1) The story says the 'GOP should pass...' It's intellectually dishonest to suggest that he is talking about a plan that would gain muster with the Democrats in Congress rather than interpreting that as 'try and pass' because - as someone else pointed out, the GOP can't pass anything. So if you continued along your line of reasoning, you would suggest that Romney must be insane - since he is suggesting the GOP pass something. So either you think Romney is insane - or you have to say he means 'they try to pass.'
2) You are reading and quoting from an indirect source in a paper run by The New Times company. You never get the full quote. If you read the full quote in the source - you will agree with me that your interpretations so far are incorrect.
The problem is you can't read the full source because the link in the Boston Globe doesn't go to the actual story - it just goes to thehill.com. That means you have to do some work. Which I've done for you (you're welcome).
The full quote is here - and it's clear he's not talking about any kind of amnesty:
Romney believes that one way to attract more minorities to the GOP is to [try to] pass immigration reform before the next election, saying the issue becomes demagogued by both parties on the campaign trail.
“We have a natural affinity with Hispanic-American voters, Asian-American voters,” he said.
Speaking in his Ritz-Carlton room with a pair of blue jeans on the dresser, Romney declined to criticize immigration hard-liners like former Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.), who backed Romney after he dropped his own presidential bid. Romney argued that all 2008 GOP candidates — including Tancredo — strongly favor legal immigration.
I realize you guys went into full battle mode when Palin couldn't name any publications she ever read. And that is fair and I think the media took that quote out of context. It's disappointing to see some of you guys doing the same thing to Romney.
And let me remind you of something else. At CPAC, an event where non-anonymous Conservatives show up and use their real names - not internet phony names they can hide behind - a plurality of them cast votes in their straw poll for Mitt Romney. And I'll tell you another thing - unlike years passed when campaigns would bus folks in and pay their CPAC registration to vote, no campaigns did this.
So how about holding your fire until you have all the facts and not treating your allies the way you treat your enemies?
As for the call for my credentials, I responded to that initially in the previous post.
I voted for Romney in the primary (not that it has anything to do with the discussion.)
There are more than "two problems" here, none caused by what you posted, IMO.
The problem as I see it is that you continue to not be responsive to what people post, instead imposing your own words and biases on others and misrepresenting their opinions or questions. Take your post, for example. You seem to be responding to post #222 by sickoflibs, but you don't bother to ping him or to address anything he wrote (and this is about the third time I have seen you do this). You continue on with all sorts of unsupported assertions (addressed to the anonymous "you") that do not resemble what was posted ("You are reading and quoting... ", "You never... ", "The problem is you can't read... ", "if you continued along your line... ", "And I'll tell you another thing..." etc).
If you want to have a discussion, you need to start by actually reading and absorbing what the poster is saying, not just launch a tirade against the anonymous "YOU," attributing things to your perceived antagonist that they did not say nor believe.
JMHO