I think he's just missing his orgone-treatment...
Posted on 12/01/2002 1:23:55 PM PST by BraveMan
Hey, it's Jim's carpet. If he doesn't want someone to pee on it that's that. BTW, isn't censorship when the gov't muzzles someone?
WAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!
Must be a Buchananite
3 posted on 12/01/2002 1:30 PM PST by AppyPappy
To: SamAdams76
You'll notice on the Alamance site that there is a lot of immigrant Mexican bashing. That seems to be a fixation with the "hate Bush" crowd.
11 posted on 12/01/2002 1:34 PM PST by AppyPappy
In this whole article you couldn't find anything specific to disagree with on point. Instead you had to change the subject to more Buchanan bashing.
Could it be the writer is just a nut? No, according to you he must be a Buchanan nut. LMAO.
Buchanan pulled down 0.5% of the vote, yet he's the guy you fixate on whenever someone challenges your belief system. How about shooting down some of this guy's arguments on point? It may not be the thrill that bashing Buchanan is, but it could lead someone to think that you actually understand some of the subject matter. Instead we're treated to your comprehension of the illegal immigration issue.
Everything boils down to immigrant (Mexican) bashing for you. Frankly I don't see people trashing immigrants per se. I see them talking about illegal immigrants. You did know there was a difference didn't you? Or did you?
In 2001 the INS took over 900 thousand illegal immigrants into custody. Something like 95% of them were on the southern border. The INS states that they capture between 40 and 60% of those who attempt to cross the border illegaly. Front line INS agents claim it's more like 10-20%. Outside illegal immigrant watch-dog groups claim it's actually more like 5 to 10%.
If the illegal alliens that are captured each year represent even 1/3rd of the total attempts, that means that over 1.8 million illegals enter this nation each year, without getting caught. That's a major issue for me.
When the allies landed at Normandy, they had something like 350 thousand troops. During the first campaign in the Pacific, they had 250,000 troops. We're talking on the order of five to seven times these numbers entering our nation every year, year after year after year. Perhaps if you tried real real hard, concentrated on the subject for a period of time, and actually contemplated some of the information offered up on this and other forums, you might be able to understand at least some possible area of concern here. But then perhaps I'm still giving you too much credit.
I think he's just missing his orgone-treatment...
The liberals were saying virtually the same thing in 1994 when they were gutting the military.
Re-written to make a parallel:
"But - just four years after its pounding of Iraq, just four years after the height of its power - the US Military machine today is largely a total waste of time. As a liberal RAT commented, it isn't accomplishing anything anymore - with the giant attacks against Iraqis formerly organized by it by Generals over; as he agreed last week, the sole positive things it now does are to provide rapid dissemination of pizzas to Bosnia, thanks to Clinton."
We are in standby mode at all times, ready to crush the liberal rhetoric such as that made by Tom Daschole last week about active conservatives. Last week we even had a FReeper spearhead the solving of a cop shooting.
We aren't even close to shutting down.
You hardly snivelled at all...well, okay, you snivelled, but you made up for it by not knowing the owner and founder's screen name.
Go back to DU and whimper.
IOW Bush is not to blame for the problem.
LOL!
Which band did he get.....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.