STOP GOING TO ANY GOP OR CANDIDATE FORUM

6 April 2006 | Edcoil

[justshutupandtakeit]

Almost 3300 Illegals are arrested and deported EVERY DAY. About 1,200,000 per year. These are staggering totals.

[BigSkyFreeper]

No, you can just tell me in summary where HR 4437 provides for amnesty in any manner that remotely resembles Reagan's immigration reform.

It doesn't, and just because it became law doesn't mean it will be enforced. Enforcing the law is the problem, not legislating it.

[justshutupandtakeit]

You should have shut up after reaching the age of 100 senility has now overcome you.

[justshutupandtakeit]

You aren't "defending your country" by attacking President Bush you are only weakening it.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Since when did YOU become a Republican or support ANYTHING the GOP does? All I have ever seen out of you are attacks on the President no matter what the topic is.

[BigSkyFreeper]

Me, I defend my country over party any time.

Defending the country by attacking it's leader? Sorry, the Democrats have been doing that for 5 years now, and look what it's gotten them.

[dirtboy]

It doesn't,

So then this statement you made earlier:

Reagan's immigration reform in 1986 was no different than the current House version (HR 4437).

Isn't correct, is it?

and just because it became law doesn't mean it will be enforced. Enforcing the law is the problem, not legislating it.

Creating more laws is still far better than simply dealing with illegal immigration by making the current illegals legal. That just encourages more to come here and wait for the next amnesty.

[BigSkyFreeper]

Creating more laws is still far better than simply dealing with illegal immigration by making the current illegals legal. That just encourages more to come here and wait for the next amnesty.

Well, I have news for you. HR 4473 is dead. So you can forget all that.

[justshutupandtakeit]

You mean to counter the CRACKPOTS pretending to be upset Republicans? The ones who never vote Republican and ALWAYS support some Party of Losers.

The Lovers of Losers start to raise their befuddled heads around election time and spout their nonsense. They then slink back into their holes after another stunning <2% of the vote rolls in.

[dirtboy]

Since when did YOU become a Republican or support ANYTHING the GOP does?

I've defending Bush plenty of times. Iraq. Afghanistan. WOT. Plamegate. Rathergate. Tax cuts. For starters.

However, lately, it's been a lot more difficult to find positives about what the Bush Admin is doing. But like so many GOP types, for you it's all about what I've done for you lately.

All I have ever seen out of you are attacks on the President no matter what the topic is.

Well, I guess you're too busy attacking people to ever read when they support the President when he's right.

[Don'tMessWithTexas]

I do not believe that any politician can "kill" this country. This nation survived alot worse than McCain, Giuliani, et al.

[dirtboy]

Well, I have news for you. HR 4473 is dead. So you can forget all that.

Ah, so the fact that the bill is dead means you don't have to atone for the fact you made a misleading post about it?

Oh, and if HR 4473 is dead, then the Senate compromising positions bill should be DOA as well. Better to have no bill than a compromise one given the circumstances.

[BigSkyFreeper]

Better to have no bill than a compromise one given the circumstances.

Right, so I have no clue why you're bloviating so much over nothing.

[dirtboy]

You aren't "defending your country" by attacking President Bush you are only weakening it.

Even if Bush is pushing an amnesty that the base said they would NEVER accept? Even if amnesty was probably the largest failure of Reagan's otherwise-illustrious tenure? Even if Bush is pushing a proposal that will make the problem of illegal immigration fester and grow worse long after he is gone from office in 2009?

Since when did the GOP join the Democrats in believing that the answer to failure is to do more of what has failed in the past? I used to think we were capable of learning from mistakes. Apparently, Bush and some GOP Senators do not care to learn from Reagan's amnesty.

[Old_Mil]

You mean to counter the CRACKPOTS pretending to be upset Republicans? The ones who never vote Republican and ALWAYS support some Party of Losers.

No, I mean to support candidates that are good for the nation and good for conservatism without regard to their party affiliation.

As a result I could cast a vote with a clear conscience for Zell Miller (D), Tom Tancredo (R), or Michael Peroutka (C). I couldn't cast one for George Bush (RINO), John McCain (Crazy), or Ted Kennedy (Crazier).

Seems to me like the only people who object to this sort of a strategy are people who have something to gain financially by one party remaining in power. Are you such a person?

[dirtboy]

Right, so I have no clue why you're bloviating so much over nothing.

Because if Bush had taken a stance against this pseudo-amnesty, this bill would never have been passed by the Senate - and we still have a chance of some kind of amnesty as a result of conference.

That is the point - with a GOP president and GOP control of both houses, it should have NEVER come to this.

[BigSkyFreeper]

Because if Bush had taken a stance against this pseudo-amnesty, this bill would never have been passed by the Senate

Bush's stance has been known since late 2000. Everyone that has been jumping ship or from 2nd story windows now implies that they haven't been paying a helluva lot of attention for 5 years.

[JennysCool]

I agree with you. Edcoil may not be one, but we have TONS of disruptors lately slipping in under the radar by using this issue as cover, then posting over-the-top garbage to make Free Republic look bad. It happens with almost every volitile issue.

[dirtboy]

Bush's stance has been known since late 2000. Everyone that has been jumping ship or from 2nd story windows now implies that they haven't been paying a helluva lot of attention for 5 years.

Bush was told repeatedly by voters that they were NOT voting for him because of his position on amnesty. It's telling that he is finally pushing for this when he is no longer facing re-election. But he is threatening the electability of many pubbies in 2006 with this.

[BigSkyFreeper]

But he is threatening the electability of many pubbies in 2006 with this.

It's not his fault your sitting on your hands bloviating on a internet forum.