FOX News’ Carl Cameron does an investigative report on Francine Busby telling a crowd of people “you don’t need papers to vote” Busby doesn’t acknowledge she made the remarks CAUGHT ON TAPE, but instead tries to act tough:
FRANCINE BUSBY: Let me make it clear to everybody. Ok? Illegal people should not be here. They have absolutely no place in the democratic process. They shouldn’t be voting if anyone tries to vote illegally they should be prosecuted and they have no place working on campaigns.
Full transcript follows.
VIDEO – .WMV
JOHN GIBSON: republicans are jumping all over california congressional candidate fran seen bus buy. The democrat was encouraging illegal immigrants to vote. Busby denies that said she misspoke. It’s a huge issue replacing duke cunningham convicted of taking bribes. Carl carl cameron in is in san diego. What does busby say she meant to say.CARL CAMERON: You don’t have to have papers to volunteer. She claims that the audience she was talking to was filled with young people was not old enough to vote. They could vote if they were actual u.S. Citizens. The problem for ms. Busby event it was a heavily attended latino outreach event. It’s hard to sort all of this out because the of the translations the question from the latino suggested he did not have papers and she suggested that they could either help or vote. She says it was a misspeak none the less, this has filled talk radio. The battle here in the 50th cd is very tight and immigration the last three days has really taken it over. The republican brian bill bray has been taking issue with these remarks since the moment they were uttered. Just a short time ago mr. Bill bray voted here and we talked to him about this controversy and here is how he put it.
BRIAN BILBRAY: Nobody say what she did. If you give her the benefit of the doubt she still had major ethical problem with somebody who asked him somebody who identified themself as illegal participant.
CAMERON: One of the things that mr. Billberet bray is going to claim he shoes watt vitting. He doesn’t understand how anybody who thinks it’s anything other than that having heard of the tape. For her part ms. Busbye has been attempting to make this a culture of corruption because of duke cunningham going to jail for accepting $2 million in prescribes. He has been on defense trying to clean up the mess. Shear is how she put it today.
FRANCINE BUSBY: Let me make it clear to everybody. Ok? Illegal people should not be here. They have absolutely no place in the democratic process. They shouldn’t be voting if anyone tries to vote illegally they should be prosecuted and they have no place working on campaigns.
CAMERON: Well, ms. Busby had been leading the polls. It is a heavily republican district. But in the last couple of days the most recent polls suggested this has narrowed to a statistical dead heat perhaps mr. Billbray with a little lead. It could take out the air out of the sales on the culture of corruption. If ms. Busby would take the seat democrats would crow it’s a thing of things to come in the fall.
GIBSON: carl cameron thanks very much.
Wizbang linked with Francine Busby Update...
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Register to comment here.
8:04 pm [ Quote ]
Nothing new…Just the usual Right smear campaign cranking up. Wonder if Rover’s sticky fingers are behind this.
8:09 pm [ Quote ]
like i said, this woman is a certified moron… how many times do you have to hear her utter her own words to have them totally denied or not acknowledged by this fool with a vagina…? if she denies she even said it or takes a tough stance with her words against illegal aliens, then why is she running…? at least the republican candidate brian bilbray has this plank in his campaign… the DNC sure can pick’em… go girl power, you contradictory idiot…
8:14 pm [ Quote ]
Smoker, wtf are you talking about?
It came from her lips.
8:17 pm [ Quote ]
Nothing new…Just the usual Right smear campaign cranking up. Wonder if Rover’s sticky fingers are behind this.
i guess your apparent ideology makes you blissfully blind to the realities presented before you… either that or you suffer from a chronic case of cognitive dissonance, you stupid stooge of the left…
8:19 pm [ Quote ]
Smoker, wtf are you talking about?
It came from her lips.
Wouldn’t take Rove 5mins to get a tape made to sound as if she said this. Remember Smear campaigns are Rove’s department.
8:25 pm [ Quote ]
Smoker, wtf are you talking about?
It came from her lips.
Wouldn’t take Rove 5mins to get a tape made to sound as if she said this. Remember Smear campaigns are Rove’s department.
oh boy… so you’ve stooped to the level of a conspiracy theorist…? awesome display of your shallow ideology at work again… don’t you ever get tired of the ridiculous heights you have to mentally prop yourself up to in order to defend your incohesive leftist drivel…?
8:32 pm [ Quote ]
Nothing new…Just the usual Right smear campaign cranking up. Wonder if Rover’s sticky fingers are behind this.
You are seriously in denial, my friend. That you would conjure up the most asinine thing you can think of to stay in your state of denial is just really sad.
8:35 pm [ Quote ]
Smoker are you one of those people who think Bush was behind 9/11?
8:36 pm [ Quote ]
It’s as plain as the nose on your face…It looks like we (right)could lose so better start smearing.
8:41 pm [ Quote ]
Smoker are you one of those people who think Bush was behind 9/11?
No I don’t think Bush was behind 9/11.
8:50 pm [ Quote ]
Busby’s comments remind me of the woman who came home and found her husband and her best female friend in bed doing the sweaty mattress mambo. The husband (liberal) asks his wife (conservative) “are you going to believe me or your lying eyes?” Or like Billy Jeff saying, “I did not have sex with that woman! Are you going to believe me or my semen stains on Monica’s dress?”
