1. anyone who believes anything that ann "enemy of the truth" coulter says is a moron
Three words: three national bestsellers. A lot of people like what she has to say. I'm one of them.
2. is this the same pat buchanan who backed the idea of building a huge electric fence along america's southern border in order to keep mexicans out?
- and -
3. the same electric fence that would extend a few miles into the ocean?
Do we have a reference for this quote? (I found the source - Buchanan's 1996 Presidential campaign platform.) That aside, why not? Such a fence would probably work better than the current Border Patrol. The vast majority of Mexicans entering this country don't come here to become Americans. Those who come permanently retain allegiances to their old home, and many more are here simply for work. The phrase "melting pot" has been used in the past to describe the assimilation of immigrants into American culture; however, most of the people coming here from Mexico (as well as the elites that support unchecked immigration) believe in the "salad bowl" concept, which will ultimately shatter this nation.
4. don't you agree that it'd be interesting to see what exactly would happen to our economy if all illegal immigrants were suddenly deported?
The implication is that many employers would lose good workers. I wonder who might be able to take up those positions...um, perhaps, unemployed Americans!?!?! On top of that, sending illegals home has the potential to reduce total expenditures on social programs - spending reductions that could be passed on to hard-working Americans as tax cuts.
5. america should be for americans, and fuck it, why shouldn't the rest of the world be for americans, too.
It shouldn't. While I favor the original actions in Iraq, we have definitely overstayed our welcome there. A short stay was necessary to help get the country back on its feet (especially after it was us that did most of the damage). But we do need to withdraw armed forces from other nations' territory. The benefits of such an action are threefold: one, it reduces our profile abroad, and gives those who hate us less justification (in their minds) for their evil bidding. Second, it would enable us to reinforce the security of America's frontiers against foreign attack, by redeploying our forces to protect our borders and coasts. And third, it can give us better forces, by potentially reducing operational stress.
6. regardless of whether invading iraq was a good thing or not, aren't you at least somewhat repulsed by the fact that the entire war was justified with lies? there are no weapons of mass destruction, and there are no links to al qaeda, and saddam hussein did not perpetrate sept 11.
The last two points are undisputed - the jury's still out on the first one. We're still searching. Ultimately we have not only the right, but a duty to act in that most important of national interests - self-defense (a right guaranteeed by the Charter of the United Nations, no less). Kennedy did it twice (blundering at the Bay of Pigs, and succeeding in the Cuban Missile Crisis). Nixon in Chile, Reagan in Grenada - direct threats to national security cannot go unchallenged. As I said in the last point, the key is that once those threats are neutralized, we not stay on too long, lest we give credence to those who say America is little more than a bloodthirsty empire.
7. anyone who wrote what you wrote is stupid or ignorant.
A classic liberal response to a cogent argument - demonize and/or call the opponent names. And at that, not even attaching his or her name to the post.