rebuttal, however you spell it

Tim:
I'm not gonna respond to each one, but rather write all my responses here. I had this feeling I'd disagree with lots of conservatives concerning immigration and trade. The interesting aspect of these two issues (and I said this already) is that these two areas divide conservatives the most (maybe foreign affairs as well). I actually support immigration, but there are legal ways to get into this nation. The illegal activities only promote the world to do the same. I support it, just not illegally. As for trade, I do support the concept, but this is the one area I'm slowly in the middle if not fair. Since the early 90s, we've seen what free trade is doing, and there are plenty of conservatives now that are swaying away from free trade. It's protectionism to a degree (if it's full, I'd be saying buy American only, which is not what I'm saying, so that's why when you say protectionism, I keep going away from it), it's sovereignty.

All that said, I'm not proving you wrong when it comes to trade. It's not that I don't understand what you're saying, I fully believe what I say is correct as well as you. There is no hidden agenda with yours. Your policy basically screws people - and you're okay with it. So there. It's interesting that these workers, as I said already, really have little-to-no say in the workplace. To call them lazy is almost laughable. Not all of them are. So it's not like they can adjust. Well, they may. They can go back to college and get another degree or something to that affect. All trade should be seen closely initially and negotiated well in the beginning. And I gotcha with free trade from the very beginning, but I will not trade with a country that poses as a security threat to us. It's not just liberals that argue the "CEO, displacement of jobs" point. Plenty of the Republican or conservative debates out there show they take this side. We don't want total restriction, but there needs to be something to retain our sovereignty. Free trade is effective to a degree, but if (if) we get attacked by China anytime in the next few decades, this free trade allowed it. If there's outrage, unfortunately, I will bring this point up again. I know this may be a laughable situation, but it really isn't.

We see somewhat eye-to-eye as social conservatives. I do support the agenda, but it's bottom of my list compared to other aspects of conservatism. I already said in my early emails how I feel about social conservatives. A lot of them feel abortion and gay rights are the only issues out there. This is why I see a lot of conservatives supporting Huckabee blindly.

I understand your amnesty viewpoint, but it's deja vu. Reagan did the same thing and there were predictions millions more are gonna follow in the footsteps. What happened? Excatly, the 12 million today everyone's talking about. Amnesty will simply produce more people to just freely walk in, realizing they could.

I enjoy debating people that disagree with me 90% of the time, even if they use stupid reasonings (you spelt "is" wrong). I remembered the days debating Dom. I actually came close to being frustrated because, well, at least when you support free trade, you do present your facts. His case is just pure emotion (sorry). But I still enjoy "debating" liberals.

Donald:
I'm more than likely going to vote for McCain at this rate. Another Clinton and Obama just plain scare me. My family lost their job thanks to Bill in 1997 and apparently Bill felt we made enough money (HA) to pay near 40% of our income to the IRS. All for a surplus. Just 2 examples, but even if this didn't happen to us, I still disagreed with 70%+ of what he did. Yes, George W Bush isn't a disaster, but there are plenty of areas he didn't live up to his creed. And yes, most definitely the Democratic Congress didn't help any. This is why I said to myself during the Bush-Gore debates "noooo, no bipartisan talk, the liberals will gut you alive." They near did. The main areas he didn't live up to his preaching include health care. He endorsed billions more in health care funding. His views on the environment dramatically changed. It's a mix actually, but he still pandered. I already talked about immigration and trade, but that's up to debate. His spending....I won't even go there. It's debatable how it's justified. There are a few more issues. McCain is viewed as a conservative to many is because he is a lot of times. Of course, he's also liberal as well. I said this already, but he'll be a liberal one day of the week, then a few days later he's a conservative. You ask how he's a conservative, well, he's actually pretty pro-life, he's conservative on crime issues, guns, Social Security, education, taxes, and the armed forces/Iraq, and a few more. Other than that, he's a liberal.

About the war, I'm confident, except I'm fully aware he's against "torture," time will definitely tell, but for now, I think he'll carry through. Ask me again 4 years from now.