Busby is saying to the world, “Are you going to believe what I am saying today or your lying ears.” Happy Smoker and many liberals will reply, “Of course, we believe what you are saying today, we know Rove manufactured that audio tape just to smear you!” Sadly, for most liberals she will get away with it!
8:50 pm [ Quote ]
HappySmoker is right! Rove is at it again! Next week Rove starts indoctrinating Europe! Rove will be going after happysmoker next month! BWAAAAA! Sacr/off
I wish I knew how playing someones words back is a smear. The left knows she is going to lose so they will turn Busby’s faux pas into a Republican smear. That way it is not the left being rejected, it will be the “smear” that was the cause of her defeat. Nothing new the left never can accept responsibilty of their actions.
9:04 pm [ Quote ]
No no no, she is being smeared I tell you. When she said that illegals should vote what she really meant was that all immigrants should be deported.
Its plain as day, Im surprised no one else seems to be able to see it!
In fact, it happens to me all the time. Whenever I go to a restaurant and order a steak, they bring me a salad.
Duh.
9:09 pm [ Quote ]
ordi Said:
8:50 pm
“HappySmoker is right! Rove is at it again”
I thought he would have used the Lesbian tactic again as used so successfully to get Bush a victory over Ann Richards as governor of Texas. Richards was a lesbian. And she had a lot of lesbians working for her.
But maybe Cheney put a stop to that one. LOL
9:13 pm [ Quote ]
Ian, you didn’t even get the original quote right. She did not say “you don’t need papers to vote”. Those are your words. She said “You can all help. You don’t need papers for voting, you don’t need to be a registered voter to help.”
There’s your smear campaign. Either you made an error, you are incompetent, or you flat out lied. Or any combination of the above. Are you afraid you’ll lose if you just tell the straight truth?
9:18 pm [ Quote ]
Well there’s my smear campaign blow out the water but perspicio is spot on…Its not helpfull to only get half the facts…in this case 1/2 a quote.
9:26 pm [ Quote ]
Ian, you didn’t even get the original quote right. She did not say “you don’t need papers to vote”. Those are your words. She said “You can all help. You don’t need papers for voting, you don’t need to be a registered voter to help.”
There’s your smear campaign. Either you made an error, you are incompetent, or you flat out lied. Or any combination of the above. Are you afraid you’ll lose if you just tell the straight truth?
What is the difference, both mean the same thing, not a real effective smear.
9:29 pm [ Quote ]
Old position,
“You can all help. You don’t need papers for voting, you don’t need to be a registered voter to help.”
New position,
“Illegal people should not be here. They have absolutely no place in the democratic process. They shouldn’t be voting if anyone tries to vote illegally they should be prosecuted and they have no place working on campaigns.”
That is a complete 180.
9:31 pm [ Quote ]
Harmonica,
(1) Is English your first language? Because you seem to have a poor grasp of it.
(2) What ever gave you the idea that it’s okay to misquote somebody and defame them on that basis?
9:33 pm [ Quote ]
It’s not a “180”. The first quote has nothing to do with illegal people, so the second one cannot be a reversal of it.
Can the willful ignorance, and join the ranks of ethical human beings.
9:34 pm [ Quote ]
“You dont need papers for voting,”
It SEEMS self-explanatory, but of course the rest of us just didnt understand the nuance, is that it?
Ok liberals, here is your chance. Write to Ms. Busby and demand that she use those later words to a meeting of her volunteers: ““Illegal people should not be here. They have absolutely no place in the democratic process.”
Which basically means get out. Dare ya.
9:37 pm [ Quote ]
Perspicio: You are a reasonable person, so look at what she actually said, “You don’t need papers for voting.” Ian said, ““you don’t need papers to vote.” Isn’t that a difference without any significance?
Yes, if you add the second part of her comments, “you don’t need to be a registered voter to help,” and make it one flat statement, each part tied to the other, I can see your point. Yet, the first part of her statement and what Ian said are almost identical.
So, what we cannot know is if in her mind Busby was tying the two parts together, that is was there a comma in her mind after ‘voting’ and before ‘you?’ Or, was it two distinct statements each ending with a period?
Nonetheless, her statement as a combined sentence or two distinct sentences, it was inappropriate; and because she was imprecise in her use of language, she opened herself up to the charge of soliciting illegal votes. That is what upsets me about politicians today, they are unable and/or unwilling to say exactly what they mean and so the voters can never demand that they mean exactly what they say. We are in the dumbed down generation of what the definition of is – is!
9:39 pm [ Quote ]
It SEEMS self-explanatory, but of course the rest of us just didnt understand the nuance, is that it?
No, the rest of you just decided it was okay to quote someone out of context. There’s no nuance when you read the whole quote. She was talking about helping, not voting, and it has nothing to do with illegals.
I don’t know why I’m bothering to spell this out again. Ian’s clumsy attempt to deceive is plain to see for anyone who actually cares what the truth is. Ergo, those who do not see it do not care about the truth.
9:43 pm [ Quote ]
Come on, Umnumzana. Ian quoted her out of context, plain and simple. You’re smart enough to see that.
And the difference between her words and Ian’s misquotation IS significant, especially if he parades around the fact that her words are on tape! How stupid and/or unethical do you have to be to have the audio, and STILL get it wrong.
There is a difference. The actual quote, when taken out of context, can mean two different things. The MISquote can ONLY be taken in the negative sense. So this is an example of NOT giving someone the benefit of the doubt even though they deserve it. I recall you were pretty pissed about Murtha doing that to some Marines recently. Are you applying a different standard now?
