Posted on 11/26/2011 8:38:29 AM PST by BarnacleCenturion
WASHINGTON — Newt Gingrich isn’t backing off his “humane” immigration stance despite complaints from Republican hardliners and fellow Presidential hopefuls — he’s embellishing it.
The former House speaker issued “10 Steps to a Legal Nation” this week, expanding on his remarks during Tuesday’s GOP debate
(snip)
Those guilty only of sneaking into the U.S. would have a path “to legality, but not citizenship” similar to the existing naturalization process, plus a penalty fee of at least $5,000.
(Excerpt) Read more at nydailynews.com ...
There is no greater issue than slaughtering innocents. God’s judgment came on those who slew their children, whether to Moloch or in our day Mammon. God’s judgment came on Israel, and they were conquered and exiled from their land.
Theft to provide for one’s family was punished, but judges viewed it in terms of repayment.
Proverbs 6: 30 People do not despise a thief if he steals
to satisfy his hunger when he is starving.
31 Yet if he is caught, he must pay sevenfold,
though it costs him all the wealth of his house.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2812556/posts?page=260#260
My general sentiments (in the above link).
I would vote for Reagan, even if the vote was immediately after that comment...and I gravely disagree with his opinion.
I hope you had a good Thanksgiving, Jim.
In my clearest moments, I don’t even like to view life as an issue. That way it is one issue on a list of issues, and that only serves to give the impression they are in the same discussion as life.
Life is a right. It is the ultimate right. Without life no other rights and no other issues matter. When citizens are convinced the government can arbitrarily define and take innocent life, then that culture is doomed without a major awakening.
Nothing in the remainder of your post that I’d argue with. I agree with all of it, yet I know that we each have different views on HOW to accomplish all those things.
He’s no fool. He figures this pose will give him a centrist image, and then, once he shifts sufficiently leftward, he can pose as “electable” to the GOP, who might then nominate him.
Why can’t he just do as Sara Palin and Rush, and stick to commenting and punditing? He’d make a really good pundit. But noooooooo! Instead he might manage to give Barry a second term.
Has Reagan decomposed so badly that nobody can clone him? How soon can they get a clone of Reagan fully grown and educated? If the answer to the first question is ‘yes,’ or the second question is ‘it’ll take 35 years,’ why not just nominate Cain? Sexual harassment? What? White boy Bill Clinton can act like a pig in office, but a black man’s gotta watch his Ps and Qs? That’s racism!
“such as the warning on a microwave stating that it “should not be used to dry your hair.”
Don’t forget the warning NOT to use the hair dryer while bathing. I just checked my hair dryer and yes, that warning is still on there.
Whew, thank goodness I checked.
I love your tagline.
“No jobs, no welfare, no food stamps, no SSI, no education, no hospital stays, no welfare, no bank accounts, no contracts, no drivers licenses, no social security, no medicare. Prison terms for criminals. They’ll leave as fast as they can.”
Absolutely. When the freebie well goes dry the third world invaders will flee like rats from a sinking ship.
Here’s Ray Stevens’ humorous take on a not so funny situation....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgOHOHKBEqE
btt
What I stated referred to those who are candidates. THAT was the context...
Good post!
Anybody who knows me knows that I’ve fought long and hard here on Free Republic against Romney. Your comment is a prime example of speaking from lack of knowledge. Go to the Romney truth file. Go to the last election.
Go here: A Pledge Never to Vote for Romney: Send a Message to the GOP,
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2777323/posts
Gingrich is a conservative. Romney is not.
Gingrich is pro-God, pro-Life, pro-Gun, pro-America, pro-strong, active defense, pro-military, pro-natural marriage and family, pro-fiscal solvency and sanity, pro-security, pro-American exceptionalism, pro-sound money, pro-personal responsibility, pro-capitalism, pro-individual effort,...
I could go on and on.
I would say the same about Perry, Bachmann, Santorum.
I would have to withhold the pro-life label from Cain because I’m not sure where that fuzzy stand of his on life comes down. “Against abortion but if you really got to then go ahead and illegally kill the baby.”
That is weird and impossible to classify.
Thanks. Got it from the man himself! I kept “rewinding” as I was writing down the words to be sure I got it tight.
I know, nerdy. =)
‘I would have to withhold the pro-life label from Cain because I’m not sure where that fuzzy stand of his on life comes down. “Against abortion but if you really got to then go ahead and illegally kill the baby.”
That is weird and impossible to classify.’
Since you put quotes around the ‘quote’, you need a citation. Please provide a link to the exact quote you cited. Thank you.
Well I had never seen or heard it before, but reading it reminded me of what makes Cain such a different kind of candidate—the exact one we need for this make-or-break point in our nation’s history.
Thanks.
Actually not. Quotes are also put around peculiar usages and ironies.
However, go to Cain’s interview about abortion a few weeks back.
See the Hill’s: “Cain: Abortion should be illegal, but families will decide whether to break the law in ‘heat of the moment’”
It’s patently dishonest to put a quote like that in your post, implying Cain said it, when he said nothing of the kind. Is that your idea of following the Golden Rule: smearing a person w words attributed to them that they never said?
As to the interview, you’ve been taking Cain’s words out of context ever since he said them. Dozens of FReepers have pointed this out to you. It’s flat out dishonest. You should be ashamed.
The government doesn’t enforce the laws we have NOW... why should we trust them in the future?
Sure wish these politicians had some compassion and treat American taxpayers with some humanity.
I’d gladly vote for Cain, Bachmann, or Santorum. I could hold my nose and vote for Newt. But if it’s Romney, Huntsman, Perry, or Paul, I’m writing in Sarah.
Not so. It is clearly not a quote. And the rules of grammar make enclosing ironies and peculiarities in quotes a rule of the language. Go look it up.
But, you are “defending” your candidate, so I shouldn’t expect reason to be a part of your repertoire.
You implied he said it. That is how the quote comes across. Now you are dancing around behind grammatical technicalities that most people don’t know, have never heard of and will go to the grave unaware of.
You accomplished your purpose. You put words in Cain’s mouth, effectively smearing him. It’s shameful, but to my shock, I’ve come to expect it.
Nice w the insult, too. Very kind, considerate and gracious of you. [Okay, it was none of those things. Insults seem to be the order of the day. I don’t expect them from Christians, but whatever.]
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.