When the Dems criticize us for the IQ tests we can just tell them that it isn't wrong, and we would know, we are smarter than you.

So what you are saying is that a decorated war hero and a solid Christian pastor are "pieces of crap"... interesting.

And you wonder why your guy is trailing Ron Paul.

[Your breath smells bad. What have you been eating? -Ed.]

#2 - Posted by: JoeB131 on January 14, 2008 01:34 PM

TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! SHAME! SHAME! SHAME! TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! SHAME! SHAME! SHAME! TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! SHAME! SHAME! SHAME!

Well, at least I'm not drinking the Kool-Aid...

I'm in a reflective mood, so I will not equate the rest of the republican field with fecal extrusions - that is reserved for the democratic/socialists.

Fred Thompson is best equated with Prime Rib for regular people - though I would say that venison backstrap is an even better example of the best!

If we were going to equate the rest of the republican field with lesser meat products, what would each be?

Romney - hamburger steak
Guliani - Pork Steak
McCain - Pickle Loaf
Huckabee - Bologna (chicken & pork)
Paul - Souse
Keyes - Scrapple

Now, if Scrapple is better than souse, we can move it...

I guess I am wondering why there is all this hostility towards McCain. I guess I can understand the hostility towards Huckabee, since he doesn't endorse big tax cuts for billionaires, but McCain?

BTW, I'm looking for gay sex. I just assumed all this mindless populism I've been spouting would be a signal I'm looking for extremely gay sex, but I thought I'd mention it explicitly now.

This is perhaps the best IMAO post ever.

#2 -- metaphorically, of course.

Great post, Frank.

Can we change prime rib to steak? I don't like prime rib.

Not cool, Frank.

At the risk of enduring more personal attacks, I guess I would rather support someone who has bleed and fought for this country than someone who is after all, just an actor.

The Paultards and Huckabots have been living on spam for so long, that it becomes difficult, if not impossible, to explain to them the flavor of a steak, or prime rib.

I would prefer to just rub some tunafish oil on an old shoe, and offer that instead. With all of the marijuana residue in their systems, they won't know what they're gnawing and gnashing anyway.

And the tragic thing is, I like Fred. Even sent him money early on. He just didn't run a good campaign.

#12- Has it occured to you that what is happening is that people are evaluating their situations, and maybe Huck or McCain are the prime rib, while Fred is a TV Dinner.

Or maybe he's a ham.

#13 - Posted by: JoeB131 on January 14, 2008 02:53 PM

Right, so you now support either Mike "I'm a Christian!!!!!!!!" Huckabee or Juan Amnestia McVain.

Good call.

#14 - Posted by: JoeB131 on January 14, 2008 02:55 PM

Mmm, RINO.

To JoeB131:

They're all actors. Yes, McCain performed heroically in Vietnam while the rest of us were drinking beer and chasing coeds. We honor his service.

However, that doesn't automatically make him the best choice for POTUS. I like Fred!'s views on Federalism. He's what I want for a Chief Executive, but I doubt that he'll be nominated.

Make McCain SecDef or SecState. McCain's from a conservative state but goes liberal in D.C. I just don't want him for POTUS.

All-in-all, I think this is the DemCong's year.

McCain served his country well but I would rather be boiled in oil than support him for POTUS.

#15 - Posted by: on January 14, 2008 02:56 PM

I believe it's "amnistia". You'll need to learn the language after the Reconquista...

# 15 Well, my current preferences run like this

1) Huckabee - Solid Christian leader.

2) McCain - Proven leadership on the war on terror, while others were just fighting it on TV.

3) Fred - I like him, but he's run an awful campagin, and imagine what Hillary would do to him.

4) Romney - Says the right things, but something phony about him.

5) Guliani - Will be seriously considering third parties at this point.

Obviously, social issues and defense issues are more important to me than economic conservatism. However, I also have to consider who can win. The perfect candidate who can't take the fight to the other side isn't much help. We need a dynamic candidate who can sell the message.

