Top 10 Lies told by Liberals

[Barney]

I want to start a list of the top 10 lies told by Liberals and the truth behind them.

I think the #1 lie told today is that President Bush deceived the country to get us to go to war.

#1. President Bush Lied about WMD's.

Truth: Russia, France, Germany, and Britain thought that Iraq had WMD's. The CIA was reporting that Iraq had WMD's. Everyone thought that Iraq had WMD's. President Bush, thought, as everyone else did, that Iraq had WMD's. President Bush passed this on to the American people. That is not lying. When the President told us this, he fully believed what he was telling us and made decisions based on that information.

Contributing to this belief was Saddam himself... "Dr David Kay, who resigned last Friday,(head of weapons inspections) has concluded that Saddam was playing a fatal game of bluff - allowing the world to believe he still had banned arsenals in order to maintain his grip on power."

"He said he believed that Saddam was pursuing a pattern of "creative ambiguity" - getting rid of weapons that might trigger invasion while letting his enemies believe he might still have that deterrent."

"Saddam wanted to enjoy the benefits of having chemical and biological weapons without having to pay the costs," he said."

excerpts can be found here: www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/01/30/wwmd30.xml


I think this is a good idea. I don't know everything about everything and it would be a good reference when up against someone who thinks they know everything about everything.

please feel free to add to this list or even edit my contribution if I'm a bit off or there is more to it.

[americanfirst]

I agree with you. I believe that President Bush believed that Sadam had WMD's. I again believe that he thought there might be some chance he would use them. I believe he thought if he did use them that dad and Dick Cheney who was secretary of defense under Bush 1 would be blamed for not finishing the job the first time. I also believe that dad and Dick Cheney did not finish the job the first time is because they believed that the situation in Iraq would be much the same as it is today. That there would be a power vacumn at the top and the country would decide into a power struggle of religious extremists and ultimently become another Iran. Guess what I think dad was right.

[MO]

Why try to make this about what Bush (either one of them) thinks?

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

[MO]

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002


"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

[americanfirst]

I agreed that Bush thought and I agree most everyone believed that he had weapons of mass destruction. Not many people disagree with that. I personally think that Sadam was really stupid and a mad man. If I had been Sadam particulary after I got my butt wipped the first time I would have literally got rid of almost all of my military and just keep enough to keep myself from being killed by my own people, asked for protection from the United States, pumped the hell out of oil and kicked back in one of my many palaces with a harum of young sweet things. Kind of like the Sultan of Brunei. At least this guy knows how to have fun.

