To: Texas_Dawg
So because he's not in favor of further liberalizing our immigration laws, he's "strongly opposed" to immigration? That's some pretty bizarre logic. Likewise, people who favor keeping government within its constitutional bounds must be "strongly opposed" to government.
138 posted on
08/23/2004 5:28:37 PM PDT by
inquest
(Judges are given the power to decide cases, not to decide law)
To: inquest
So because he's not in favor of further liberalizing our immigration laws, he's "strongly opposed" to immigration? Well... he's opposed to it enough to want to create massive federal government programs and spend billions of dollars on those programs in order to stop immigration from Mexico. Yeah, I'd say he's "strongly opposed" to it.
139 posted on
08/23/2004 5:39:30 PM PDT by
Texas_Dawg
(Pat Buchanan and Kim Jong-Il agree... "Anyone But Bush".)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson