Tanya still gets it wrong

...you resort to ad hominem attacks on a routine basis on here.

I'm sorry, that is simply not true. I recommend that you take some time to learn what is and is not ad hominem and where it is and is not appropriate.

Bush is a Republican, and I disagree with him on this issue. With that said, there were plenty of Republicans who were opposed to his plan.

I see, so we need more Republicans to ride herd on the Republican President? I thought that was the purpose of having an opposition party. Are you saying the Republicans are their own opposition party? That's a neat trick. It wouldn't seem to bode well for democracy, though, would it?

The same question can be asked of you: "Are you prescient?"

I wasn't the one who categorically stated that the Bush plan would be passed if the Democrats win.

The evidence suggests that the Senate immigration plan will be passed if the Democrats control the House.

"The evidence suggests" is a far cry from a naked assertion that it will happen. Are you changing your position? As well, the evidence also suggests that it will be passed if the Republicans retain control, so what's your point?

There you go again with your conspiracy theories about Bush taking advantage of post 9/11 to push an agenda item from his Dad's administration.

And there you go again with your RNC spin talking points. And so the thief caught with his hand in someone else's pocket cries persecution and conspiracy.

How can you say if Hussein had WMD, he didn't pose a threat to us?

Very easily. I can say it as easily as I can say that Ethiopia and Luxembourg present no particular threat to us. Simply having biological weapons does not make a country a threat. If the country has no capability to deliver the threat, it clearly doesn't exist.

A terrorist just has to be right once to kill thousands here in the states with biological or chemical weapons. If these guys are willing to fly planes into buildings, they sure aren't going to blink twice about releasing junk in a NYC subway.

But we weren't talking about terrorists just now, we were talking about a sovereign nation. The threat that terrorists represent has nothing to do with Iraq's possession of WMD. The evidence clearly indicates that Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Syria have as much, if not more, to do with providing terrorists with the ability to carry out attacks on the West. Why didn't we invade and occupy those countries? The answer is obvious: Bush had more personal investment in slapping Hussein down than he did any of those other countries. Everything since then has been nothing but cover story.

So you want these terrorists to be tried out in the open here in the states.

More RNC-approved spin. Tell me, once the Republicans have rationalized ignoring the Constitution in the name of protecting you from jihad, how hard can it be for them to rationalize ignoring it in the name of dealing with some other element they find distasteful? What will you do on the day they decide you're no longer a useful little party droid and they come for you?

Even though their methods were different, both Reagan & Bush wanted certain countries to be democratic countries. Since you were ripping Bush for wanting a "North American mega-state," I would assume you ripped Reagan at the time for doing it.

Neither of those two sentences has anything to do with the other. What are you talking about? Reagan never attempted to establish a North American mega-state.