"Everyone here on free republic also supports immigration reform."
All it took was the one declaration by a member that they didn't support "immigration reform" to prove your statement false. There were scores if not hundreds of others but just didn't happen to see your post.
So you attack me as being obtuse for correcting your false statement. Nice.
Here's a few synonyms for obtuse to describe your insulting post back to me being as that's the way you want to play.
Your comments were tactless, insensitive; blind, imperceptive, unobservant; gauche, and boorish
I don't make personal attacks when I am corrected, but do sometimes counter them when they are misapplied to me.
Everyone offered an immigration reform plan who was running last year
"Everyone" at FR did not run last year, you disprove your first statement with that one.
In fact, most if not all of those plans were "comprehensive" and most FR members did not support them
If I were the type of person to make insulting personal attacks, I guess I could call you a "mouth" breather with a "pretty poor" memory.
But I won't because you appear to be a fairly intelligent guy who just went a little overboard in your rhetoric.
No, everyone here did support some kind of immigration reform because everyone here is unhappy with the status quo. I think you need the pamplets to explain that 'everyone' used in this sense is not literal. I guess some miserable SOB will say they like the status quo just to make the point that it's not literally 'everyone.'
But it is literally correct that everyone running did have a plan for immigration reform. They were all different. Yet, Romney's and Tancredos were the best of the bunch.
You are the one making the false assumption - that immigration reform necessarily means 'comprehensive' - IE - path to citizenship/amnesty. Tanks didn't and Romney's didn't.