Take another bong hit, JoeB1, the farce be with you.

#17, MAJ Mike,

I think it is more than his service, it's his willingness to take a stand. He advocated the surge when it was unpopular, because it was the right thing to do. Now the surge has worked, incredibly well. I don't think any of these other guys who focus group their answers would have taken such a couragous stand.

McCain's done a lot of things I'm not happy with- McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, the Gang of 14, etc. But I think he's probably the strongest candidate we can field this year when all the terrain is against us.

#19 - Posted by: JoeB131 on January 14, 2008 03:04 PM

I'm tired of you, you populist troll. I happen to be a Christian. I also happen to not support amnesty for Mexican law breakers who are slowly tearing this nation part. Huckabee denounces folks like me as "Un-Christian" and "Un-American". You know I always thought Jesus wanted us to follow the law. I guess not.

# 22- I'm not thrilled with McCain's stance on immigration, but even Fred has admitted that deporting 12 million people is a complete impracticality.

#23 - Posted by: JoeB131 on January 14, 2008 03:16 PM

Fred never tried to give them amnesty either, troll. He never denounced pro-enforcement types as "Un-American" either. Besides, haven't you heard of enforcement through attrition?

Again, read my comment- Fred has said, we can't deport 12 million people. That by implication means that we are probably going to have to give some of them amnesty.

First and foremost, we need to secure the border and then impliment something so that honest employers know they are really hiring someone who can legally work here. Then we need to crack down on the dishonest ones knowingly hiring illegals.

It would also help if we didn't come off like a bunch of frothing bigots, but that might be too much to ask.

Joe, you forgot to mention that Thompson is just a stalking horse for McCain...

I was going to say that FrankJ really puts the "anal" in analogy, but you've got him beat.

Now, go brush your teeth.

McCain postures as a military leader, but I heard that when he visited Iraq he treated the soldiers like dirt.

McCain got shot down. John Kerry didn't. Otherwise they are not so different.

#25 - Posted by: JoeB131 on January 14, 2008 03:39 PM

Troll, have you read Fred's policies?

http://www.fred08.com/virtual/Immigration.aspx
"No Amnesty. Do not provide legal status to illegal aliens. Amnesty undermines U.S. law and policy, rewards bad behavior, and is unfair to the millions of immigrants who follow the law and are awaiting legal entry into the United States. In some cases, those law-abiding and aspiring immigrants have been waiting for several years."

#26- Don't have to state the obvious, and I wouldn't want to shatter anyone's self-delusion that he is still a viable candidate.

#27- Really, you've heard that? I'd like to see some actually reporting or testimonials from Iraq soldiers. I know McCain's made more trips over there than anyone else has.

I'm not even saying I'm going to vote for McCain, because I'm probably not. Made that mistake in 2000. But the man deserves respect if not loyalty.

#28 - He has also said that we can't deport 12 million... which everyone, including President Bush, agrees with.

http://www.fred08.com/virtual/Immigration.aspx

Without illegal employment opportunities available, fewer illegal aliens will attempt to enter the country, and many of those illegally in the country now likely will return home. Self-deportation can also be maximized by stepping up the enforcement levels of other existing immigration laws. This course of action offers a reasonable alternative to the false choices currently proposed to deal with the 12 million or more aliens already in the U.S. illegally: either arrest and deport them all, or give them all amnesty. Attrition through enforcement is a more reasonable and achievable solution, but this approach requires additional resources for enforcement and border security:

Sounds nice, but it goes back to the same old problem,making employers the enforcers of the law. That's what we are doing currently, and it doesn't work.

#30 I know a lot of Mexican-Americans, even lived with a hispanic lady for 11 years. Most of them don't agree with "La Raza" or groups like it.

It's kind of like associating all white folks with the Klan.

"That's what we are doing currently, and it doesn't work."

