Posted on 04/18/2013 10:15:56 AM PDT by Arm_Bears
Why?
You are right Ron...and in fact, if we only did 1 and 3 - this problem would immediately get MUCH better....and would quickly become a very minor issue.
Outside of this issue....where do you see Rubio straying. I think Rush was talking in context of “not including this issue” - although I admit that’s not what he said.
I”m just telling you what the marco phones were....apparently something the ranchers wanted, because only special phones were in these non populated areas....I was not saying it was a good or a bad thing.
I’ll ask you the same question I asked txrangerette - Do you find insulting people to be an effective way to win them over to your way of thinking?
From a business perspective - Do you find insulting potential buyers to be an effective means of promoting book sales?
That’s the thing though, it would actually FIX the problem.
Politicians don’t exist to fix problems, they need the issue/problem to run on and use as political weapons.
Rubio sounded full of hope that they can be talked in to voting Republican. Ain’t gonna happen ever. Rush tried to point this out to him. Rubio seems naive to me.
Well now that's an interesting comment, and I do not accept your premise, but I'll be polite and respond anyway.
A: the headline of your post was itself insulting to intelligence, and really not necessary at all. B: you were yourself insulting, with the flippant "Limbaugh lovers" comment, as if our opinions were based on an emotion and not fact. C: Thus, I figured you were beyond persuasion, and sharp sarcasm is a very effective means of swaying the uncommitted....
Wish that were true. Rubio was not harmed by Rush, in fact Rush admires this guy. He does point out some of the nonsense in his proposals but he does not assign the blame to Rubio.
OK. How do you pass that?
exactly: rubio = amnesty, limbaugh = national audience
Ron, you are right again. This really is a NON complex problem to solve, simply by doing a few things and letting human nature take its course.
A: secure the border to stop the bleeding.
B: stop the hand outs, to motivate the most damaging of the illegals to leave.
C: deport the illegals as they are already in custody for crimes.
Do those, and in a year, every state is financially much better off than they are now. In 3 years, it’s not even a major issue any more, and there will have been no negative side effects for the rest of the economy. WIN WIN WIN....
OK. Should Americans who live on the border in mountainous regions continue to not have access to cell service preventing them from reporting people illegally crossing the border?
it is bs, and what has us questioning limbaugh’s rationale at this point...
That’s exactly how he sounded on the other talk shows I’ve heard. Very nervous, talking in circles, quickly repeating the same talking points several times in a row, unable to actually defend the bill if directly challenged.
I don’t know.... So many people were (are) complaining about the headline.
Maybe the moderater already changed it from whatever to what is it now.
Which is accurate.
Why not?
Rush was polite but he undercutted all Rubio’s “talking points.”
I have been saying essentially the same thing for a very long time. No need to deport if the bennies dry up. They are only here because we put up with it and give them benefits unlike almost every other country in the world.
Why? Those who don’t understand the bill should stay in the dark. Ignorance is good.
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.