We could talk all day about the mistakes that campaign made concerning Sarah Palin...but at the end of the day I'm gonna have somebody's butt in the bottom of my briefcase.
Posted on 08/09/2009 6:56:23 PM PDT by RebelYell1990
She was against the Bailout and recently forcefully rejected the porkulus and cap and trade bill.
Her latest statement on illegal immigration clearly shows that she is against it.
Or how would you interpret:
"If u dont have legal right to walk down AKn street, why should u have right to drive same street?"
“Same here.”
That very thinking By McQueeg and GW put the Kenyan Clown in office.
(Adopting Homer Simpson voice) "Yum...Hubris...like jelly donuts...yum...donuts..."
Have a good day, SW. I will continue to bob up and down and in and out on the "ocean of reality."
Yeow! Shark! Shark!
So vote for Bambam next go ‘round.
See post 412.
You wouldn’t know the truth if it crawled in bed with you.
Oops, sorry, I missed your point way at the bottom of the superfluous legal info you posted. (We had not been discussing the law prior.)
Here’s what you said: “Federal authorities rounding up illegals at the work force will not only force those not caught to leave the country but punish those harboring illegals with imprisonment, fines and confiscation of property. Dry up the source of income for illegals and they will leave the country. It’s easier to target businesses as there far fewer of them than individual illegal aliens but can effect just as many illegals. Palin’s endorsement of amnesty supports violating federal law.”
We had been discussing the logistics. You, and others, believe that we won’t need to actually round many folks up because once we go to prosecuting them, most will run away. Fair enough. My friend SUSSA makes a better case (on this thread) by using data from 1954. I think it will be much more difficult in 2009 than in 1954. My opinion, his opinion.
Now, as to the new twist you inserted (that Sarah supports violating the law) is silly. Amnesty would be written into the law otherwise it would not be amnesty. You have to prove that the legislature has no constitutional right to pass laws to make such a statement. Or am I still reading you wrong?
Reagan talked about amnesty and guest workers for years. Can't see why he would change his mind after pushing it since at least the mid 70's.
Nice try asswipe.
Sarah with Greta on immigration:
VAN SUSTEREN: Governor, you know, before economics hit us so heavily in the last month or so as a topic, the thing that grabbed people’s attention was illegal immigration. And that was the big problem for a long time. What’s your thought on that? I mean, what’s — how do can we fix the illegal immigration issue in this country?
GOV. SARAH PALIN: We’ve got to secure the borders, and we can’t be considering this broad range of amnesty that some would want. We’ve got to secure the borders and prove to the American people that the federal government is serious about this, and it’s got to be a comprehensive approach to dealing with the immigration challenge that we have — securing the borders, working with our border governors and mayors. They’re there on the front lines, understanding what some of the solutions can be, if only they have an administration who will work with them.
And McCain has a great comprehensive approach that he wants to take to this. It includes dealing humanely, too, with the 12 million or 13 million illegal immigrants that we have today also. But until we secure the borders, I don’t think Americans are even going to believe that we’re serious about fixing some of the problems that are just inherent with this challenge of so many illegal immigrants here.
Now, unfortunately, with McCain’s supporting proposal for this comprehensive approach to fixing problems there, there were about five poison pill amendments provided in the comprehensive approach that McCain wanted. And Barack Obama voted for those poison pills, killed the whole initiative, and we still have the problem that we have today.
Illegal immigration, though, is a perfect example of how these parties had better start working together, the D’s and the R’s, get it together if they’re serious about addressing the problem of illegal immigration. It’s not a Republican or a Democrat problem. It’s all of America’s issue.
Entire interview at link; scroll down to the end, as it’s one of the very last questions Greta asks of her.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,445872,00.html
[Criminals are imprisoned. Illegal aliens are criminals. They need to be imprisoned or shipped back en masse.]
You are a nut job. Nut jobs belong in insane asylums.
Long explained and debunked. Try again.
Spread the word about what? Quite frankly, I've never seen you on here before, especially on the Palin threads, of which I am a regular poster.
Methinks that you are an operative or agitator trying to stir up trouble in favor of some other GOP hack at Sarah Palin's expense, or worse a sleeper lib troll.
Amnesty is not a guest worker program. It is a path to citizenship. Are you suggesting that these will be citizens with different rights than other citizens? Please explain how that will work.
If amnesty for (up to 30 million) illegals passes and becomes law, our national voting demographics will change forever.
Contained within the Kennedy/McCain/Bush amnesty bill was a little known fact buried in legal ease.
Those obtaining citizenship would be allowed to claim the unearned income tax credit.
Those new citizens under the poverty line could get up to $4 thousand back from the federal government when they file, and never have paid one red cent in taxes.
In other words, a huge federal handout to the tune of billions.
This was republicans and democrats trying to pass this thing.
Amen.
Look, Obama is in office because the Republican party lofted a piece of S to run as it’s figurehead.
If two pieces of S are running for office, Obama/McCain, then don’t blame Conservatives for washing their hands of the whole stinking pantload.
Don’t forget the chain immigration that would result. I’m sure you haven’t, but folks need to remember that the 30 million is just the tip of the iceberg. Each of them will then be able to bring family members over. That thirty million just explodes from there.
All the services that would be gobbled up by this occupational force, would severely impact this nation.
I agree in principle, but there are also times when the prudent action is to say 'no'. I believe this would have been one of those times, as John McCain ran a campaign which was anathema to what most conservatives believe.
Look, most folks on FR and most conservatives were never keen on McCain from the get go. However, his nomination of Sarah Palin convinced a lot of conservatives to go vote for the ticket, not so much for McCain, but for Sarah Palin and against 0bama.
I agree with your assessment, but I'm not sure that puts Palin in a better light. Hooking your wagon to McCain's star didn't turn out at all well, did it? The Democrat, who was as weak a candidate as I've ever seen, won. Palin's introduction to the American public was handled badly and jeopardized her political future on the national stage. McCain got more votes than his poor platform deserved, and to a degree, the left-of-conservative Republicans have been energized.
I think it's quite possible, that Sarah Palin had every intention of fighting for conservative causes from within a McCain administration if he they had won.
You may be right, but since the Vice President has only the power the President gives him/her, Palin signed on to boost a weak campaign with a weak candidate, with no guarantee that her opinion would matter at all. I hate to think that she may have sold her own political future for a mess of pottage.
In the end, assuming Palin is as conservative as many say she is, she gave McCain's campaign much more legitimacy than it deserved. This bothers me, because McCain's "success" at the polls (he did come pretty close) seems to have emboldened people like Mitt Romney (who is in no way conservative) to try again, dragging the party to the left. I don't want to see the GOP moving any further to the left, and am dismayed when anyone helps that along, whether it is "on purpose" or is an unintended consequence.
As an example, I remember seeing Sarah Palin on CNBC once in an interview, in which she said she was going to continue to work hard on McCain, about that ANWR drilling, which she was 100% for, but which McCain was 100% against. Sometimes its better to work within an administration even when you don't agree 100% with all the policies, in order to effect change.
When the candidate in question runs so counter to basic conservatism, I think we have to ask ourselves if it is possible for a principled conservative to work with him.
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.