"T Jr Hardman" <blockspam_thardman@thomashardman.com> wrote in message
news:47A4A029.2030502@thomashardman.com...

Seon Ferguson wrote:

"T Jr Hardman" <blockspam_thardman@thomashardman.com> wrote in message
news:47A3A943.8070204@thomashardman.com...

Seon Ferguson wrote:

"MANFRED the heat seeking OBOE" <ExPresident@au.revoir.gov> wrote in
message news:47a1c885$0$26100$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...

"End All Immigration Now"

With conservatives vowing not to vote if McCain becomes the
republican
presidential candidate, the democrats must be in heaven.

If McCain wins, I'm going to vote for Obama. If Hillary wins I won't
vote.
I've had enough of the Clintons.

McCain is McClinton.
Who having faced the most
extreme denial of freedom, Torture,
returned to Washington to capitulate to a lesser Enemy.

A choice between McClinton
is a sanction for CTHILLARY.
Isn't it time? Turn the page. Obama.

CTHILLARY.
VISUALIZE EVIL TRIUMPHANT.
She has SUCH sights to show you.
http://data.tumblr.com/BfKbAKBGR3zxx3k98SrPdNew_400.jpg

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

I like how right wingers attack McCain even though he believes in the
war on terror and supported Bush's actions and will even support an
attack on Iran (like Hillary). If he really was a liberal he would be
more like Ron Paul. Of course Hillary did the same (she voted for
everything bush asked congress to) but some people still play this
democrat vs. Republican game. The only differences are minor things
like immigration and health care.
BTW I'm still not sure what to make of what's going on- well not as
sure as I used to be but I am still 100% sure both parties have very
similar policies. So if that makes me ignorant then I guess I'm
ignorant.

You don't think that signing on with Ted Kennedy to offer AMNESTY to 20
millions of illegal aliens constitutes being a liberal?

Lots of people characterize is as nearly treasonable.

You mean
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Immigration_Reform_Act_of_2007
"However, at the urging of President Bush, the bill was brought back for
discussion in the Senate as bill S. 1639 on June 25.[4] On June 26, a
motion to proceed passed the Senate, by a margin of 64-35"
So I guess President Bush is a liberal to is he?

He's not the sort of liberal that we see in the forefront of the
Democrats, but he is about as far as one can be from being
"Conservative".

Keep in mind that "evangelist" and "conservative" don't mean the same
thing, they share some opinions but are poles apart on other matters. For
example, true conservatives believe absolutely in the separation of
religion and government. Evangelists and others on their end of the
spectrum insist that government should enforce religious dicta as
temporal law. See also 'Roe v Wade' which evangelists want to overturn
with new legislation; true conservatives likely feel the same way about
abortion, but abhor setting a precedent of the State declaring Scripture
to be Law. Leave that sort of ecclesiastical theocracy to the sharia
nations of Islam. But I digress.

On the issues of national sovereignty, the Bush II administration seems
to find no moral footing which allows for sovereign nations. Not content
with allowing Mexico to blatantly invade the USA, he then assures the
success of invasion here by launching invasion in Iraq. Afghanistan was
necessary and there's no question about that, and whether or not the Iraq
invasion was desirable, the legalistic case for our invasion of their
sovereign nation was exceptionally flawed, even moreso than the cases
made in Mexico for the invasion of the US. Mr GW Bush should long since
have been impeached and convicted and removed for dereliction of duty.

True conservatives -- with or without the evangelical influence --
strongly support a sovereign America that can, and does, defend itself
against Invasion.

Liberals, of all stripes, seem to think "eh well what harm can an
invasion do, maybe we can spread around the tax burden".

Also taken from http://www.diggersrealm.com/mt/archives/001710.html has
a list of Senators who voted for it. I guess the Republican's who voted
for it are liberal as well.

See above. I made no claim that they were liberal;

In conclusion yes McCain may have made one mistake (in the eye's of
conservatives and anti illegal immigration folks like me) but as I said
he supports the Iraq war, Afghanistan, invading Iran (or rather he will)
the patriot act and all of that stuff. There is no way I would classify
him as a fellow liberal. But i guess if I had to vote for a Republican
who had a chance of winning I would vote for him.

Oh, Romney can easily win against any of the Democrats. McCain is
guaranteed to drive a wedge between Democrats and Republicans, because
McCain is a pro-invasion lackey from any standpoint you choose, all for
Amnesty for illegal aliens and also for keeping the troops locked in a
quagmire overseas where they cannot possibly defend the American
Homeland.

The difference between McCain and the Democrats is mostly that the
Democrats oppose the war.

Correct. That is why, if McCain is the Repub, I'll vote Democrat - at
least that wasteful war will end.

He's not the sort of liberal that we see in the forefront of the
Democrats, but he is about as far as one can be from being
"Conservative".

True I would not classify him as a conservative. he's more to the centre.

Keep in mind that "evangelist" and "conservative" don't mean the same
thing, they share some opinions but are poles apart on other matters. For
example, true conservatives believe absolutely in the separation of
religion and government. Evangelists and others on their end of the
spectrum insist that government should enforce religious dicta as
temporal law. See also 'Roe v Wade' which evangelists want to overturn
with new legislation; true conservatives likely feel the same way about
abortion, but abhor setting a precedent of the State declaring Scripture
to be Law. Leave that sort of ecclesiastical theocracy to the sharia
nations of Islam. But I digress.

Exactly true conservatives support the Consitution form of government
where there is a clear seperation of church and state.

On the issues of national sovereignty, the Bush II administration seems
to find no moral footing which allows for sovereign nations. Not content
with allowing Mexico to blatantly invade the USA, he then assures the
success of invasion here by launching invasion in Iraq. Afghanistan was
necessary and there's no question about that, and whether or not the Iraq
invasion was desirable, the legalistic case for our invasion of their
sovereign nation was exceptionally flawed, even moreso than the cases
made in Mexico for the invasion of the US. Mr GW Bush should long since
have been impeached and convicted and removed for dereliction of duty.

I cant seem to find a area where I disagree with you now and I was hoping
for a debate oh well.

True conservatives -- with or without the evangelical influence --
strongly support a sovereign America that can, and does, defend itself
against Invasion.

Liberals, of all stripes, seem to think "eh well what harm can an
invasion do, maybe we can spread around the tax burden".

Dam's also support big government- something which I oppose. I don't think
the government should be involved in all aspects of our lives and I also
disagree with raising taxes. I'm not a McCain fan so I'm not sure where he
stands on national health care, etc.

Also taken from http://www.diggersrealm.com/mt/archives/001710.html has
a list of Senators who voted for it. I guess the Republican's who voted
for it are liberal as well.

See above. I made no claim that they were liberal;

In conclusion yes McCain may have made one mistake (in the eye's of
conservatives and anti illegal immigration folks like me) but as I said
he supports the Iraq war, Afghanistan, invading Iran (or rather he will)
the patriot act and all of that stuff. There is no way I would classify
him as a fellow liberal. But i guess if I had to vote for a Republican
who had a chance of winning I would vote for him.

Oh, Romney can easily win against any of the Democrats. McCain is
guaranteed to drive a wedge between Democrats and Republicans, because
McCain is a pro-invasion lackey from any standpoint you choose, all for
Amnesty for illegal aliens and also for keeping the troops locked in a
quagmire overseas where they cannot possibly defend the American
Homeland.

Yeah but because McCain seems to be more moderate than most of the
candidates I think more moderate indipendants (and maybe even center left
ones) will be more likely to vote for him. Romney seems to right wing for
moderates to vote for him while Hilary is way more center left than her
other Democrats. I think its going to be hard to defeat Hilary especally
with the hIlary attack machine. But I guess the republicans have there own
attack machines.
I dont like McCain anymore. Ever since I found out about his racial slur.
But I still predict the election will be between John McCain and Hilary
Clinton. I'm not sure who there running mates will be. It will eather be
Huckabee or Romney and I know a lot of Americans wont feel easy about a
morman being the VP so perhaps McCain/Romney and Clinton/Edwards.
However if Romney wins any tickers on super tuesday it could be
Romney/McCain.

The difference between McCain and the Democrats is mostly that the
Democrats oppose the war.

Yep even though they voted for it (well the ones in congress and the
Senate anyway) the only one who didn't vote for it is a Republican. At
least as far as I can tell. I still say McCain is way more right wing than
the dem's. Also does he support national health care and all that stuff as
well?