lol. That's so different from what he said. Come on now.

 

That's exactly what he said. Read post #6.

 

I know what he said, I know what you said too. You're chastising him for making the same stupid comment you did though.

HD: "People who vote dem are uneducated."

MV: "People who vote dem are more educated than those who vote conservative."

 

Wow...touchy today huh. I said that IN RESPONSE to what he said, with the qualifications that I don't believe either one because they are both based on heresay and anecdotal observations...I thought I was very clear about that.


Furthermore, you missed the thrust of what I was saying which is that religion shapes the voting trends of immigrants more than their educational level; and I'd also like to add that I think other factors (most importantly economic status) shape their voting trends even more.

 

Not touchy at all, I call it how I see it, and it looked as though I saw hypocracy in the statements you both were making. I could be wrong, but not likely.

I didn't miss it, I agree with you 100%. I believe though that how you vote has nothing at all to do with intelligence or education, which sounds like the opposite of what the two of you were saying:

and

He may have started it, but who is continuing it? You and I, and for a stupid reason since we both seem to agree. But I'm bewildered by the contradiction in your statements.

 

I see what you're saying, and we are agreeing; the reason I threw the education thing in there was to show how inflamatory and ignorant it sounds to make a claim like Hella (and I in response) made. I think educational level has relatively little to do with voting trends.

 

You're right. It's pretty clear that if you think killing unborn babies is ok, the vote democrat. Even the uneducated can figure that one out.

 

Do you know what the term 'red herring' means? You should, you're a master of them.

 

:rotfl:

 

So are you calling abortion being the democrats' main issue at each election a red herring? I'd say that's shocking in itself, but when a party latches on so fanatically to killing babies and we call that the norm, that SHOULD be shocking.

 

Damn...you really don't know what a red herring is. I was just joking.

In an election, abortion is a relevant issue to discuss. In a thread about immigration policy and the presidents stance on it, abortion is irrelevant. Therefore, you used abortion as a red herring; but that does not infer that ALL discussion of abortion is red herring material.

 

Back to the subject...


I'm actually happy about Bush's idea to send NatGuard to the boarder to sure it up. It's unfortunate that the war has depleated the guard to the point that people on both sides are wondering if the plan will allow for the guard to maintain their normal function when and if a disaster occurs, but the immigration issue (and how to fix it) will never see a solution until we close the borders.

After the borders are closed, then there's a whole bunch of things to decide about and do, but doing this as step one seems right.

 

We were talking about education levels and whether or not uneducated immigrants (i.e. mexical illegal aliens) vote for democrats or not. When you said education level isn't an issue, I just pointed out that even the uneducated vote for democrats if they want to be able to slaughter unborn children within the law. That's all.

So I got off track somewhat, but party affiliation has A LOT to do with why illegals are here. In my estimation, democrats want them here for the votes, and Republicans want them here for a cheap uneducated labor force.

 

Me too, but I can already see the Bush-bashing opportunity this opens up...

Heck, I'd patrol the border if I could keep my current salary roadmap .

 

Yes, but is it a front to please the majority? He has said nothing about a fence and continues to degrade the minutemen. It is a step in the right direction, but manpower alone can't solve the problem. We need something physical like an electric fence or a moat with vipers, spikes and pitbulls.