Posted on 11/07/2014 10:28:35 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
from those who think real conservatives vote for liberals it seems
Gross, these 2 are getting more bromantic than Turbin and Kirk.
I was actually searching for a “barf” alert here...;-)
I would be more comfortable if McConnell didn’t...
Rand Paul is not against amnesty, not unless he flipped on that too. It really is difficult to keep with Paul’s positions because he changes them so often.
Both are pushing amnesty. The amnesty Republicans remind me of the mafia. All in bed together.
Well, I’m against amnesty, so he is WAY off my radar! I won’t vote for someone who wants to lower America’s standards to the lowest of the low.
I live in W. Texas. I’m tired of this waffling on illegals!
Predictable since Rand helped McConnell.
Rand Paul has accomplished nothing. Not even a re-election.
Walker signed the right bills. He should stay as governor.
I don’t think it is hard do what he did when he had majority public support.
But when its immigration he changes every month.
bump
http://www.mofopolitics.com/2014/11/05/rand-paul-has-promised-to-help-mitch-mcconnell-pass-amnesty/
MFP has since obtained a copy of the McConnell-Paul talking points that will be used to trick conservatives into supporting amnesty.
Distract Conservatives with Fake
Border Security Talking Points:
Forget about amnesty. Look at all the new border security!
We’re giving you new tanks, fences, and thousands of new lazy union members– err, I mean– “border security officers”.
Doesn’t that sound nice? Forget all this amnesty nonsense and watch some more NASCAR.
You give yourself up with the use of the term "projected construction." You don't need to elaborate, because you cannot. I was in academia a long time ago (2 PhDs). My nose is pretty discerning when it comes to academic (or pseudo-intellectual) bullshit.
Is that why so many PhDs read and have contributed to my books about issues having NOTHING to do with illegal immigration? Is that why so many academics have driven hundreds of miles just to see my work? Who knew?
Well neocon1984, while I do have my doubts that what you say here is even true (and if it is, you should ask for a refund on your education), if after ten years here at FR, you had learned the slightest inkling of how to function here, you would have checked this 'pseudo-intellectual's' FReeper page and article posting history before posting your reply. You would have known that I was not a single issue voter before you posted your crap. So I suggest you burn those degrees because the "educational" process clearly did not teach you the principles of rhetoric, which universally commend starting with a basis in fact.
The distinction you failed to accept is that there ARE single issues in a primary election so important that said candidate demands opposition as "unacceptable." If a candidate for President stated that his intent was to declare himself king, demanded carbon trading, or suggested killing off the aged to save Social Security, Republicans would be right to reject that person no matter how much of the rest of the candidate's program appealed to them. By the criterion you applied above, you would call them "single-issue voters" but that is not what it is. There are simply positions that are unacceptable in a candidate for GOP nomination when superior alternatives obviously exist.
Amnesty for (eventually) over ten million illegals would be so destructive to this country (and especially the Republican Party and the working poor) that it rises to that level, ESPECIALLY for a candidate for the Republican Presidential nomination. There is no possibility that a Republican amnesty bill under Obama's duress buys them anything politically while resistance might in fact gain them support from said working poor, traditionally a Democrat demographic. Consider Dave Brat's success, this without ANY GOP support. That is what I am talking about. The status quo is preferable to an amnesty.
Worse, for you to stress unity with regard to candidates at this early point in the selection process is simply stupid, because it allows weaker candidates to dilute the field for a longer period of time. It is to pretend that there is no purpose to the democratic attributes of a primary process in representative government. The whole point of a primary process is to sort differences with which to develop a candidate both capable of winning and most likely to advance a conservative agenda. Now, why would you discount that?
For you to make such a shallow and flippant "single issue" conclusion along with that bogus "100%" straw man, when evidence to the contrary was so easily available, shows that YOU are the single-issue guy here (hence the charge of projection). Your obsessive 'single issue' is apparently "party unity" (and I have confirmed that by searching your posting record). You apparently believe that conservatives should "fall in line" with the GOPe, heeding those with "more knowledge," people like you, those who believe their credentials entitle their subjectively-defined cohort to call the shots (a cohort that, amusingly, virtually always includes them). In that respect you are no different than a typical power-mad liberal, which fits your having touted your educational credentials instead of making a cogent and supported argument.
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.