We are not! If we were we wouldn't have a gigantic invasion.

i respect any one who served this country and went through what he did in POW camp. But that does not mean he will be a good Prez. As for who runs the best campagin???? WTF is that?! we are voteing for the leader of our country not who has the biggist budget look at the issues. what matters to you??

Interesting article about placing Regular US Army soldiers on the border.

http://www.g2mil.com/border.htm

Don't have to state the obvious, and I wouldn't want to shatter anyone's self-delusion that he is still a viable candidate.

Maybe I wasn't paying attention; who is your candidate of choice? All I remember you saying is who & what you're against. As for not having to state the obvious, I'll remind you that you said that yesterday & several days prior to that...

BTW, is this you, or just a coincidence...?

Lol! The rest of you decide if it is or not.

So Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich are walking down the street. They see a pile of something on the sidewalk.
Kucinich says, "That looks like sh*t"
Paul says, "Maybe", and he picks some up and says, "It feels like sh*t."
Then, he sniffs it and says, "It smells like sh*t."
Then he tastes it and says, "It tastes like sh*t. Good thing we didn't step in it."

Sorry, I just thought that would fit here.

#36-Maybe I wasn't paying attention; who is your candidate of choice? All I remember you saying is who & what you're against. As for not having to state the obvious, I'll remind you that you said that yesterday & several days prior to that...

I've made it clear. My first choice, right now, is Huckabee. However, I could support Fred or McCain if they get the nomination pretty comfortably. I might wince a bit, but I could support Romney. Giuliani I can't, simply because I would be a hypocrite for wanting to impeach Clinton and supporting Rudy whose behavior is worse.

On a practical level, Huckabee's brand of redefining conservatism might not be what the party is ready for right now, just as it wasn't ready for Reagan in 1976. Politics is the art of the possible.

"redefining conservatism"

You mean turning it into a bunch of populist BS, right?

i respect any one who served this country and went through what he did in POW camp. But that does not mean he will be a good Prez. As for who runs the best campagin???? WTF is that?! we are voteing for the leader of our country not who has the biggist budget look at the issues. what matters to you??

#34 - Posted by: t

Well, the ability to run a good primary campaign usually means you'll stand the best chance to win the general, which is going to be incredibly difficult for the GOP at this point, in any event.

McCain and Huckabee were given no chance a few months ago, yet right now, they are the frontrunners, and they've acheived it on very limited budgets. Meanwhile, Romney and Rudy spent millions and they've fizzled. Who do you think would fare better on a very difficult campaign where we will probably be outspent two to one by the democrats.

EVERYONE DON'T FEED THE TROLL!

#39- I mean exactly that, redefining it.

Here's the funny thing, I'm an old guy, and I remember when Reagan was derided as a "populist". He took the conservative movement in a very different direction from Barry Goldwater (who pretty much hated and resented Reagan for the rest of his days). Yet history proved him right.

Now we are at a point where we have to re-evaluate where we are and what we stand for. The fact that Huck and McCain are at the top of the heep show that the party is hungry for it.

Even if he just made an asinine comment comparing Huckster to Reagan, DON'T FEED THE TROLL!! KEEP IT INSIDE!

Would it be rude to point out that Reagan gave amensty- yes, dreaded amnesty- to 3 million illegal aliens?

Just shows everyone get idealized when they are dead and can't complain about it.

#44 - Posted by: JoeB131 on January 14, 2008 04:44 PM

Aww, is the troll hungry? Too bad. Now go starve and shut up.

Wow, so I guess one becomes a "troll" if he objects to members of his party slandering war heroes and Christian pastors...

I'm not the one who's lost his way, guy!

#46 - Posted by: JoeB131 on January 14, 2008 04:54 PM

And I guess I'm wrong if I object to being called a xenophobe, a racist, an anti-immigrant, or being compared to Nazis all because I don't think this country should be sold off to lawbreakers and I don't like seeing mindless populists like your beloved Huckabee calling me "Un-American" for having a different political viewpoint than his. I'm a Nazi for not wanting to see my party prostitute itself to illegal-employing corporations. I'm a racist for wanting my nation to be a sovereign nation. I'm an anti-immigrant for wanting to stop the invasion.

But you can still feel good knowing that you’re helping the “Common Man”.

JoeB131...Umm...Ronald Wilson Reagan? Just because one puts on the uniform doesn't automatically qualify one to become Commader In Chief of the Civilian Led Military...Especially if One has spent One's career cutting deals with Teddy "splash" Kennedy and Dianne "Show Me The Money" Fienstein... ZVISA....ZVISA...ZVISA...ZVISA...Moron!!!! Oh...and by the way...Mr. McPain OPPOSED the Bush Tax Cuts that he now says he SUPPORTS ...

Don't feed the troll, even after he hijacked the thread with poorly disguised DU crapola...

Even after he sent the thread into the potty, when we could have all had so much fun comparing the rest of the republican field to various meat products...

Being familiar with the martial arts, I'd imagine FrankJ is familiar with the technique of 'drawing in' your opponent...

Well, I think the answer is simple. Only a very small fraction of Republican voters are conservatives. I'd wager that most Republicans, and in fact Americans in general, do not consider political philosophies or the full range of issues.

Some associate primarily by identity. The military-oriented voters go for McCain because of his service. The religious voters go for Huckabee because he was a pastor. Without even considering political issues, they already have a strong affinity for a candidate.

Others just don't care or know very much about the entire range of issues. They may have one issue they latch onto the strongest. A pro-life voter is likely to go for Huckabee. A counter-jihad (I almost wrote "War on Terror" but caught myself) voter is likely to go for McCain or Giuliani. Economy voters are most likely to go for Romney or Giuliani. The other candidates have one or two issues where they are seen as THE candidate. Maybe if Thompson stepped out and typecast himself as a niche candidate, he'd have a better shot. Being solidly conservative across the board isn't the way to get elected, because you're nobody's first choice, and that's who people vote for in the primaries.

And of course, there are some genuine centrists, but I think their number may be a bit exaggerated.

I don't mean to say that people fall exclusively into one of the above categories. Everyone is surely pushed and pulled by different forces when deciding on a candidate to back. However, I am quite certain that people don't give nearly as much weight to general conservative principles as most of us on this blog think they should.

I just got an email from Fred's campaign. They're really close to the million dollar mark. They want everyone to give $10 at 10:00 PM local time. So whenever it's 10:00 PM wherever you are, give ten bucks. It's not much, but if we all do it, we'll easily go over $1 million.

#37 by Veeshir - FTW !

But I say that if it looks like $hit, smells like $hit, feels like $hit and tastes like $hit... that ... maybe it would have been better to step in it. Let someone else do all the science.

#47- Gee, I am glad you don't want to be seen as a bigot. However, the fact is that most of the anti-immigrant movement handles itself that way. When you use loaded terms like "lawbreakers" and "Invasion", you clearly come off that way.

In 2004, 40% of LEGAL Hispanics voted for Bush. They are a natural constituency for the GOP. Religious, hard-working, strong family values. Yet the 1% of the GOP that supported Tancrazy have become the face of us on this issue, and they'll probably vote 99% Democratic next time. If that happens, we lose!

Yes, I agree, the employers who hire illegals are really the main problem. Are you willing to have a National ID and database to identify every citizen? That's what it would take to make a fool-proof system.

Most Americans want a secure border, but they also want to try to be fair to people who are working hard and contributing to the community. I think the reason McCain's bill failed was because most americans don't trust the Government to secure the border.

The fact is that we are a country of immigrants. My Grandparents came over from Germany in the 1920's, and a lot of the stuff said about Mexicans today were being said about Germans then. The reality is that we assimiliated, and so will they.

#48 - Ronald Reagan was not only an actor. He was a Captain in the Army Air Corps, a Union president, Governor of the largest state in the union. In short, there was no question he could handle the big chair if he got it.

