interesting, is completely beside the point and totally unsupported by Rudy's own statements.
He has said repeatedly that he will end illegal immigration. One of his "12 Commitments" (his campaign promises) reads thusly, in it's entirety:
LINK:
http://www.joinrudy2008.com/commitment/
Futher, the "totally" portion of his initial comment is precisely the main point. He said previously that you can't totally control immigration and now he's claiming he can end illegal immigration. The "totally" is what makes the statements inconsistent.
Except it isn't a dodge.
1. He never said that there was nothing we could ever do about illegal immigration. Attempting to say that was what he said takes his meaning out of context and pretends he didn't say what he said.
2. He clearly made a more in depth statement where he stated exactly the points I have stated. What would be done on the border.
3. I don't care how "sick and tired" you are of me pointing out the clear purposeful misunderstanding of his statement, I'll continue doing it until you either admit it is EXACTLY like saying that Gore "invented" the internet, or you get tired of hearing it enough to stop pretending that is what he said.
4. I am not being "obtuse" when I state that Giuliani never said that there was nothing we could do about illegal immigration, that would be your forte.
5. And the "totally" was what would make his statements inconsistent had he not clarified with a plan and said that it would do what his anti-crime program did for NYC, which certainly wasn't to end it completely, it curtailed it strongly... Well unless you want to give him 'credit' for "totally" ending crime in NYC... It makes that clarification very realistic and obvious to me, and only those who want to "pretend" and play the deliberate game of "gotcha" politics would purposefully misconstrue the statement so that no conversation is made of the actual plan.
Now, all that being said. I think that Giuliani has made this a priority because they saw how close an election could come in a major Democratic stronghold just by stating that things can and should be done on the border to curb illegal immigration. I would have supported him had he been talking like this all the time, but I don't support him currently because I have a hard time believing in such a change of priorities.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
This is why Thompson's strategy was so great. He never had to flip flop about immigration, he just sat back, saw that the immigration loons were pulling in the ignorant masses with Mexican bigotry, and decided to go in that direction. Therefore, no flip flop.
Litmus
Verified User
It's not bigotry to protect ourselves, our job markets or our public systems.
Go look up the word INVASION.
Litmus
Verified User
Grow up, idiot. Countries are designed to protect resources for the citizenry. If they were blue and made of pixy dust I still wouldn't want them taking my job or putting my public system in bankruptcy, or drunk driving over my child.
Litmus
Verified User
Get bent, idiotic buttchild. It's not racism to protect opportunities for citizens. That's the point of a nation, for individuals to gather together and assist each other in mutually protecting the opportunities from noncitizens. Free flow of people, goods, and services is a lie. WHen I can move to saudi arabia and speak freely and establish a church, then we'll talk about globalization. Until then, stfu, with your dishonest, anti-american idiocy.
As I said. He saw what the effects were on that special Congressional election and decided to shift his priorities, and that is why I don't trust it.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
DAMN dude, your argument is weak as hell.
These "leftwing" sources that you have so much disdain for were the only ones absolutely correct about almost every fucking thing that has gone on in the past 7 years.
There is no question that Guiliani has flip-flopped on this issue, nor is there any question that this is an act of deperation .. as is your illogic about where the source came from when you've heard it right from Rudybella's own mouth.
I'm wondering .. will he stop the invasion of the cross-dressers
Which doesn't change a thing about my argument. It is weak to say, a war is bad theme is "right". It doesn't change, however, that a statement such as we can never "totally control" immigration means that we can never do anything about it at all.DAMN dude, your argument is weak as hell.
These "leftwing" sources that you have so much disdain for were the only ones absolutely correct about almost every fucking thing that has gone on in the past 7 years.
There is no question that Guiliani has flip-flopped on this issue, nor is there any question that this is an act of deperation .. as is your illogic about where the source came from when you've heard it right from Rudybella's own mouth.
I'm wondering .. will he stop the invasion of the cross-dressers
Where I see a "flip-flop" is in the form of priority. Before he was unwilling to make any action at the border a priority, yet now he is making it a priority because of the results of that special Congressional election many on the Right are taking a harder stance on illegal immigration realizing that it gets results. This is why I wouldn't trust it.
I don't believe that we could ever "totally control" illegal immigration, I agree with that remark. That does not mean that I agree that we should do nothing therefore, nor do I think it ever meant that for Giuliani. He simply thought that different priorities gave him a better chance at winning election.
Saying that an editorial is "right" because well, we were right about WMD is bullocks and weak. Especially when playing this form of "gotcha" where meanings are nothing and appearance the only importance. It is that form of politics that got us "Gore says he invented the internet" which was also bullocks.
Damo - In all seriousness, you are not following the logic.
Then, Giuliani said that we cannot totally control immigration.
Now, he says he will end illegal immigration in three years, suggesting that he can, in fact, "totally control immigration."