"Hassanal Bolkiah Muizzaddin Waddaulah, Sultan and Prime Minister of Brunei since 1967. From his father he inherited a personal fortune estimated at $40 billion, which once placed him at the top of Fortune magazine's list of the world's richest people. Recent reports, however, suggest that his treasure has dwindled to a mere $10 billion-peanuts, these days.
The question is: where in earth can it all have gone? It's not so easy to blow $30 billion, which is roughly equivalent to the entire annual income of all 125 million people living in Bangladesh.
Well, a sizeable chunk of it went on the Sultan's palace, monstrosity that boasts 1,788 rooms and is larger than the Vatican-in a tiny country with just 300,000 inhabitants. When the Sultan's daughter turned 18 he bought her an Airbus. For himself he prefers his own jumbo jet, originally designed to carry over 400 people.
Great skill in extravagance has also been acquired by his brother, Prince Jefri. Having heard of Disneyland, he decided to build the Jerudong Park Playground in the capital, Bandar-Seri Begawan, at a cost of $1 billion.
Between them, the brothers Bolkiah own London's Dorchester Hotel, the New York Palace and the Plaza Athenee in Paris. After the Sultanate's independence from Britain in 1984 they bought 2,000 luxury limousines and became the world's biggest customers for Rolls Royce motor cars.
But their combined spending talents, have proved unequal to the task of disposing of the revenues that constantly flow into their private bank accounts from Shell Oil, which is responsible for extracting the Sultanate's vast but only natural resource.
So a small army of hangers-on was assembled, among them one Mohamed al Fayed. The Sultan and his brothers have long been suspected of bankrolling Fayed's subsequent purchase of the upmarket Harrods store in London. Fayed- at the centre of recent bribery scandals in the British Parliament, as well as the father of the boyfriend who died with Princess Diana-claims that during the financial crisis of 1992 the British Government approached him personally to intercede with the Sultan to keep his billions in London.
Such large sums of cash automatically attract political interest. In 1987 it was reported that when US colonel Oliver North asked the Sultanate for help in subverting the Nicaraguan Government-$10 million was duly deposited in a Swiss bank account.
Britain, in keeping with its role as the major arms supplier to the region-Brunei is an enclave in Malaysian territory on the island of Borneo, most of which is Indonesian - concluded an arms deal with the Sultan in 1991 valued at $150 million. Few people can have suspected the presence of British Gurkha (Nepalese) troops in Brunei until they emerged to join the peace-making forces in East Timor.
Even this, however, would have made only a small dent in the Sultan's wealth had it not been for straightforward financial incompetence, a prolonged fall in the price of oil, and the Asian crash of 1997. Large sums of money were lost on property deals and attempts to prop up the currencies of neighbouring countries.
So the Sultan has had to slaughter some of his polo ponies and sell off other prized trophies, such as Embankment Place in London, valued at $376 million and home to accountants Pricewaterhouse-Coopers. Last autumn, 200 British accountants from Arthur Anderson went through the books in search of what was left, as billions disappeared from the Sultan's portfolios with bankers Morgan Grenfell, JP Morgan, Citibank and Nomura. The annual $1 billion spent on running Brunei's 'Shellfare State' is now thought to be at risk, along with the polo ponies.
Though the people of Brunei are far from poverty-stricken, they have not been allowed to vote since a failed uprising in 1962. Six political prisoners incarcerated then were finally released in 1991.
Brunei is another of the stains the oil business makes wherever it goes-in the Arabian Gulf, Nigeria, Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Burma, the Caspian Sea and, arguably, Britain as well. The grotesque extravagance and greed it engenders, and the political methods used to control its production, invariably provoke widespread chaos. In this ugly pantomime the Sultan and his brother have taken prominent roles as the world's most spendthrift individuals."

[UncleVinny]

Here's a REALLY big lie for you!
The cost of war.

Pentagon Contradicts General on Iraq Occupation Force's Size
By Eric Schmitt
New York Times
February 28, 2003

In a contentious exchange over the costs of war with Iraq, the Pentagon's second-ranking official today disparaged a top Army general's assessment of the number of troops needed to secure postwar Iraq. House Democrats then accused the Pentagon official, Paul D. Wolfowitz, of concealing internal administration estimates on the cost of fighting and rebuilding the country.

Mr. Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary, opened a two-front war of words on Capitol Hill, calling the recent estimate by Gen. Eric K. Shinseki of the Army that several hundred thousand troops would be needed in postwar Iraq, "wildly off the mark." Pentagon officials have put the figure closer to 100,000 troops. Mr. Wolfowitz then dismissed articles in several newspapers this week asserting that Pentagon budget specialists put the cost of war and reconstruction at $60 billion to $95 billion in this fiscal year. He said it was impossible to predict accurately a war's duration, its destruction and the extent of rebuilding afterward

"We have no idea what we will need until we get there on the ground," Mr. Wolfowitz said at a hearing of the House Budget Committee. "Every time we get a briefing on the war plan, it immediately goes down six different branches to see what the scenarios look like. If we costed each and every one, the costs would range from $10 billion to $100 billion."


So much for truth! What a joke!

- Present cost $200 BILLION and now they are asking for another $75 Billion

Is this the kind of leadership you want?

[Patriot]

I'll offer Lie Number 2 by Liberals:

"The United States is better off as a result of cultural, religious, sexual, and racial diversity."

This smacks of assumption-- and flawed assumption, at that. There is no concrete evidence, based on any of the above, that links diversity with any improvements we have experienced as a nation-- economically, socially, legally, militarily, or scientifically. What has been established, however, is the following:

• Lower educational standards. A higher rate of high school dropouts, and a lapse in college entrance exams.
  
• A higher rate of violence per capita. The jail-rate is higher now, nationally, then ever before.
  
• A lapse in moral values. The Hip-Hop and Rap cultures have permeated American youth with a disregard for traditional establishments.
  

And there's a lot more. When you add everything up, there's not much ground to stand on-- at least, when it comes to the liberal assertion that diversity has brought nothing but benefits. To the contrary.

Learn to think outside the box of what's "politically correct" while you still can. The average American today has been brainwashed from birth.

