Posted on 11/10/2014 2:21:34 PM PST by SeekAndFind
RE: Do your own search, it’ll knock your socks off, you’ll see just how wrong you are. I have no desire to do the work of someone who isn’t interested in the truth.
_______________________________________
Here is what I posted above:
Sarah Palin on immigration:
http://www.ontheissues.org/sarah_palin.htm
Supports a path to citizenship, but no amnesty for illegals. (Oct 2008)
And your response is that I have not been paying attention since 2008.
Well, here is one of her latest responses circa July 2013 [with my comments in brackets]:
EXCERPT:
Do you then favor an amnesty for the 12 or 13 million undocumented immigrants?” asked Ramos.
“No, I do not. I do not. Not total amnesty,” said Palin. “You know, people have got to follow the rules. They’ve got to follow the bar, and we have got to make sure that there is equal opportunity and those who are here legally should be first in line for services being provided and those opportunities that this great country provides.”
[And how is this different from what she said in 2008 as I posted it? SHE’s AGAINST AMNESTY BUT SHE QUALIFIES IT WITH “NOT TOTAL AMNESTY”, which seems to imply that there is some path to citizenship she is open to ]
“To clarify,” said Ramos, “so you support a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants?”
“I do because I understand why people would want to be in America. To seek the safety and prosperity, the opportunities, the health that is here. It is so important that yes, people follow the rules so that people can be treated equally and fairly in this country.”
[SO, SHE IS AGAINST AMNESTY BUT SUPPORTS A PATH TO CITIZENSHIP. SHE SAID SO JUST A YEAR AGO. HOW IS THAT DIFFERENT FROM WHAT I POSTED ON WHAT SHE SAID IN 2008? NOTHING DIFFERENT. YOU’RE MAKING MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING. ]
As of this writing, all I can conclude are the following:
1) She’a against amnesty
2) But she supports a path to citizenship.
No different from what she said in 2008.
Unless of course, she changes her mind again...
What guv didn’t? But she’s repealed it: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/common-core-repeal-oklahoma-mary-fallin-107499.html.
Palin’s come around on amnesty, but Gov. Fallin has the best record on it.
Walker is not only pro-amnesty with eventual citizenship, but he’s for making it legal for”every Mexican (and anyone from anywhere else) who wants to” to come here legally—so there won’t be any need for them to ome illegally.
Oh, and dairy farmers in WI (and elsewhere) could simply pay market wages or automate: there’s nothing special about dairy farming that needs to be done by illegals.
Yes, anyone who read that Scott Walker immigration article needs to understand that was written by a lefty trying to weaken Walker. Basically every single archival news story done by a wisconsin paper the past four years tried to weaken Walker. Either make his base get discouraged or rile up independents or the left to go against him.
The immigration issues looks like it might have a direction anyways within the next couple months. If Obama declares amnesty, all the GOP will need to oppose it anyways. It is a winning political issue now for the GOP. Hopefully ALL of them realize it.
Prove it you arrogant nitwit. I know you can’t - the last five times you’ve posted the same link to the same commie writer’s blog - an avowed marxist. You must have a wooden head.
I’ve posted to articles in the Washington Post, The Hill, WI’s major newspaper, Breitbart, etc., that directly quote Scott Walker, as well as a video link to him speaking on the subject directly. You’re the one who bizarrely and disingenuously claims that such sources somehow aren’t accurately reflecting his position because of their ‘bias’.
thanks for the update, I had not heard or don’t recall hearing. :)
“[Walker] talked both sides of the issue [borders] in a smart way so nobody can pigeon-hole him.”
Great, so he’s a Romney without guiding principals, also.
Yuck.
This article is so disjointed, clearly a cherry picking lib commenter trying to impress us with their "Palin is confused and stupid" mantra.
As you are......
You obviously searched a loooong time to impress us with this devoid of source quoting from this unsourced, totally contrary to what she's been saying commentator. If this was true, you'd show us the interview. But you know it's NOT true, since you saw the stuff she's been saying since 2008, yet you post this as if it's representative. Here's a quote for you to chew on, it's from Breitbart about three weeks before he died:
"Liberals who attacked Sarah Palin were just a pack of animals. (So called) Conservatives who joined in were simply animals with no souls.
So which are you?
Walker will be on the 2016 ticket, either at the top or as the VP. The fact that he’s won three elections in four years in a Democratic state proves he’s battle tested and formidable. Cruz/Walker would be my choice. Aside from Christie, Romney, and Bush, the GOP has a deep bench of presidential candidates compared to the other side. With the Democrats it’s pretty much Hillary or bust! Can you imagine Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden, or Martin O’Malley as the alternatives for the Democrats? Scary!
RE: What utter BS you post.
This article is so disjointed, clearly a cherry picking lib commenter trying to impress us with their “Palin is confused and stupid” mantra.
As you are......
NOPE, the onus is on you to show me that Sarah Palin has changed her mind on the PATH TO CITIZENSHIP issue.
Simply saying the article is BS and disjointed will not do.
She said two things in 2008 and repeated it 5 years later.
1) She is against amnesty
2) Is is for a path to citizenship.
now, please tell me that in 2014 her mind has changed again. Otherwise, I have no choice but to believe the news and link I posted.
You see, I am an open minded person. But you’ll have to convince me first. Attacking me personally ain’t gonna cut it.
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.