The two are completely inconsistent with one another. You're doing all sorts of contortions to come to a different conclusion.
Additionally, his former position on illegal immigration is that it is a necessary evil in our country and that illegal immigrants should not be targeted simply because they are illegal immigrants. Now he wants to deport them all and keep them out for good.
As I said, made in a vacuum those statements would be contradictory, thankfully your AP story made it clear that they were indeed not made in vacuum, and that he then gave a deeper view, a plan, and a description of what he thinks to be realistic results. All of which tell me that his first statement is still true, we cannot totally control illegal immigration and the results he expects will not be perfect.
And as I said, only a person who wants to play "gotcha" would take the statements as if they were made in vacuum and that no further explanation could ever be added to it. These are the very ideas and type of people who gave us, "Al Gore invented teh internets!"
As well, he did not say we should deport all illegal immigrants you are giving him words he did not present now, that is the ultimate in weak positions. He said first handle the border, then we can work on what to do here as well as open legal immigration to disincentivize illegal entry.
First of all, the issue is not his first statement that we cannot totally control immigration. I agree with that statement. The issue is his second statement, which he has made repeatedly and which he features prominently in his "12 Committments" that he will end illegal immigration. He is unequivocal about that. He will end it. Not disincentivize, not a description of what he thinks are realistic results. He will end it.
What is the deeper view provided by the AP story? This is all it said about it:
I don't see any more context except that he is now saying, as promised, that he will end illegal immigration.
What am I missing?
What is the deeper view provided by the AP story? This is all it said about it:
I don't see any more context except that he is now saying, as promised, that he will end illegal immigration.
What am I missing?
Re-read my past posts wherin I explained he said the results would be like the results he had in NYC fighting crime. Unless you assume he attempts to say that crime was "totally" controlled in NYC, it seems his expectations are a bit more realistic than that.
But you can again pretend that those words were only in a vacuum, that no further in-depth explanation of the plan and expectation of results exist so that you can continue to act as if you "got him". (Al Gore invented the internet = Giuliani says that he will end all illegal immigration!)
You have to be deliberately disingenuous to take such positions, and they will only be effective with the bumper-sticker voters not among those who spend more time analyzing and arguing politics.
Damocles, you keep asserting that Giuliani did not say that he would end illegal immigration when he has in fact said it time and time again. In fact, I provided a link to his campaign website where he lists his "12 Commitments," the second of which is, in its entirety:
There is a link to a press release that states, unequivocally:
Further, he said on the campaign trail both in August when he unveiled his plan through yesterday, that he will "end illegal immigration."
I have previously provided links setting forth that Giuliani has promised to end illegal immigration, not control it somewhat, not disincentivize it, not make it difficult, but to end it.
Giuliani says that he will end illegal immigration. That is fact.
Why you keep bringing up the Gore internet thing is beyond me. There is a major difference between the two. Gore never said that he "invented the internet" whereas Giuliani has said repeatedly in speeches and on his campaign website that he would "end illegal immigration."
Another false equivalence.
There is a link to a press release that states, unequivocally:
Further, he said on the campaign trail both in August when he unveiled his plan through yesterday, that he will "end illegal immigration."
I have previously provided links setting forth that Giuliani has promised to end illegal immigration, not control it somewhat, not disincentivize it, not make it difficult, but to end it.
Giuliani says that he will end illegal immigration. That is fact.
Why you keep bringing up the Gore internet thing is beyond me. There is a major difference between the two. Gore never said that he "invented the internet" whereas Giuliani has said repeatedly in speeches and on his campaign website that he would "end illegal immigration."
Another false equivalence.
Last edited:
One more time, only if you are playing bumper-sticker "gotcha" politics.
I have even stated that if the remarks were made in vacuum that the remarks would be contradictory. However, we have more time to analyze the plan, and to listen to his meaning in how he presents it. Pretending that those statements are the whole of things is pretense and deliberately disingenuous. It is idiotic "gotcha" politics.
First starting with the "totally control" statement, which many on the right took to mean we could never control it at all (rubbish) to the end illegal immigration remark which the left is taking as "He says he can make it so there never will be another illegal immigrant" (rubbish). Because we can take later statements which explain it further, and listen to the actual plan and then analyze what the results might be.
Your attempt to bumper sticker and take the remarks in vacuum is simply an unfortunate ability to ignore deeper meaning to make a new bumper-sticker.
As I said, it will work among those bumper-sticker voters, but it isn't flying here. It is weakness to determine a position based on bumper-stickers without more in-depth analysis.
And one of your previous links gave us an explanation of the plan which does exactly what I stated. As well as gave a further explanation as he states it will have much the same effect as did his plan to fight crime in NYC, which certainly didn't "end it all". Taking it out of the context of the entirety of the statement which included that portion, is the only way to make the statements "contradictory".