9:45 pm [ Quote ]
Fine, no nuance and taken out of context.
Busby can easily prove her sincerity, and perhaps even salvage her campaign, by publicly demanding to see the papers of any person working on her campaign. No papers? Here is the door, buh-bye. No nuance to misunderstand….if youre illegal youre not wanted.
It wont happen because the left is catering to this demographic. How could the dem leaders possibly profess support for Busby, which they would have to do in order to maintain their stature, without killing the very essence of their current immigration stance?
Kind of hard to call yourself the Big Tent© party when you are definitively excluding certain people.
9:47 pm [ Quote ]
perspicio :
It SEEMS self-explanatory, but of course the rest of us just didnt understand the nuance, is that it?
No, the rest of you just decided it was okay to quote someone out of context. There’s no nuance when you read the whole quote. She was talking about helping, not voting, and it has nothing to do with illegals.
I don’t know why I’m bothering to spell this out again. Ian’s clumsy attempt to deceive is plain to see for anyone who actually cares what the truth is. Ergo, those who do not see it do not care about the truth.
Please read my last post here #22. Please be the reasonable perspicio, isn’t there room for more than one interpretation of her comments, and unless we can read Busby’s mind, is it so unreasonable to read it they way I stated it above?
9:49 pm [ Quote ]
This is a deliberately manufactured “controversy”. She has nothing to apologize for and need take no special measures to prove her sincerity to those who INsincerely smeared her in the first place.
9:58 pm [ Quote ]
I don’t give a hoot what da beeatch said.
DhimmicRAT = No vote for her.
.
10:10 pm [ Quote ]
Then let her say that, “I have nothing to apologize for” and let the voters decide.
She is watching her politial fortune fly away.
Fly away little starling…fly fly fly…fly fly fly.
10:23 pm [ Quote ]
Ian,
You asked the wrong question:
“Smoker are you one of those people who think Bush was behind 9/11?”
Smoker are you under the impression that ROVE was behind 9/11?
10:28 pm [ Quote ]
I know it is a dumb question, but over and over this is being called a smear. How is something a smear when she said it?
Just because later on you don’t want to admit you said it does not mean it never happened and that you can claim Rove made the tape up.
Maybe a day will come when all the pieces fall in to place for those on the left. Rove does NOT need to make up fake tapes of you guys. You already say stuff that us on the right couldn’t even come up with in our wildest dreams!
11:08 pm [ Quote ]
Amazing how one tongue-slip can change history…
11:20 pm [ Quote ]
Perspicio: You are a reasonable person, so look at what she actually said, “You don’t need papers for voting.” Ian said, ““you don’t need papers to vote.” Isn’t that a difference without any significance?
Yes, if you add the second part of her comments, “you don’t need to be a registered voter to help,” and make it one flat statement, each part tied to the other, I can see your point. Yet, the first part of her statement and what Ian said are almost identical.
So, what we cannot know is if in her mind Busby was tying the two parts together, that is was there a comma in her mind after ‘voting’ and before ‘you?’ Or, was it two distinct statements each ending with a period?
Nonetheless, her statement as a combined sentence or two distinct sentences, it was inappropriate; and because she was imprecise in her use of language, she opened herself up to the charge of soliciting illegal votes. That is what upsets me about politicians today, they are unable and/or unwilling to say exactly what they mean and so the voters can never demand that they mean exactly what they say. We are in the dumbed down generation of what the definition of is – is!
Well there’s my smear campaign blow out the water but perspicio is spot on…Its not helpfull to only get half the facts…in this case 1/2 a quote.
Perspicio: You are a reasonable person, so look at what she actually said, “You don’t need papers for voting.” Ian said, ““you don’t need papers to vote.” Isn’t that a difference without any significance?
Yes, if you add the second part of her comments, “you don’t need to be a registered voter to help,” and make it one flat statement, each part tied to the other, I can see your point. Yet, the first part of her statement and what Ian said are almost identical.
So, what we cannot know is if in her mind Busby was tying the two parts together, that is was there a comma in her mind after ‘voting’ and before ‘you?’ Or, was it two distinct statements each ending with a period?
Nonetheless, her statement as a combined sentence or two distinct sentences, it was inappropriate; and because she was imprecise in her use of language, she opened herself up to the charge of soliciting illegal votes. That is what upsets me about politicians today, they are unable and/or unwilling to say exactly what they mean and so the voters can never demand that they mean exactly what they say. We are in the dumbed down generation of what the definition of is – is!
You three are clowns, want to play semantics, oh yes and when BJClingon said, Depends upon what the definition of is is. Duh????
Is means Is. Dipsticks.
11:37 pm [ Quote ]
ordi Said:
8:50 pm
“HappySmoker is right! Rove is at it again”
I thought he would have used the Lesbian tactic again as used so successfully to get Bush a victory over Ann Richards as governor of Texas. Richards was a lesbian. And she had a lot of lesbians working for her.
But maybe Cheney put a stop to that one. LOL
HappySmoker,
You wrote: Well there’s my smear campaign blow out the water but perspicio is spot on…Its not helpfull to only get half the facts…in this case 1/2 a quote.
And you talk about 1 / 2 a quote?
You said I wrote: “HappySmoker is right! Rove is at it again”
This is ONLY Half of what I wrote.
You are GUILTY f what you criticized other for.