[midcan5]

Concerning item one. It doesn't matter whether you call them lies or distortions there are so many that to deny them is to deny reality. Check links near bottom for a few, do a Google search if you want the truth. If I were to express the single greatest distortion of this administration it was that Iraq was an imminent threat. That phrase tainted the discussion but to anyone except someone intent on invading a country it made absolutely no sense after the first Iraq war. Bush invaded a country only to remove a dictator he despised and our young men are dying because of that. Call it want you like that is what it is.

Item two smacks of xenophobic thinking and racism. This country is great and remains great due to immigration, do you forget we are all immigrants? Consider the genius that makes us great even today and you will see a widely diverse group of people using the liberal freedoms of America to do great things.

The irony of your second post is in the attitudes of most Americans towards education and book learning as it is often pejoratively called. Too funny when you consider education here compared to other countries and our attitudes towards education.

Can't wait for your third distorted view of ideas - you need to get outside that box you are in.

www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040329&s=scheer

www.politicalstrategy.org/2003_03_10_weblog_archive.htm

[Patriot]

Midcan:

Item two smacks of xenophobic thinking and racism.

1. First of all I'm flattered you've chosen to adopt my verbiage, namely, "smacks of..." I guess it takes a conservative Republican to impart true literary knowledge in the wake of everything you were taught by "Yo Mama"! ;D


2. As for "xenophobic thinking":

Merriam Webster defines xenophobic as: one unduly fearful of what is foreign and especially of people of foreign origin.

The key word, there, is "unduly". But, when working within the realm of factual information, a fear of foreign people or influence doesn't fall under the category of "xenophobic". For instance:

• The Bosnian Serbs' hatred for the Ethnic Albanians, simply on the basis of race, was xenophobic, because the Albanians were doing nothing to actively aggravate the Serbs.
  
• The Conservative American's dissatisfaction with Bloods and Crips roaming his neighborhood is not xenophobic, because the gangs are destroying property and raising the murder rate.
  
• The Conservative American's dissatisfaction with college entrance placement is not xenophobic, because, although he might be more qualified, favor swings to less qualified, ethnic minority applicants.

This country is great and remains great due to immigration, do you forget we are all immigrants?

Begging the question. We are not all immigrants. My forefathers were in Virginia prior to the American Revolution. Those that immigrated in those days were the Founders of this country, and hence, can't be cast in the same light as those who come here merely to take advantage of better jobs.

The country has never been "great" due to immigration; since the first days of Washington there has always been deep political reservations about who comes to our shores and why. This has nothing to do with George Bush but is rather a part of the American psyche.

As for the Conservative attitude toward education: it was Conservative Christians who founded Harvard; Conservative Christians who founded Yale; Conservative Christians who founded Princeton; Conservative Christians who founded Georgetown; Conservative Christians who founded Columbia. And guess what? All of those institutions are so sought after that even the Bin Laden family allowed Osama's brother to attend!

So, dearest Midcan, amid your liberal bullshit, try to remember the origins of everything considered "good" in American education.

[midcan5]

I'm sorry but unless your ancestors are native Americans they are still immigrants, early immigrants but immigrants just the same. Everyone came to these shores for opportunity and freedom and work; I'm sure they did too. And dictionary definitions are good as they establish basic understanding but all things are in degree and to rail against immigrants is short sighted given our history.

As far as education, you mean you weren't home schooled? I thought all you real conservatives were afraid education would open the mind. All this time I thought academia was full of liberal thinking but you tell me no. Geez next thing you'll tell me is the media is not liberal either. lol

PS and religion does not have to be conservative either. It was such a beautiful weekend God has to be a liberal.

Where's three I need a good laugh?


www.earlyrepublic.net/schools.htm

Harvard was the first center of higher learning in the United States. It is located in Cambridge MA, just across the Charles River from Boston. The first class was started in 1628, and nine of these graduated in 1642.

The growing liberal climate of Harvard reached a point at which conservative Congregationalists became outraged. In 1805, the Unitarian Henry Ware (senior) became Professor of Theology at Harvard, and this soon lead to the establishment of Andover as a bastion of orthodoxy.

Some of the more famous presidents of Harvard were Increase Mather, Josiah Quincy, and Edward Everett (the two latter were distinguished by being, at times, congressmen; Quincy was Mayor of Boston, and Everett was governor of Massachusetts and Minister to Great Britain).