Now, I don't want to take anything away from Fred, because the man has had an accomplished life. However, if I were deciding the issue solely on the terror issue, McCain would be a better choice, because he's dealt with this issue as a Senator and because of his military record. THere are other reasons why I am reluctant about McCain, but that isn't one of them.

#50- I don't think it is so much identity politics is that we have a coalition that is now finding itself at cross purposes.

It isn't that Christians "identify" with Huckabee so much as he is strong on the issues that move them. Take Abortion. Huckabee has been consistently against that. Fred lobbied for an abortion rights group, Guiliani is for unrestricted abortion, Mitt has flip-flopped on the issue so many times he probably doesn't know what his position is. McCain has been against Abortion, but antagonized the pro-Life movement by restricting their speech.

If Abortion is the issue that gets you to the polls, then Huckabee is your guy. You can maybe support one of the others, but on the issue you really care about as a principle, it's Huck!

And if on top of that, you know you are never going to be rich and you work for some guy in a suit who is constantly trying to screw you, you aren't going to care that Huck doesn't support HIS issues of lower taxes, less regulation and busting unions.

When you use loaded terms like 'lawbreakers' and 'Invasion', you clearly come off that way."

WHAT?!!!!! So telling the truth = "using loaded terms". You don't think entering a country illegally is breaking the law. How you can you not call untold thousands crossing a country's borders an invasion?!

"In 2004, 40% of LEGAL Hispanics voted for Bush. They are a natural constituency for the GOP. Religious, hard-working, strong family values. Yet the 1% of the GOP that supported Tancrazy have become the face of us on this issue, and they'll probably vote 99% Democratic next time. If that happens, we lose!"

In case you didn't know. Most LEGAL immigrants are opposed to illegal immigration. And rightfully so. They worked hard to enter this nation and build a life.

"Yes, I agree, the employers who hire illegals are really the main problem. Are you willing to have a National ID and database to identify every citizen? That's what it would take to make a fool-proof system."

What is your point? If that's what it takes to stop the invasion (OOPS! I'm a racist xenophobe for seeing reality!) then so be it.

"Most Americans want a secure border, but they also want to try to be fair to people who are working hard and contributing to the community. I think the reason McCain's bill failed was because most americans don't trust the Government to secure the border."

Do you think every immigrant is illegal? How is it fair to people who abide by the law to reward those who don't?

Why in the name of all that is holy should we trust the government? Why should we trust a government who says we're just a bunch of anti-immigrant Nazis. The reason Reagan supported the '86 amnesty was because he wrongly assumed that Congress would secure the border. We've had laws on the books for years now and Congress-and now Bush- refuse to enforce them. Why should we trust when they haven't done their jobs for years now?

"The fact is that we are a country of immigrants."

You definitely are a populist. Instead of using facts, you say phrases that were invented by the media to keep the American people from supporting enforcement. How does us being "a country of immigrants" stop us from securing our rightful borders? I'm descended from Scotsmen and Germans yet I want a sovereign nation. You can spout whatever garbage you want about me being a racist xenophobe but we are being invaded.

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/3/7/134033.shtml

"over the past five years, there have been 120 documented incidents of Mexican military/police incursions, sometimes resulting in the arrest of Mexican army personnel on U.S. soil by Border Patrol agents."

So it's not just civilians. Interesting. Would you like to explain how an ARMY crossing another country's border without that country's permission is not an invasion?

I was still curious, anyone recognize this guy's handle, or is it just a coincidence...?

Old guy, indeed. Try "imposter".

#57- Alan, you blew what little credibility you have.

#56- Yes, loaded terms are important. Invasion is just silly, it implies that the Government of Mexico is organizing these people and sending them over the border as an occupying army, which they clearly are not. I fault Mexico quite a bit for not addressing its internal problems, but acting like Mexico is Iran is just, well, silly.