My ENTIRE statement was: HappySmoker is right! Rove is at it again! Next week Rove starts indoctrinating Europe! Rove will be going after happysmoker next month! BWAAAAA! Sacr/off
What you left off changes the entire meaning. Of course, isn’t that what you wanted. You used me to SMEAR Rove!
You are guilty of what you criticized other for! You are pharisaical.
Face it, you dislike Rove because he BEATS YOUR SIDE LIKE A BONGO DRUM! LOL
BTW, you should do something about your dislike of lesbians.
11:44 pm [ Quote ]
Looks like Ian has blocked my IP. I guess he can’t handle the truth.
What a punk.
12:12 am [ Quote ]
Nothing new…Just the usual Right smear campaign cranking up. Wonder if Rover’s sticky fingers are behind this.
Should we Take your name literally?
12:14 am [ Quote ]
ordi Said:
8:50 pm
“HappySmoker is right! Rove is at it again”
I thought he would have used the Lesbian tactic again as used so successfully to get Bush a victory over Ann Richards as governor of Texas. Richards was a lesbian. And she had a lot of lesbians working for her.
But maybe Cheney put a stop to that one. LOL
So did Hillary you schmuck, and she has plenty of support.
12:17 am [ Quote ]
15, 35 and perspicio and any other alias you use,
He forewarned us twice.
The first time was on June 1 2006.
I am sure you read it since you commented twice on that thread. Your post were # 8 and # 26. Here is the link:
http://www.exposetheleft.com/2006/06/01/addendum-to-comment-policy/
The second time was earlier today.
Ian’s post was short enough you should have been able to read it with in 30 seconds. If you did not , it is your fault not Ian’s.
If you do not like the rules at Ian’s place go start your own blog!
Otherwise, stop whining and follow the rules.
Despite what you think rules apply even to you and your liberal comrades, especially when you play at someone else’s house. It is the polite sophisticated thing to do.
12:33 am [ Quote ]
ordi,
What the hell is the matter with you? Ian blocked me although I did not break the rules. I simply stated the truth as I saw it, and he couldn’t handle it. This isn’t the first time he’s pussed out like this. Support him if you want, but he has no honor. He merely pretends to have it until his own lies and deceptions catch up with him. Then he breaks his own rules.
I used another name because he blocked my IP and I assumed he blocked my name as well. But I used a name that clearly indicated who I am. I wouldn’t have had to do it if Ian hadn’t abandoned all pretense of ethical behavior to begin with.
12:41 am [ Quote ]
Neal,
You are correcta about Hillary. Kerry and Edwards did it too! It is funny how happysmoker forgot to mention that!
Here is what Ed Koch (D) had to say about it:
Disgraceful attempts by John Edwards and John Kerry to exploit for political purposes the sexual orientation of Mary Cheney, daughter of Vice President Dick Cheney, ended the possibility of their winning the election.
Adam Nagourney of The New York Times, summed up the feelings of many, when he wrote, “Amid signs of Democratic concern, Mr. Kerry’s advisers acknowledged Sunday that some voters perceived Mr. Kerry’s remark [that Mary Cheney is a lesbian] as an invasion of Ms. Cheney’s privacy, a gratuitous personal insult, or a crass political calculation by which Mr. Kerry was trying to drive a wedge between Mr. Cheney and conservatives unaware that his daughter was gay.”
Defenders of Kerry and Edwards protest that Mary Cheney was already out and was even publicly described by her father as gay. But that is not the issue.
Kerry and Edwards did the inexcusable: they tried to use the child of an opposing candidate for political purposes. Mary Cheney lives her life with a female partner.
SNIP
After the debate, Lynn Cheney expressed what was clearly her parents’ anger at Kerry for having used their daughter as a case study before millions of strangers.
She said, “I am speaking as a mom—and a pretty indignant mom. This is not a good man. What a cheap and tawdry political trick.”
Hugh Hewitt interview her tonight.
he transcript will be up later at Radioblogger.com.
http://hughhewitt.com/archives/2006/06/04-week/index.php#a002356
Liberals are pharisaical, unsophisticated and bigots!
1:08 am [ Quote ]
Perspicio,
Nothing is the matter with me. Like you I calls them as I see’s them. You can’t seem to handle that.
Despite what you think, I do not HANG on every word you utter so I don’t know exactly why Ian did what he did. I am sure it was something or he would not have done it. He allows Liberals like you on this site and has as long as I have come here. Maybe he was just sick and tried of the BS liberals attempt to pull on HIS site. Maybe, it is as simple as he needs to get laid! LOL
Please remember, Ian has every right to do what he did because,IT IS IAN’S HOUSE!
You wrote that he has no honor and you say he lies and deceptive. IMO, those are personal attack. One of Ian’s rules is: Words like dumbass, idiot, or any expletive will not be tolerated. Your comment will be deleted on sight and you will not be informed. Remember attack the argument, not the commenter.
It appears you broke that rule. Ian also WARNED YOU which the rules say he does not have too.
Have other posters done the same, probably. But remember, THIS IS IAN’S HOUSE!
Here is a simple example: You would NOT let me come to your house and rearrange your furniture. It would be impolite. Maybe you should put the shoe on the other foot?
Have you considered why Ian did this to you? Maybe he is trying to send you a message. Instead, of whining maybe you should attempt to figure out why he did it. That would be the “smart” thing to do.
