[Luis Gonzalez]

"After the 9/11 attacks, anyone would have rebuilt the military and take the US out of World Court."

Like Clinton did after all the previous attacks?

That's two moves to the right when you said he had made none. That would make your statement already wrong.

"The tax cut has been a total scam."

It was nearly the exact amount he promised in his campaign. No secrets there.

I don't recall getting any tax breaks from Bill.

That's another instance of your being wrong.

You did say all...didn't you?

[Satadru]

I suppose you are terribly confused about the right. Not committing into the World Court is not a sign of conservatism. Now, getting out of the UN would have been one, but that is out of the question given present leadership. You seem to be saying that if a Republican does not follow the liberal Democrat line, he is automatically a conservative. The same goes for the military. Just because President Bush wants to increase military spending, that does not mean it is a conservative move. Many Democrats are in favor of that. If he actually withdrew our military from places that do not concern us, like Bosnia, then it probably would have been a move to the right. However, you may have to eat your words if somehow the Senate ratifies the treaty to join the World Court, and Bush continues on his streak of notvetoinganything. From now on, it is a single word.

I will continue to believe that the tax break did not amount to anything. I am an economics grad student at the Univ of Chicago, and every professor I have spoken to laughs about this tax cut. It is so back-loaded and incremental that it will not create the infusion of capital that we need to get back to the level we were. Plus, for high income individuals, the tax base increases to offset the rate reduction, and most will wind up paying the same amount. Bush was never serious about the tax cut. That is why he signed an aweful bill written by Bill Thomas, who should be tarred and feathered.

About the amnesty stuff, I think it is pretty self-evident that we are trying to legalize something that is presently against the law in order to pander to the Mexican population, who will probably wind up voting Democratic anyways. Even if they vote Republican, it will amount to what Clinton-Gore-Reno has been doing for 8 years. If you are illegal now, you should be deported, because it is illegal for you to be here. It is as simple as that. Especially since 911, we need to rethink our priorities for admitting people from backdoor against the security concerns of the nation. Mexicans know it very well, when they seal off their border with Guatemala. I was watching Vicente Fox's interview on TV, and he was so adamant about these criminals that it was sickening. How many times have you heard Bush say during the campaign, "When I put my arms on the Constitution,...." Well, it is about time to fulfill that pledge. People who are here illegally are criminals. He should enforce his Constitutional duties by deporting them. Even on a pragmatic ground, most Mexicans here are net welfare receipients. The more of them we have, the more it is a drain on our economy. However, I am willing to reach a compromise to give them amnesty, but bar them from welfare and free schooling for their kids. If they can make it by themselves, go ahead. If not, go home. But, there is no point in talking about it. Seems like Sen Byrd has quashed this issue in the Senate. For the first time in my life, I have to give thanks to him.