"lawbreaker" could also be applied to people who fudge their tax return, go over the speed limit or get unlisenced cable, but I don't see anyone wanting to ship them off to the camps.

Most immigrants realize our laws don't work as they are currently construed. That's why they don't care if someone breaks them. Look, guy, if your xenophobic nonsense was shared by the majority of Americans, Tancrazy would be the frontrunner now, not Huck and McCain, who are actually sensible on this issue.

As far as Mexicans crossing into our territory, how many times have we crossed into theirs persuing suspects. If you really want an end to illegal Mexican immigration, (Funny, you only seem to be really upset about the Mexicans, not the millions of other undocumented workers) then what we need to do is work with Mexico as intently as we are working with Iraq. if Mexico were as rich as Canada, this wouldn't be an issue.

I think it's a serious problem that should be addressed, but you don't address serious problems with hysterics.

Okay I give up. Abandon this thread. The Huck troll will not go away. The Huck troll will, instead of actually saying anything worthwhile, accuse people of being xenophobes. In other words the Huck troll is a liberal. I mean I don't even know what to say. I shouldn't even be responding to him now.

Looks like I hit a nerve.

Invasion is just silly, it implies that the Government of Mexico is organizing these people and sending them over the border as an occupying army, which they clearly are not.

#58 - Posted by: JoeB131 on January 14, 2008 10:20 PM

I call BULLSHIT

at least now we have diverse trolls. not just Ron Paul, but Mike Huckabee!!!!!!

#59- I realize that most bigots don't like to hear they are bigots.... Deal with it. I'm not going to let your bigotry take down my party. We lost African Americans in the 1960's because we let bigots become the voice of our party. Let's not make the same mistake again.

#60- Not really. I just find it kind of funny you have to create an attack page because you can't discuss issues.

#61- Wow, so the Mexican government puts out a comic book that says, amongst other things, don't run from border patrol agents when they catch you, and you call that an invasion.

Guys, you Xenophobes are losing. You aren't even winning in the primaries, much less in the general. Tancredo dropped out before Iowa, because he didn't want the embarrassment of finishing in seventh place. Why are we letting him dictate our policy on this issue?

You know what Joe, what I'm about to write is going to make your little liberal mind explode. If we continue to have open borders that anyone can cross, we'll see who's saying I told you so when there's a mushroom cloud over an American city. I'll just say it for you; I am a racist bigoted xenophobic fear mongering Nazi.

Didn't advocate open borders. I just said that, hey, maybe we need to actually give a path to citizenship to some of the hardworking people already here. I realize this will make your head explode, getting around the thought.

Besides, if they really wanted to blow up a city, all they'd have to do is put it on one of the 95% of Cargo containers that go uninspected 6 years after 9/11.

#61- Wow, so the Mexican government puts out a comic book that says, amongst other things, don't run from border patrol agents when they catch you, and you call that an invasion.

Well if the rest of the comic wasn't a "How to Cross the Border Illegally" manual, you might have a point.
It's still the Mexican government that seems to be encouraging this activity, despite the disclaimer.

Gee, looking at the translations, which include such goodies as "don't wear heavy clothes when crossing a river" and "Don't travel across the desert unless you can bring enough water" are attempts to tell migrants, "Hey, you might get killed doing this."

There have been thousands of cases of Mexicans dying or even being victims of crime, and it seems this manual tells them how to avoid this. Unfortunately, it seems some people here would be perfectly happy if that happens, and that is sad.

The Huck troll will, instead of actually saying anything worthwhile, accuse people of being xenophobes.

Stock tips, please? ;)

JoeB131 "Guys, you Xenophobes are losing."

What's so wrong about expecting people to conform to the law? Are you advocating anarchy?

The answer is yes, yes you are.

if you don't think we are being invaded by illegal aliens, ask a legal one. they will tell you that LaRaza is a gangster Chamber of Commerce and that they are going to take over the U.S. And they don't like it any more than a lot of us do.

and then there is the problem with the invasion of our own government by islamists into the Pentagon, FBI, etc. Look at the Steven Coughlin(sp)firing. Fired for offending an islamist aide to an official in the Pentagon by stating what the agenda is of the Muslim Brotherhood. We are in trouble folks. And JoeB131 - shut up. you are boring.