1:30 am [ Quote ]
As it turns out, Ian has NOT blocked my name…yet. He may ultimately claim he didn’t block my IP either, as he has done in the past. But I’d bet my left nut it’s no coincidence I only have trouble posting when I say unflattering, but true, things about him. It seems his ego is more important to him than his ethics.
Ordi, by all means, make your own call. If you truly feel that I’m making all this up and Ian would never do such a thing, that’s your business. But don’t lie to yourself or the rest of us. I attacked his “argument”. FACT 1: He misquoted Busby. FACT 2: He quoted her out of context.
Ian, I will say this again, regarding your misquotation of Busby:
Either you made an error, you are incompetent, or you flat out lied. Or any combination of the above.
All you had to do was admit your error and correct it. But instead, you retaliated against me. You have shown your true colors. Some of them, anyway. At this point, I must assume you have dirtier tricks to play, too, since you’ve already shown yourself to be among the lowest creatures on earth. Instead of owning up to your faults and seeking to improve yourself, you have chosen the coward’s path.
As for the rest of you, I understand if you don’t want to believe my account of things at face value. But Ian knows very well what he has done, and so do I. I don’t expect him to admit it, though. But if he’s going to try to block me from expressing some uncomfortable truths, I feel justified in sidestepping his discriminatory censorship in order to expose his duplicity.
When I have been wrong here, either by mistake or through behaving inappropriately, and people have called me on it, I have admitted it. But it appears that this basic act of humility and decency is too much for Ian. All but the most narrow-minded toadies here know that Ian strays beyond mere pontificating and actively misrepresents the facts at times. This business about Busby (both in this thread and in the previous one) is just the most recent example. By refusing to correct his “mistakes”, and instead compounding them, he has already established that he has weak ethics. Nevertheless, there are a number of honorable and intelligent people who frequent this site, and that has made it worthwhile to stick around despite the head “man’s” [sic] weakness of character.
I personally think Ian SHOULD go into the military. Maybe they would teach him some important things he apparently didn’t learn in school or from his family, such as honor and integrity. He’d probably have to get beaten up a few times if he tried to pull some conniving, underhanded act like he does here, but he’d be a better person for the experience.
1:41 am [ Quote ]
Incidentally, ordi, the fact that the truth sometimes hurts doesn’t mean the person who presents it to you is attacking you. It hurts, but it doesn’t do damage; quite the contrary, it remedies damage done by lies and deception, and can help prevent more of the same from being inflicted in the future.
2:49 am [ Quote ]
Perspicio,
Man, you just keep pissing in the bowl of Cheerios, don’t you. LOL
I NEVER said you were making this up. I just happen to come down on Ian’s side because THIS IS HIS HOUSE! I am not lying to myself nor am I lying to others. I am stating MY OPINION! Just because you do not agree with what I said DOES NOT make me a liar. You need to learn there is a difference between a stated opinion and a lie.
When I said you personally attack him, I was NOT referring to your arguments in fact 1 and 2. I was referring to the words you use to make your argument.
I’ll state it again. You wrote that he has no honor and you say he lies and is deceptive, then you wrote, Ian had shown himself to be among the lowest creatures on earth. These add NOTHING to your argument. And they certainly do not win friends and influence people. They are boorish and unsophisticated.
You wrote: the fact that the truth sometimes hurts doesn’t mean the person who presents it to you is attacking you. It hurts, but it doesn’t do damage; quite the contrary, it remedies damage done by lies and deception, and can help prevent more of the same from being inflicted in the future.
You impugned his honor and his honesty with these words. They are NOT the truth they are only YOUR opinion. These words are not a remedy to undue damage done nor are they a silver bullet to prevent anything in the future. Simply put, they are bullying tactics. People tend to use bullying tactics when they can not win an argument any other way. If your arguments are so superior you should not have to use these.
Yes, I have seen you admit when you were wrong on this site. However, you justifying the sidestepping you did to rectify what you saw as his duplicity is not praiseworthy. As a matter of fact, it makes you no better than want you accuse him of doing. Your tactics were dishonest, deceptive and lacked integrity. Note: I was commenting on your tactics not you personally.
I have been up 21 hours so I am going to bed now.
9:14 am [ Quote ]
Ian, you didn’t even get the original quote right. She did not say “you don’t need papers to vote”. Those are your words. She said “You can all help. You don’t need papers for voting, you don’t need to be a registered voter to help.”
Wait, your argument is, she didn’t say you don’t need papers TO vote, she ACTUALLY said you don’t need papers FOR voting? um… okay?
Or is the contextual problem the lack of the second sentence, “you don’t need to be a registered voter to help”. How does that jive with “they have no place working on campaigns”? They don’t need to be a voter to help, but they have no place working on campaigns? What exactly would be the help, then? Does she want them to landscape the capaign headquarters?
Neither one of your arguments make any sense.
11:13 am [ Quote ]
Maybe if I display this enough, we will adopt these laws for our own “better enhanced” protection.
This is the Mexican Constitution with their laws on Immigration.
In brief, the Mexican Constitution states that:
• Immigrants and foreign visitors are banned from public political discourse.
• Immigrants and foreigners are denied certain basic property rights.
• Immigrants are denied equal employment rights.
• Immigrants and naturalized citizens will never be treated as real Mexican citizens.
• Immigrants and naturalized citizens are not to be trusted in public service.
• Immigrants and naturalized citizens may never become members of the clergy.
• Private Citizens may make citizens arrests of lawbreakers (i.e., illegal immigrants) and hand them to the authorities.
