Posted on 10/24/2004 6:37:09 AM PDT by Prospero
With 10 days to go, GOP candidates in N.C. races broach subject to win votes in a bid that could backfire.
Republicans working on behalf of U.S. Senate candidate Richard Burr and gubernatorial candidate Patrick Ballantine are saying on TV, radio and the campaign trail that their Democratic opponents have not done enough to curtail illegal immigration.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsobserver.com ...
Nonsense.
National Security is a serious issue to be discussed among adults.
Your adolescent scheme to avoid responsibility and CYA with a boogeyman is inexcusable.
I doubt anyone believes Kerry would solve the immigration mess either --- it's kind of a neutral issue as far as Bush and Kerry. It's not like people would run out and vote for Kerry thinking he will have some kind of solution or get tough on the Mexican government.
Also if you drove around the high immigrant neighborhoods along the border, you'd see that open borders isn't going to help Bush --- the former PRI party voters aren't going to switch to being Republicans just because they entered the USA illegally.
There's an election underway. Conversation about issues is ended. Positions are in place. It's now about tactics and turnout. You know each of these items is true.
The future of the nation depends on this election and the Supreme Court Justice nominations to be made.
The future of your privately owned firearms is at stake.
The future of your hard earned dollars is at stake.
Choose. Kerry or not. There is no other choice. Period. Full stop. Do you want him in the WH or not. Choose.
Lax border security and regulation not only facilitates terrorist infiltration, it has also directly contributed to American deaths with the importation of disease contaminated foods.
U.S. green onion hepatitis linked to Mexico-FDA (Free Trade)
Sales of Mexican Green Onions Plummet After U.S. Hepatitis Outbreak Traced to Northwestern Mexico
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!!! The Republicans have been in charge for the last four years and illegal immigration is at an all time high.
No sh*t.
Both Republicrat candidates are avoiding substantive discussion of issues like the plague.
All the more reason to vote "none of the above".
>
There's an election underway. Conversation about issues is ended.
No sh*t.
Both Republicrat candidates are avoiding substantive discussion of issues like the plague.
All the more reason to vote "none of the above".
>
Well, you're in Nevada so you matter a tad. If I didn't know that, I would not be paying my own travel to Reno next weekend to work the phones for the campaign, where I volunteered two weeks ago. Cheap airfare from Utah. No big deal.
You know, the reason this issue wasn't embraced by either side is pretty clear. It's because focus groups could not make clear what was the winning position. More specifically, what was the winning position in battlegrounds of the midwest.
Bush took a position and Kerry didn't. That's pretty much that.
I know little of the details of the issue. I suppose "close the borders and defend them" involves automatic weapons. Is there a presumption that troops are to mow them down as they approach? Or what does a big fence that long cost and will conservatives complain about furthering the deficit? What is the proposed mechanism on all this?
Public opinion surveys consistantly show that Americans overwelmingly support stricter border controls.
Entrenched Republicrat politicians arrogantly ignore this fact to pander to their more extremist factions.
"The 'Rats want open borders to expand their base of "oppressed" minorities."
There was an article which came out a couple weeks ago. Basically, Mexico's largest export is poverty. There are stories coming out in the mass media about how the nation's "poverty problem" hasn't gotten any better and is in fact getting worse.
But the fact is, most of this nation's poverty hasn't been here all that long.
It's just ironic that the liberals claim that we have a poverty problem when they support policies which import more of it.
It's even more ironic when RINOs go along with it.
When losing a debate, feign ignorance and imply that your opponent has "unreasonable" proposals.
I suppose "close the borders and defend them" involves automatic weapons. Is there a presumption that troops are to mow them down as they approach? Or what does a big fence that long cost and will conservatives complain about furthering the deficit? What is the proposed mechanism on all this?
As potential terrorists and drug smugglers can be presumed to be armed and dangerous, yes it is necessary that those who patrol and defend our borders be armed. Do you have a problem with that?
Fences and walls already exist where necessary in the more densely populated urban areas along our border. In the more remote areas, the terrain is naturally inhospitable to travel. Walls and fences are less necessary. Tightened security would be more economicly facilitated by increased surveillance: motion sensors, remotely operated drones, etc. Border control personnel could then be dispatched more quickly to the necessary location.
Or what does a big fence that long cost and will conservatives complain about furthering the deficit?
Only Dems and Libertarians complain about deficits, Republicans see the bigger cyclical picture.
Much better... :-)
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.