Posted on 07/03/2013 5:02:09 PM PDT by markomalley
Conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh said on Tuesday that it was "quite telling" that Fox News did not want him to talk at length about his opposition to comprehensive immigration reform during his appearance on Fox and Friends.
"Now I told the people at Fox that I wanted to talk about this today three or four times and they wouldn't do it," Limbaugh said on his show after his appearance. "They were not interested in bringing this subject up. I wanted to talk about this in relationship to the current state of the Republican party and they wouldn't do it."
Limbaugh said he "had to bring it up myself to whatever extent I did, and that by the way, is quite telling to me."
Limbaugh did indeed manage to get in some comments about immigration on the show, saying, "Republicans are sitting around twiddling their thumbs worried about immigration and whether the Hispanics like them or not and being skunked on issue after issue after issue."
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
..... and so insistent on it.
Please explain how Socialism (what we have now - ex. Obamacare) is not A (the government) saying they want to help B (the uninsured) by forcing money from C (you and I)?
Willie Green was a socialist too.
I believe that pretty much anybody — aside from known criminals, etc. — should be allowed to come here if they can find a place to live and support themselves (i.e., no welfare of any kind). My exception to that is the criminal invaders who are already here. They have already expressed their contempt for our national sovereignty by violating our borders and laws and should never, ever be eligible for legal residency.
Are you unintelligent, purposely obtuse, or simply a troll?
Why should I explain that which is patently obvious? Of course that is what socialism is.
I am finding it more and more likely that you are being obtuse on purpose. I am becoming more and more suspicious of your true motivations in being here.
If the guy started posting about Bush-era layoffs, or one single word about light rail, I would come to the conclusion it IS Willie Green as a retread.
Your response: Nonsense.
2nd post, I said: Please explain how Socialism (what we have now - ex. Obamacare) is not A (the government) saying they want to help B (the uninsured) by forcing money from C (you and I)?
Your response: Are you unintelligent, purposely obtuse, or simply a troll? Why should I explain that which is patently obvious? Of course that is what socialism is.
It seems you would argue with me about 2+2=4. Sorry I bothered you.
Trust that.
It seems you would argue with me about 2+2=4. Sorry I bothered you.
No, but I would argue with you when you claim that some of the arguments against Amnesty (that have been proposed on this thread) are socialist.
That's 'trolling', frankly.
I will repeat a portion of a post that you have conveniently ignored:
So when people scream about "we can't afford" these immigrants, they are arguing that the government entitlements are being spread too thin.
More utter and unmitigated garbage. In no way have I seen anyone say anything of the sort, that government entitlements would be spread 'too thin'. In fact, the argument 'we cannot afford them' is one that can be made without any prediliction to, or endorsement of, entitlements.
Example: I receive no entitlements. I have decided I cannot afford a new car. I am in no way stating that I wish to receive entitlements, or that I endorse them, by stating the financial fact I cannot afford a car.
Your primary premise -- that one would favor 'socialism' by correctly stating we cannot afford new government-dependent citizens, simply does not stand on it's merits -- as I demonstrated, by analogy, above. It is sheer and unreserved balderdash.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.