• Immigrants may be expelled from Mexico for any reason and without due process.
J. Michael Waller, Ph.D., is the Center for Security Policy’s Vice President for Information Operations.
The official text of the Constitution of Mexico appears on the Website of the Chamber of Deputies, or lower house of Congress, of the United Mexican States:
http://www.cddhcu.gob.mx/leyinfo/txt/1.txt.
********************************
A more detailed look:
********************************
The Mexican constitution: Unfriendly to immigrants
The Mexican constitution expressly forbids non-citizens to participate in the country’s political life.
Non-citizens are forbidden to participate in demonstrations or express opinions in public about domestic politics. Article 9 states, “only citizens of the Republic may do so to take part in the political affairs of the country.” Article 33 is unambiguous: “Foreigners may not in any way participate in the political affairs of the country.”
The Mexican constitution denies fundamental property rights to foreigners.
If foreigners wish to have certain property rights, they must renounce the protection of their own governments or risk confiscation. Foreigners are forbidden to own land in Mexico within 100 kilometers of land borders or within 50 kilometers of the coast. Article 27 states, “Only Mexicans by birth or naturalization and Mexican companies have the right to acquire ownership of lands, waters, and their appurtenances, or to obtain concessions for the exploitation of mines or of waters. The State may grant the same right to foreigners, provided they agree before the Ministry of Foreign Relations to consider themselves as nationals in respect to such property, and bind themselves not to invoke the protection of their governments in matters relating thereto; under penalty, in case of noncompliance with this agreement, of forfeiture of the property acquired to the Nation.
Under no circumstances may foreigners acquire direct ownership of lands or waters within a zone of one hundred kilometers along the frontiers and of fifty kilometers along the shores of the country.” (Emphasis added)
The Mexican constitution denies equal employment rights to immigrants, even legal ones, in the public sector.
Article 32: “Mexicans shall have priority over foreigners under equality of circumstances for all classes of concessions and for all employment, positions, or commissions of the Government in which the status of citizenship is not indispensable. In time of peace no foreigner can serve in the Army nor in the police or public security forces.”
The Mexican constitution guarantees that immigrants will never be treated as real Mexican citizens, even if they are legally naturalized.
Article 32 bans foreigners, immigrants, and even naturalized citizens of Mexico from serving as military officers, Mexican-flagged ship and airline crew, and chiefs of seaports and airports:
“In order to belong to the National Navy or the Air Force, and to discharge any office or commission, it is required to be a Mexican by birth. This same status is indispensable for captains, pilots, masters, engineers, mechanics, and in general, for all personnel of the crew of any vessel or airship protected by the Mexican merchant flag or insignia. It is also necessary to be Mexican by birth to discharge the position of captain of the port and all services of practique and airport commandant, as well as all functions of customs agent in the Republic.”
An immigrant who becomes a naturalized Mexican citizen can be stripped of his Mexican citizenship if he lives again in the country of his origin for more than five years, under Article 37. Mexican-born citizens risk no such loss.
Foreign-born, naturalized Mexican citizens may not become federal lawmakers (Article 55), cabinet secretaries (Article 91) or Supreme Court justices (Article 95).
The president of Mexico, like the president of the United States, constitutionally must be a citizen by birth, but Article 82 of the Mexican constitution mandates that the president’s parents also be Mexican-born citizens, thus according secondary status to Mexican-born citizens born of immigrants.
The Mexican constitution forbids immigrants and naturalized citizens to become members of the clergy.
Article 130 says, “To practice the ministry of any denomination in the United Mexican States it is necessary to be a Mexican by birth.”
The Mexican constitution singles out “undesirable aliens.”
Article 11 guarantees federal protection against “undesirable aliens resident in the country.”
The Mexican constitution provides the right of private individuals to make citizen’s arrests.
Article 16 states, “in cases of flagrante delicto, any person may arrest the offender and his accomplices, turning them over without delay to the nearest authorities.” Therefore, the Mexican constitution appears to grant Mexican citizens the right to arrest illegal aliens and hand them over to police for prosecution.
The Mexican constitution states that foreigners may be expelled for any reason and without due process.
According to Article 33, “the Federal Executive shall have the exclusive power to compel any foreigner whose remaining he may deem inexpedient to abandon the national territory immediately and without the necessity of previous legal action.”
Center for Security Policy
1920 L Street NW, Suite 210 • Washington, DC 20036 • (202) 835-9077 • www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org
Now with her saying illegals should not be here after saying they can help is mind boggling. A complete flip flop which to me is a matter of convenience for political points.
11:22 am [ Quote ]
w0rf,
Why don’t you familiarize yourself with the WHOLE story? You seem to be intentionally ignoring central facts.
I’ll post the entire quote again, since you apparently can’t be bothered to familiarize yourself with it otherwise.
Busby said, *“You can all help. You don’t need papers for voting. You don’t need to be a registered voter to help.”*
She was clearly talking about helping the campaign, not voting, but more importantly, there is absolutely no evidence that she was talking about illegal people AT ALL! She only articulated her stance on illegals after being libeled and slandered by ethically challenged people such as Ian, and hounded by unprincipled detractors. They changed the subject.
The entire argument against her is made up of lies and deceptions, and those who espouse it are complicit in the smear.
11:54 am [ Quote ]
Here is an excerpt of a story which encompasses the “meat” of this discussion. . .
