Posted on 05/06/2008 10:01:33 AM PDT by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
I'm sorry, are you calling yourself a conservative? If you think asking people to "tone it down" is a violation of free speech, you're either a liberal or a moron.
I did not tell anyone to shut up, nor will I. Grab a clue.
I had nothing to tone down. I believe it was BobJ that called me a “thug” and accused me of trying to enforce “groupthink” on the people. Now you call me a moron!
You are absolutely attacking free speech through your pathetic attempt at intimidation. What kind of conservative are you when you calling people names and trying to stiffle speech? By the way I agree that you never told anyone to “shutup.” You just implied it.
I think we know what Hernandez’ other job is now!
You have answered your own question.
If drivers’ licenses for illegals were, as you state, “idiotic notions” (in the face of public opinion) when put forth by Hillary and Spitzer, why are they not “idiotic notions” when Michelle puts them forth as a dire, manifest threat along with “not building a fence” when, in reality, the fence is well along to completion?
There are any number of organizations and groups (including plenty of Dems) who also, for one reason or another - including placating their liberal/leftist/radical membership - continue to advocate, in this instance, the very same (idiotic) thing (i.e., licenses), along with tearing down the already completed fence, etc. etc.
They are not going away. And the way to lessen their influence, especially among the young, is to engage them.
.
Thanks for the ping, gubamyster. Interesting discussion on this thread. Thanks for the humor, m_f. :)
Huh??? They remain "idiotic notions" whether they are being actively lobbied for by the pro-illgeal crowd, at any given moment, or not. They patently were a dire, manifest threat, during the period when Cankles and Spitzer were pushing aggressively for same; plainly, then, Michelle was absolutely correct in regarding (and describing) them as such.
Your question as constituted, above, doesn't really make the "sense" you evidently planned for it to make; there's no "there" there, past its unraveling. What else, specifically, are you attempting to say, here...?
along with “not building a fence” when, in reality, the fence is well along to completion?
Asked and answered. "Well along to completion," surely, would have to mean at least 50% accomplished (at barest minimum, mind!), with funding either in hand or else accounted for. Make the case that this is the real, actual state of affairs on the ground at this time, by all means, if you can. I, for one, would genuinely love to hear it; I've always had a weakness for dinner theatre. ;)
No, I said that you must be a liberal or a moron to take that position. Since you object to the latter, I must assume you're comfortable with the former.
You are absolutely attacking free speech through your pathetic attempt at intimidation.
I hope Kent won't mind me borrowing this photo:
Get over yourself, drama queen. Nobody's trying to intimidate you into anything. If you want to keep blathering on and confirming that you're either a troll or a hysterical dimwit, that's up to you, not me.
I’m interested in why neither of you folks have answered my question.
Would you write the same things about McCain appearing at a KKK rally that you’ve written about his appearance at a La Raza rally?
Beauty, post it. We are definitely operating in a target rich environment when it comes to drama queens.
"Eve Harrington. What a heifer." ;)
McCain is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
I haven’t written anything about McCain. But to answer your question (I think), I have a problem with some of McCains positions on immigration, I have some problems with the NCLR’s positions, but I don’t have a problem, yet, with McCain speaking to the group anymore than I would have a problem with him speaking to the NAACP when they advocate stupid things like reparations.
I also understood why McCain is reaching out to hispanics, Bush got 40% of their vote and still won by a hair. A politician MAY win by dismissing the black vote but dismissing the hispanic vote is certain failure.
And it is ALL about politics, something many FReepers just can’t or won’t understand.
BTW - It may be germane to compare the KKK to MeCHa or La Raza Unidos but I think it may be a stretch to compare them to the NCLR. I’ve been th their website, I conducted google searches and to me they seem more a mainstream (in a dem way) outfit along the lines of the NAACP or other racial organizations.
In other words, if McCain is going to reach out to hispanics this is a good an organization to start with as any. Most others are far more left wing/militant than they appear to be.
My question to people on this thread is WHOM they think McCain should meet with if he is trying to build political bridges to the second largest demographic group in the country.
IOW, La Raza’s plaform is aobut the same as Juan’s.
You got me right through the heart with that one. You found me out. I am truly a liberal, a classical one at that.
No one is saying that the other side is better, only that the nominee of the supposed “conservative” party probably should not be IN AGREEMENT WITH THE COMMUNISTS!
In other words, a libertarian. Don’t you already have a party of your own?
The truth is that they do not want McCain nor the GOP to reach out to Hispanic organizations period. They fear that if Hispanics start voting Republican en masse that they will lose their power over the party. What they fail to realize is that politics has already passed them by. They no longer have much influence over the GOP. Such is the fate for those who fail to adapt to changing times.
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.