Posted on 09/05/2007 10:15:05 AM PDT by MittFan08
As Mr. Thompson prepares to announce tomorrow that he will officially seek the Republican nomination for president and voters begin to take a closer look at him, his maverick streak and his voting record will be front and center.
Some votes are likely to draw scrutiny, particularly a series of votes in the 1990s against cracking down on illegal aliens. Those include a 1995 vote against limiting services other than emergency care and public education to illegal aliens he was one of just six senators to oppose that proposal and a 1996 vote against creating an employer verification system to help businesses filter out illegal aliens who apply for jobs.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Well, of course, different people have different priorities. I see tort reform, corporate taxation, and the marriage amendment as far more important to me than whether or not your average American can go out and buy a semiautomatic assault rifle.
So in that sense, I see Thompson as far from the ideal candidate for America’s future.
Or this federalism ruse could just be a front put up by Thompson to deflect criticism on a crappy vote.
And frankly, he’s put up more than a few crappy votes in his term representing the people of my state.
Too many people don't make the connections between all your individual rights and responsibilities and the right to own arms. Your right to defend life is paramount above all others. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." In particular, the phrase about "Life, Liberty".
Corporate taxation, don't you mean people are the only ones who pay taxes. Corporations just collect taxes.
Tort reform should be placed above national healthcare, call it national legal care and limit the salaries of attorneys.
Neither is building a wall.
I simply don't have a problem with the feds saying public services can't be used for illegals. If you prefer, we can limit it to those public services where federal money is used at all in the provision of those services. (And lets face it, there are few if any local public services that don't use some federal money.)
Maybe the answer is to let the states do what they want, but those states who choose to provide public services to illegals lose all their federal funding. How about that?
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.