***********************
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/50thdistrict/20060603-9999-1mi3busby.html
Busby said she was invited to the forum at the Jocelyn Senior Center in Escondido by the leader of a local soccer league. Many of the 50 or so people there were Spanish speakers. Toward the end, a man in the audience asked in Spanish: “I want to help, but I don’t have papers.”
It was translated and Busby replied: “Everybody can help, yeah, absolutely, you can all help. You don’t need papers for voting, you don’t need to be a registered voter to help.”
Bilbray said at worst, Busby was encouraging someone to vote illegally. At best, she was encouraging someone who is illegally in the country to work on her campaign.
***********************
Ok. . . The start of it is from a man who said he wanted to help but he had no papers. The implication is that he was illegal because of the “no papers” comment AND the fact that the audience was mostly Spanish speaking individuals. Ironically (or coincidentally) the majority of illegals are SPANISH SPEAKING INDIVIDUALS especially in California, Arizona and Texas.
Where was the speaking engagement again?
Escondido California. . .
So to reiterate the point again:
man wanted to help but had no papers. . .
audience mostly Spanish speaking individuals. . .
speaking engagement in Escondido California. . . (representation of increasing illegal population)
Busby’s reply: “Everybody can help, yeah, absolutely, you can all help. You don’t need papers for voting, you don’t need to be a registered voter to help.”
Busby’s reply #2: “Let me make it clear to everybody. Ok? Illegal people should not be here. They have absolutely no place in the democratic process. They shouldn’t be voting if anyone tries to vote illegally they should be prosecuted and they have no place working on campaigns.”
Flip Flop?
Looks that way to me! ! !
11:56 am [ Quote ]
Perspicio,
Post # 44 was written as a responds to you. Why didn’t you comment on it?
12:14 pm [ Quote ]
ordi,
I didn’t say you lied. I said DON’T lie, just in case you might have been tempted to do so, and I meant it in the sense of, don’t kid yourself.
I am well aware of the difference between a stated opinion and a lie. Also that there’s a lot of room for overlap between them.
I will state a few opinions of my own:
A person who cannot admit his errors and right his wrongs is a coward.
A coward is among the lowest creatures on earth.
A person who retaliates against the person who points out his errors instead of correcting them is even lower than that.
By retaliating, the person demonstrates that he KNOWS about the errors; hence, they can no longer be considered mere mistakes or oversights. They must be considered lies and deceptions.
A person who only adheres to principles when he doesn’t have to sacrifice anything has no honor.
A cowardly liar with no honor, who retaliates against those who bring forth the truth, has little or no integrity.
Do you disagree with any of those opinions?
Ian impugned his own honor by behaving the way he did. And I don’t think I’m wrong to vigorously stand up against people who lie and deceive. You call that bullying tactics, and say I shouldn’t have to do it. But I think we both know that it takes more than a superior argument to counter an unprincipled opponent. Otherwise, might really would make right, since victory would equal superiority.
I stand by what I have said. I would like to know what I did that you consider sidestepping, dishonest, deceptive, or lacking in integrity.
I would also like you to explain, how is claiming I use dishonesty as a tactic is different from calling me a liar? It seems like you’re splitting hairs so you can claim you’re not attacking me personally.
12:19 pm [ Quote ]
ordi,
I will probably be unable to respond again until tonight or tomorrow. Don’t take my absence as avoidance.
12:19 pm [ Quote ]
Francine Busby Update…
Fox News’ Karl Cameron interviewed Francine Busby about her very controversial comments, which she earlier described as a misspeak. Now she’s acting like she never made those comments and is trying to portray herself as an illegal immigration hardnos…
12:26 pm [ Quote ]
Busby said she was invited to the forum at the Jocelyn Senior Center in Escondido by the leader of a local soccer league. Many of the 50 or so people there were Spanish speakers. Toward the end, a man in the audience asked in Spanish: “I want to help, but I
don’thavepapers.”perspicio, what were you saying earlier about posting only half a quote to change the context? I did not see you ever post the question to which she was responding. Please explain to me how she was not talking about illegal people when her response was to somebody who said he didn’t have papers, and her response was that you don’t need papers.
And despite the fact you say she was “clearly” (read: this point weak, pound pulpit harder) talking about helping the campaign, but if you take that stance, you are forced to try and explain her later comment that illegals had no business trying to help a campaign.
1:13 pm [ Quote ]
perspicio,
You asked: I stand by what I have said. I would like to know what I did that you consider sidestepping, dishonest, deceptive, or lacking in integrity.
I merely used your own words.
But if he’s going to try to block me from expressing some uncomfortable truths, I feel justified in sidestepping his discriminatory censorship in order to expose his duplicity.
You are talking about YOUR use of other names to post rebuttals to Ian.
You wrote:I would also like you to explain, how is claiming I use dishonesty as a tactic is different from calling me a liar?
I said your TACTICS not you were dishonest. If you can not understand the difference than I can’t help you.
Then you wrote: It seems like you’re splitting hairs so you can claim you’re not attacking me personally.
Do you know how paranoid that sounds?
As for what Busby actually said. I had not listened to the audio until this AM. I heard her say “to” not “for”. Maybe the reason you are so vehement is those on the left need to make Busby’s statement as innocuous as possible. Becuase if she is seen by the voter as encouraging illegals to vote they know she would be toast.
As of now it really does not matter what she said and what she did not. It is now in the voters hands.