Harvard was, more than anything, a school for Congregationalist ministers until well into the 19th century.

[Ian]

midcan5 said:

I'm sorry but unless your ancestors are native Americans they are still immigrants, early immigrants but immigrants just the same.

You seem to have forgotten that the "native" Americans themselves are immigrants. The theories of the methods by which they arrived here differ (some say by a land bridge or by sailing along the coasts of Alaska and Northwestern Canada and some Indians believe they are descendants of "the ten lost tribes of Israel" while others believe they can be traced to a colony of Welshmen founded by Prince Madoc in 1170) the fact remains that they are also immigrants.

As far as education, you mean you weren't home schooled? I thought all you real conservatives were afraid education would open the mind. All this time I thought academia was full of liberal thinking but you tell me no. Geez next thing you'll tell me is the media is not liberal either. lol

PS and religion does not have to be conservative either. It was such a beautiful weekend God has to be a liberal.

Where's three I need a good laugh?

www.earlyrepublic.net/schools.htm

I'm sorry midcan, have you been smoking crack?

www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0363_Harvards_Christian_H.html

Increase Mather: Protestant

[Patriot]

Thanks for the backup, Ian.

Midcan is now performing a "bob and weave" manuever by attempting to differentiate between "Congregationalists" and "Protestants". Oops! Congregationalists ARE Protestants! And, either way, all the Ivy League schools were originally founded by Orthodox Christians. So, regardless of what they are now, they owe their existence and fame to Conservative, God fearing followers of Jesus Christ.

[TNRighty]

midcan5 said:

I'm sorry but unless your ancestors are native Americans they are still immigrants, early immigrants but immigrants just the same. Everyone came to these shores for opportunity and freedom and work; I'm sure they did too. And dictionary definitions are good as they establish basic understanding but all things are in degree and to rail against immigrants is short sighted given our history.

I don't want to get hung up on semantics, but if you were born in America, then you are a native American, even if your parents or grandparents immigrated here.

As for the immigration thing, we certainly have some problems we need to address, most specifically on the Mexican border, but I'm not going to get into that. On a larger scale, I think the time to start worrying about immigration is the day they stop coming. Even though anti-Americanism has become popular in some parts of the world, we're still the country everybody wants to live in, which brings me to my main point...

The best service we as a nation can do for those seeking to live here is to stay true to the principles which for 200 years have made us the country people want to come to, i.e., a nation and economy that rewards the hard work and dedication of its citizens.

If America becomes a nation of handouts and social programs, it will only attract immigrants looking for handouts and social welfare. However, if we stay true to our founding principles of hard work and dedication then we will attract hard-working, dedicated people. Its as simple as that.

[midcan5]

All American are immigrant stock. Indians were here long enough to be the real McCoy. Thousands of years have to count for something.

They may have been founded by Christian groups but the point is according to most conservatives they are the home of liberal thinking, a den of heretics, and a haven for free thinking. OMG

[Ian]

midcan5 said:

All American are immigrant stock. Indians were here long enough to be the real McCoy. Thousands of years have to count for something.

Alright, let me see if I understand this, when a population resides in one location for 1000 years they are no longer considered immigrants? When does the immigrant wear off of someone? When they make absolutely no progress and make an absolute waste of the land they're living on for 500 years? 1000 years? 2000 years? I'm truly interested.

I suppose my logic is somewhat flawed, but I always believed forging the most powerful military against unprecedented odds, building the world's greatest industry and economy, pulling the world from the grasp of Fascism and later Communism and providing the world's greatest (albeit flawed) and most sought after higher learning systems as well as a host of other unprecedented and still unduplicated achievements that I have neaither the time nor the digital (finger not internet) stamina to put forth counted for something.

They may have been founded by Christian groups but the point is according to most conservatives they are the home of liberal thinking, a den of heretics, and a haven for free thinking. OMG

Step away from the Brillo pad! I swear to God I don't think you are reading half of what we're typing. Patriot's point was that your denigration of the Conservative's education can be easily contradicted not only by logic and the supposed "tolerance" you preach, but also by a shallow delve into the history of the American education system. And the conservative argument against the Ivy League is not against the liberal apparition that it endorses "free thinking" but rather that it fervently suppresses it. Look no further than Larry Summers to prove that point. If this is the reception given to the free thinking of Harvard’s president, I can only imagine what the average conservative student is treated to.