Posted on 05/24/2007 12:02:11 AM PDT by familyop
Don't assume that FR is single issue body. FR pushes for conservative values.
I agree with everything Fred said here. And on top of that, he’s not a foppish nancy boy like Romney :-P
The immigration debate is roaring again, and we're happy to join the fun. One place to start is a myth that has become a key talking point among restrictionists on the right--to wit, that immigrants come to the U.S. for a life of ease on the public dole.
I don't even get that worked up about this issue, but one thing I find maddening is the way the pro-illegal crowd conflates immigration and illegal immigration. It's dirty tactics.
Personally I would not vote for anyone as President that I thought would “honor the will of the people.” By that rule Bush should already be pulling out of Iraq.
We need leaders who will do what leaders are supposed to do. I a word, lead. I don’t know if I will always agree with Fred Thompson, but he does strike me as a true leader, and one who will not always bend to the political whims of a majority. I think he will lead from a conservative point of view, and that is exactly what I want.
I’ll wait to hear it from Fred. Nobody is going to be perfect to everyone but I think Fred is going to be our best shot.
Actually, Mr. Thompson’s position may be more “restrictionist” than this author realizes.
Although each year, a large number of immigrants enter our country illegally, it’s equally true that each year, a large number of them leave voluntarily. The current problem is that more enter than leave.
Mr. Thompson’s approach starts with shutting down the border, so that new illegal immigrants can’t get in. Combined with the natural outflow of illegal immigrants, this policy would slowly reduce the number of illegal immigrants in this country. Combined with policies that are hostile to illegal immigrants already here, it’s possible that within a relatively short period of time, a large percentage of illegal immigrants would leave on their own. This is certainly what Mr. Thompson envisions:
“On not rounding up illegal immigrants: ‘You know, if you have the right kind of policies, and you’re not encouraging people to come here and encouraging them to stay once they’re here, they’ll go back, many of them, of their own volition,...”
Then, that might be a time to figure out to do with the remaining illegal immigrants.
It’s a lot easier to figure out what to do with, say, five million folks than with 12 million.
Your anti-Fred campaign is quite tiresome.
It’s like the crab in the bottom of the bucket trying to pull back in the one who is succeeding in getting up and out.
Exactly what does “neo-con” mean? It seems to have an ever changing definition, but doesn’t matter because it is really used by libs because they think it sounds like neo-nazi.
Jim REALLY doesn’t like that argument, either.
Not false, just selectively taken in order to portray him in the worst possible light, while ignoring other statements that would counter that impression.
Fred has also made some comments about using internal enforcement to attrit some of those here.
But at the end of the day, anything from full amnesty to full deportation will not work as long as the borders are secure. So Fred's position that we secure the borders first is a vast improvement over the farce currently being debated in the Senate. Is it all of what I would want? No. But it's half of what I want. And we can haggle over what to do with those already here once we address the more critical issue of border security.
You have neo-con figured out? I wish you’d explain it to me. I think I am one, and I don’t know what it means.
It's "code" for Jewish Republican.
Of course, that's what it was originally coined for... now, people just fling it around at any conservative or Republican they don't like, for whatever reason.
"Big time" pro-abort? Have you ever looked at his record? You tout Fred's "record" then have the gall to say that?
What is it again I’m supposed to be seeing here that’s going to scare voters away from Fred Thompson?
It’s pretty clear that Fred’s main opposition from the right is coming from protectionists. Well, if you think that’s a winning issue even within the Republican party, go right ahead. We’ll see you in January.
Suggesting that Fred stands with Giuliani on immigration is absurd, however, and good luck getting anyone to buy it.
Thanks, that explains where Sager is coming from.
Listen here -- Southern Exposure or Read here -- Southern Exposure
Listen -- Comprehensive or Incomprehensible or Read -- Compresive or Incomprensible
Watch -- Pre-9/11 Speech on Terrorism
We now return you to your regularly scheduled Fred bashing thread...
Agree, and understand, but it seems like EACH Freeper has that “single issue” that is a deal breaker, so no candidate is acceptable except the unelectable ones.
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.