1:40 pm [ Quote ]
It appears this was part of Busby’s normal taling points.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5f9vbngizSI
1:54 pm [ Quote ]
perspicio
Come on, Umnumzana. Ian quoted her out of context, plain and simple. You’re smart enough to see that.
And the difference between her words and Ian’s misquotation IS significant, especially if he parades around the fact that her words are on tape! How stupid and/or unethical do you have to be to have the audio, and STILL get it wrong.
There is a difference. The actual quote, when taken out of context, can mean two different things. The MISquote can ONLY be taken in the negative sense. So this is an example of NOT giving someone the benefit of the doubt even though they deserve it. I recall you were pretty pissed about Murtha doing that to some Marines recently. Are you applying a different standard now?
:
I was only hoping to get you to look at this incident from another perspective, allowing that reasonable people can interpret her words differently than you do and being honest in their beliefs.
Unlike the Marines in Haditha, this matter will not be subject to an investigation and the criminal process, so the standard of proof is wholly subjective. Busby got herself in trouble because she was trying to please her Hispanic audience, was speaking contemporaneously and in this incident her lack of precision in her language, whether deliberate or by accident, created the appearance of soliciting votes from illegal aliens. I cannot judge her heart or her actual intentions; but as I indicated earlier, I believe it is just as reasonable to conclude she was pandering and that she was simply lazy and not very articulate in expressing her feelings.
While I do respect you and your beliefs, in this case I believe you are more than a little partisan in your reaction; and closed minded to reasonable, alternative interpretations of this event.
8:13 pm [ Quote ]
I have listened to Busby’s comments all day, and it is absolutely clear that Ian was right, Busby was (1) Encouraging illegal aliens to vote, hopefully for her. (2) She was encouraging illegal aliens to work on her campaign, thus approving of the their criminal activity.
I have tried to be reasonable and see the other side, but it is just not there!
8:42 pm [ Quote ]
perspicio
With the new video it sounds like you were incorrect. I hope you admit it this time like you did last time.
10:31 pm [ Quote ]
ordi,
Regarding your post #58, I was not incorrect in the least! I said Ian quoted her out of context, and then MISquoted her. He absolutely did those things! If you can deny that, I believe you could deny anything. If that’s the case, rational discussion with you is impossible.
You provided a lot of non-answers to my questions in #54. Next time, maybe you shouldn’t waste your time responding to them at all.
I see that I used the word “sidestepping”, so now I know where that claim of yours came from. But you didn’t even attempt to explain what I did that you consider dishonest, deceptive, or lacking in integrity. I did sidestep, but I did it in a very forward and honest fashion, and I stand by my actions, so there’s integrity, too.
It seems you believe that I can use dishonest tactics without being dishonest myself. That’s a neat trick. Maybe you can teach it to me, and also rationalize for me how it is not splitting hairs.
That’s got to be one of the cheesiest cop-outs I’ve ever heard. What kind of person, when asked to clarify his position, essentially says, “If you don’t already know the answer then I’m not going to try to explain it.” And you expect me to take your position seriously…why? It sounds to me like you’ve got nothing to back up your assertion, so you’re trying to backpedal inconspicuously. That would be another neat trick, if you could pull it off.
Do you know how paranoid that sounds?
Another comical attempt to inconspicuously backpedal by changing the subject.
11:04 pm [ Quote ]
Umnumzana,
I absolutely agree with you that Busby’s comments, in context and accurately quoted, still leave room for more than one interpretation. Not a whole lot, but some.
But regardless of this, you appear to have entirely missed my point. If her words left enough room to cast significant doubt as to her meaning, then why did Ian use deception instead of honesty? Why did he quote out of context, and misquote? Wasn’t the truth good enough?
This is completely irrelevant, if it is even true. Standard of proof? What about standards of personal conduct? If it was wrong for Murtha to jump to a “guilty” conclusion, it is wrong to do exactly the same thing in this instance. The future has not been written; you cannot use it as an excuse. The principle is the same, whether or not the incident is ever investigated. The only difference is of scale.
I have tried to be reasonable and see the other side, but it is just not there!
(1) Ian was wrong in his methods even if he somehow turned out to be right in the conclusion he jumped to.
(2) Nothing in the audio or video establishes that Busby was talking about, or to, illegal people at all. Why must you adhere to this twisting of the truth? People are not illegal simply because they speak Spanish, or have no papers. Kids born in this country are citizens, even if they’re born in a shanty with the neighbor acting as midwife, and never receive any documentation of citizenship at all.
If you can establish that any of the people Busby was talking to were illegal, and that she knew it, then you’d have a strong case. But you would STILL be wrong right now, on a minor ethical point, for assuming guilt. And Ian would STILL be wrong, on a somewhat more severe breach of ethics, for using deception to try to influence an election.
I do respect you in many regards, which is why I feel that your standing up for the use of deceit is far beneath you.
10:40 am [ Quote ]
People are not illegal simply because they speak Spanish, or have no papers.
Having no papers is sort of the textbook definition of an so-called “undocumented worker”. I can’t believe you’re making this argument.
Kids born in this country are citizens, even if they’re born in a shanty with the neighbor acting as midwife, and never receive any documentation of citizenship at all.
She was not talking to some eight-year-old.
12:21 pm [ Quote ]
An “undocumented worked” is an individual who is paid cash in hand to avoid paying tax…
12:22 pm [ Quote ]
I obviously meant “worker”.