What's sad is that those things can still happen even if they follow the manual. I'd be perfectly happy if they didn't try to cross the border.

This manual seems to encourage it with instructions on how to avoid the border patrol.

#70- Madam, you show the danger of people only getting their news from blogs...

#71- As long as you have a rich nation with a job shortage and a poor one with a labor surplus, you are going to have immigration. The problem was that no one bothered to find a way to make it a controlled process. I think what a lot of you people fail to realize the real culprit is not the poor Mexican who comes over here looking for a job, it's the greedy employer who knowingly hires him because he's a powerless laborer.

#69- The law doesn't work, and I don't think it was ever designed to work.

"I think what a lot of you people fail to realize the real culprit is not the poor Mexican who comes over here looking for a job, it's the greedy employer who knowingly hires him because he's a powerless laborer."

Oh yeah, it's OUR fault that Mexicans jump the border in violation of our laws.

I think what a lot of you people fail to realize the real culprit is not the poor Mexican who comes over here looking for a job, it's the greedy employer who knowingly hires him because he's a powerless laborer.

Is that the skirt rape defence I just saw? ("It was her fault I raped her! She was wearing a short skirt and I couldn't help myself!") Why, I do believe it is. Yeah, I think I'm done with that kind of low-life pond-scum.

I'm smelling a moby here. It's all there: pseudo-Christian references without even appearing to know anything about Christianity other than the pro-life stance, the cloaking of liberal ideology in a veneer of "conservatism". Any others getting that whiff?

A pro-life voter is likely to go for Huckabee.

Not so much after Fred! got the National Right to life's endorsement. And after Huckabee's little grandstanding about the spoon, I have my doubts about him being saved in the first place. Anyone can call himself a Christian...proving himself one is another matter entirely.

if you don't think we are being invaded by illegal aliens, ask a legal one. they will tell you that LaRaza is a gangster Chamber of Commerce and that they are going to take over the U.S. And they don't like it any more than a lot of us do.

No kidding. I think I can speak from probably the best position of authority: my own family. My husband is Hispanic, and many of his relatives on his mother's side came over here from Mexico legally. Oh, you should hear them go off on illegals sometime. Just like you're not going to give some jerk a free pass for cutting in line just because he's from the same ethnic group as you, Hispanics are just like everyone else in their resentment of line-jumping scum, even if they happen to be from the same country. I don't like all Americans, so it's stupid (not to mention xenophobic and racist) to assume all Mexicans are going to like and get along with all other Mexicans.

It's that fake "multiculturalism" that makes liberals believe otherwise, their politically-correct form of racism that assumes everyone else is really a white liberal underneath their skin. And that kind of under-the-table racism is many times more offencive to the many minorities in my family and fellowship than any invented slur the left can dream of for anyone who dares oppose their "enlightened" world-view.

Go Chelsea soccer!

I'm depressed that people on here seem to think that if you don't agree with them, you aren't really a Republican or a Christian. Isn't that the kind of thinking that leads to Crusades and Jihads?

Anyway, I guess I see the problem of illegals as something different. If no one hired them, they wouldn't come here. Period. There wouldn't be any jobs for them. Comparing illegal immigration to rape is another one of those loaded terms to appeal to emotion. That's the real problem, there isn't any workplace enforcement.

I think I know more about Christianity than you. Let's try these on for size.

"Whatever you do to the least of my brothers, you do unto me"

"Do onto others as you would have them do onto you."

and of course, my personal favorite

"it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God."

Pretty sure none of that squares with calling War Heroes fecal names, or calling illegal aliens "rapists", "Invaders" or "Terrorists".

Uh oh. Now we're getting a sermon from a British Protestant. Hey, got any preachy soccer analogies?

