WHITE HOUSE VERIFIES IMMIGRATION REVIEW

The Liberty Committee ^ | 12/13/03 | Kent Snyder

[ohmage]

"we are in grave times where the very survival of our nation and way of life will stand[s] in the balance."

Grave times indeed. Too bad most people don't know they are being buried.

From within.

From Council of the Americas

...The president has also announced an effort to pursue a free trade agreement with the nations of Central America. Success here will further strengthen our economic ties with those countries, and reinforce the great economic and political progress they've made over the last decade. Free trade with Central America will also move us toward an even broader aim -- a Free Trade Area of the Americas, up and running by January of 2005. The president is strongly committed to this goal, and all of our trade efforts are pointed in this direction....

I guess the thinking is if they first remove the perception of a Nation's border then the Nation ceases to exist.

[Dante3]

I have not recently heard any reports about Nader's view on amnesty for criminals. (To be consistent with "deep ecology" he should oppose it) As to Lieberman, he has done total reversal on many of his positions. Obviously you don't know what his present views are or you wouldn't be this defensive about it -- in Gore words "snippy."
<

[Jeff Head]

Agreed.

[Dante3]

Sounds like Tom Ridge with an attitude.

[Walkin Man]

The difference between Dems and 'Pubs is....?

The speed at which they destroy middle-class America. The Repub's are just a tad slower than the demoRats.

[Tamzee]

Wow... three posts in a row ranting at me because I confronted your silly assertion? I'm not wasting days spelling out the differences between the Dems and GOP for someone who is either lacks the intelligence to tell the difference on their own or is so rabid that they don't care to begin with. Regarding my "lack of substance", I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you just have a low IQ... start here and pick any book, literally MONTHS worth of substance for you.... http://www.booksfortheright.com/

[Tamzee]

I have not recently heard any reports about Nader's view on amnesty for criminals. (To be consistent with "deep ecology" he should oppose it) As to Lieberman, he has done total reversal on many of his positions. Obviously you don't know what his present views are or you wouldn't be this defensive about it -- in Gore words "snippy."

Ahhh... so it's "snippy" to confront conservatives who consider voting for a socialist like Nader? The Green Party platform advocates legalization of "undocumented workers", as they call it. You are, of course, free to assume that they would be so much stricter about the requirements than the GOP would be. BTW, are you aware that the Green Party is openly socialist across the world and are just careful not to appear blatantly so in the U.S.? About Lieberman, are you honestly saying you believe he would be more conservative than George W. Bush?

Surprise for you, I do know his positions... he not only fully supports amnesty, he's campaigning on it.

REFORMING IMMIGRATION
Joe Lieberman has an immigration reform agenda that would create a new earned legalization status, strengthen family reunification, protect the rights of undocumented immigrants, and create an American Dream Fund to help all immigrants learn English. He would also create a work visa program and end the deadlock on alternative ID cards.

He's also campaigning on giving tax "rebates" to those 30 million who didn't get one under Bush (because they don't pay taxes to begin with.) And he is campaigning on universal health care. If you are considering placing your vote for him, perhaps you may wish to become familiar with the rest of his platform, also? www.joe2004.com

[Tamzee]

Parties are coalitions, dear... there is one on the right and one on the left. Neither coalition is able to represent each member 100%... conservatives are only one portion of the GOP and the GOP only makes up approximately half the votes that count, the Dems the other half. Note my point about "votes that count", fringe parties are irrelevant and can only act as spoilers in a two-party system.

Your turn.... please tell me exactly how our withholding support from the GOP and allowing a Dem in office will further conservatism? The last time we did so we gifted the country with the America-hating Clinton and the Beast... our flag and military were spit on, terrorists were given the welcome mat to attack us, our defense was sold out to our enemies some of which are now actively pursuing nukes, we almost adopted a socialist health-care system, and our Presidential Office was used for sex, perjury and selling pardons to the vilest of criminals. And that is just a partial list... tell me why this is SO MUCH BETTER than having a Republican President that makes some policy decisions further toward the center than we wish?

[Tamzee]

Another ridiculous assertion on your part... tax credits for people buying their own insurance is not "socialised medicine".

Are you even a conservative?

[Tamzee]

Was my question too hard for you? How do we advance conservatism by allowing a Dem in office?

You apparently just want to rant about the GOP.... yes, we do have a GOP President and Congress. That majority in Congress is only the barest minimum, however, we need more so we can cease compromising with the left so much to get right-wing measures put forward. You also complained about SCOTUS... please don't pretend to care about the Supreme Court decisions when you seem willing to have President Dean appoint the next couple of Justices rather than President Bush?

ANY President that is not 100% conservative is going to make decisions we don't agree with... live with it, a pure conservative can't get elected given our small percentage of the electorate. And yes, spending increased under Bush for a number of reasons, some I agree with and some I don't. The picture is a bit more complex than his critics wish, however. Did you realize that the huge increases in unemployment due to 9/11 aren't included in the "defense spending" figures you folks enjoy pointing out as only portion of the increase? I'm not happy with the amount of spending, either, but I'm rational enough to comprehend that conservatives are MUCH better off under a GOP president than a Dem one.

Ready to try to answer my question yet? How do we get more of what we want under a Dem than under a Republican?