Free Republic

Good post! Because conservatives sure aren’t going to stick together.

When they're coming for Rush, this "conservative" website has serious problems.

The conservative movement cannot disqualify smart people based on whether they're sufficiently committed to banning entire religious groups or growing the government to streamline deportations -and I happen to agree with both of those ideas.

By the way, the FR moderator moved this thread to chat just as soon as he didn't like the way the conversation was going.

Seabuiscuit was considered an unlikely winner because he "ran like an eggbeater." Providentially, he was unaware of that assessment and what it meant.

Seabiscuit was engaged in a one-one horserace. Ted Cruz is someone that a majority of voters have made their mind about, that they will never consider voting for him under any circumstances.

He may indeed change some minds along the way. Thus far, he hasn't done enough to convince me that he can do so.

I do think Rubio is more conservative than most of us give him credit for. That said for many conservatives immigration is more important than other issues, making weakness on it a more unforgivable crime than say being willing to fund some random social welfare program. I do disagree with Rush though when it comes to the Establishment. Rubio may or may not be a full fledged member of it, but I think of the top four candidates he’s the one most likely to do what they want.

What confuses me is the utter hatred I see for Rubio on this website. Did he make a mistake trying to find common ground on immigration reform? Yes, and he has admitted it. As much as I admire Carson, I have to admit that his candidacy is unrealistic at this point. Too many hills for him to climb over.

The other two remaining viable candidates have also reversed serious mistakes on immigration. Only Rubio gets held accountable. Of the three candidates, in terms of what a president can actually DO (as opposed to campaign grandstanding), their current immigration policies are essentially the same.

As I have said, I have serious problems with Rubio. He's not my candidate. But I still believe that we should be at a stage where it is beneficial to hear the ideas of more than on or two guys. The reaction that I see to Rubio stinks of closed-minded tribalism.

I am a ONE issue voter this time around, CLOSE THE DAMN BORDER!!!If we end up with Rubio I will sit this one out!!!!

Say, have you read Rubio's platform on border security?

Perhaps you should, just in case he wins the nomination.

In a two party election, any failure to vote for the least undesirable candidate is mathematically equivalent to a vote for the most undesirable candidate.

Rubio was wrong on Amnesty but right on many other issues more or just as important to me. That's why I'm for Cruz.

I would have made Cruz my pick a long time ago, if it weren't for two issues:

I strongly disagree with his stance on the NSA -which, to borrow a popular term on this thread, positively reeks of opportunism.

and Of the three remaining viable Republican candidates Cruz is the one who does not have me convinced he can win.

I posted this to "EDITORIAL" because that is the best description for this post, and that's where Limbaugh transcripts typically get posted to FR.

You moved it to "FRONTPAGE," and I agreed with that because, frankly, what could be more "Front Page" news for this website than Rush Limbaugh sticking up for a candidate like Marco Rubio.

You have now removed it from there and also from "NEWS/CURRENT EVENTS" (where Limbaugh threads are also typically to be found) and I wonder whether you are overstepping your bounds and editorializing content on this site, rather than policing offenders and removing frivolous content.

So what gives?

Would you prefer to bury this thread so that FReepers can not read it for themselves and make up their own minds?

Last time I checked, the GOP Establishment candidate was spending tens of millions of dollars attacking Rubio -and getting nowhere for it.

I am with Rush 1000% on this. None of the three remaining viable candidates is "pure" or "perfect."

Rubio has made some mistakes? So have Trump and Cruz.

I have big problems with all three of them, and I haven't made up my mind yet.

But the point is, as Hannity has also been saying for weeks now, I can live with any of the three, as long as Hillary Clinton is not our next president.

Just another way for Grand Cayman to make some money. Fair game. All island nations do that at one time or another. Nothing to see here. It can happen and has happened to small yachts as well.

My issue is certainly not with the Caymans offering tax breaks to attract business. I'm a conservative.

My issue is with liberal hypocrites like Allen preaching income inequality and higher taxes and then jumping on every tax break they can find.

and these nuts welcome more of this crap. Once they become more then those people , mostly women might wake the hell up to see how these scumbags treat them

On a larger scale, I'm afraid that a devastating terrorist attack that dwarfs 9/11 is ultimately what it will take to get out own country out of the use of force malaise that makes us feel good about ourselves as a people, but does nothing to accomplish military objectives.

Depends on the owner's skill -and his wallet.

The 290ft Maltese Falcon, built by venture capitalist Tom Perkins can supposedly be rigged for solo.

Registered in the Caymans, of course.

Tiger Woods' modest home away from home...

Very popular at the World Trade Center Marina.

"

That is the civil ensign of the Grand Cayman Islands.

Also known as the "Red Duster," it flies over 50% of the world's superyacht fleet.

Interesting that the same guy who has said that Americans "Need to come to grips with the notion" that we all need to pay more taxes registered his yacht in the Cayman Islands.

Just saying.

The Tatoosh in calm water.