You mean we can't call illegal aliens rapists?

What about the ones who actually are rapists??

"If no one hired them, they wouldn't come here. Period. There wouldn't be any jobs for them."

Translation: it's OUR fault. Again.

I know I wasn't going to answer back a guy who thinks rape is justified if a girl wear a short skirt, but I feel that I need to do a last bit of ej-oo-katin'. And our little mastermind padawan needs some pointers from the Empress of Masterminds herself. (Well, on Protector server, anyway)

The more you post, Joe, the more you look like a moby. When you quote the usual passages most non-Christians know, (and without the Book or Chapter or the context of those passages) it just further cements the likelihood that the only time you ever set foot in a church is when Mum and Dad made you go. In order to fool the best of 'em, you're going to have to hold your nose and dive a lot deeper than secular notions of Christians and Christianity.

What most non-Christians don't know is that there are certain Christians who can sniff out a fake from a phony. And it's uncanny how they do so. So if you're a fake, you will be found out the longer you try and fake it. (The Christians here will know precisely what I'm talking about and even know the proper name for it) So trying to "divide" conservatives on the issue is so much mosquito fart in a hurricane. Most church-going evangelicals (as opposed to the Census Christians who only go two times out of the year with Bibles resting on coffee tables in pristine condition) relied on such people in their churches to sound the phony alarm. So I wouldn't put that much stock in trying to get those nasty "religious right bigots" to get behind Huckabee and divide the vote, if I were you. Your cunning plan needs some rethinking.

And in the off-chance you're not a fledgeling mastermind...well, it sounds an awful lot like you've fallen away from fellowship and haven't been reading your Bible. You should be able to sniff out a false prophet like Huckabee (Remember: "false prophet" doesn't always refer to just prophets and preachers!) based on Scripture alone. Now, if you're supporting Huckabee based on a pro-life stance alone, I can certainly understand that and even sympathise, but I would be up-front and admit that his non-Christlike behaviour is shameful. His liberal leanings are another matter entirely, but you'd do well not to try to justify them, especially not with a veneer of "Christianity".

Lastly, he wasn't the one endorsed by NRtL. Fred! is. If you're genuinely interested in saving the lives of children, you've got a bit of researching to do.

#80- I don't know what a "moby" is. (Wasn't he that techno bald guy?) The fact that i cite the ones "everybody knows" (I would actually call them the important ones, the ones the Nuns and priests kept harping on every week during my 12 years of Catholic School.) doesn't take away that the hateful xenophobia expressed by some "conservatives" doesn't jive with them.

How do you apply the Golden Rule to wanting to deport hard working people to an impoverished country, to breaking up families, to keeping people as second-class citizens. Please, quote some Gospel verses that back up your hate, I'd love to see them. (I'm sure you could find a lot of justifications in let's say, the Book of Joshua, which is probably the bible's scariest book.)

As I have said, the unrelenting character assassination on Huckabee by so-called Christians has been pretty disturbing. So has some of the characterizations of McCain, a war hero.

I've said it before, the biggest problem the coalition has is that a lot of Christians have voted against their economic interests. When they stop doing that, the GOP is pretty much screwed. However, given the hate I hear coming out of some corners, I'm not sure that is necessarily a bad thing.

"to wanting to deport hard working people to an impoverished country,"

"Hard working" is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is, illegal immigrants entered the U.S. without authorization to do so.

Interested in coming here to do hard work? Get in line.

Well, Joe, I'm not a Christian, and to me you sound like you are full of crap.

And who says that families have to be broken up? They can ALL go back, even their little kids that they hopped the border to have so that their child would be an American.

Send the kids back with the parents, that way the family gets to stay together.

"..and to me you sound like you are full of crap."

Of course. Look at the title of this thread, and look at Joe's posts. He absolutely lives for eating crap, and is not above trying to convince everyone else, despite their better judgments, that eating crap is a good thing.