Yes, you the fool because you can't send a single byte into cyberspace without resorting to insults.
Posted on 11/27/2011 12:54:59 AM PST by Fred
It's not parsing, it's just reading and hearing what was said. You are (let me make up a word for you since it so enrages you) assparsing (definition: to assume that someone is parsing when they are not, because it fits your personal agenda)
Also you are overlooking Newt's FIRST step.....SECURE THE BORDER.
Which is the usual DC bulls***. For those not addled by a desire to gloss over a candidate who just stepped in such.
Also you are overlooking Newt's FIRST step.....SECURE THE BORDER.
Once again, you demand I ignore the history of Beltway nonsense in this regard. If Newt was serious about securing the border, he would not be coupling it to an amnesty proposal. I shouldn't have to go into all the problems with that. It should be blindingly self-obvious. But apparently you have already been blinded by Newt's alleged brilliance and can't be bothered to think through the problems with his proposal.
Yes, you the fool because you can't send a single byte into cyberspace without resorting to insults.
What should I do? Praise your abuse of the English language?
But then I face the “on the other hand.” He has the best debating skills on the stage (as long as he controls himself.)
I also have a problem with a police force to try to keep the aliens out of this country, when it was our social ( socialist )system which are bringing them here in the first place.
Needles to say no one is going to fix the welfare system because it has become part of America in its travel to socialism.
I truly believe in helping people but this rose garden stuff is ridicules.
So i guess i would have to say if they want to stay and work fine, but no more more welfare, and the same to the young Americans.
So i suppose what i will do is just vote against the one i think is the most socialist.
And i will admit that if an illegal alien comes along and wants to bring America back to what it was meant to be, that is a country governed by a free people and stop socialism they will have my vote, as i can ignore the constitution as good as the lefty socialists can.
Further, it is not the presence of illegal aliens which so offends us but their drawing down the public purse and the likelihood that they will gain the vote and reflexively vote Leftist.
Gingrich's reform on its face does neither of these things. As I pointed out in my very first reply,
"I think I have standing to point out that this letter is not a call for amnesty. It may be a call for a reform which will inevitably lead to amnesty but it is not a call for outright amnesty. There is no call for citizenship for illegals merely because they are here. In fact, there is no call for citizenship for illegals for any reason.(emphasis supplied)
So it is clear from the beginning of this discussion that amnesty is equated with citizenship not with mere legal presence. Second, it is clear from the beginning that this reader at least recognizes the problems with carrying out Gingrich's policy and that it might "inevitably lead to amnesty," i.e. citizenship.
Not incidentally, reform is directly aimed at reducing illegal immigrants' claim on the public purse-they can't stay here unless they can show they will make no such claim. Further, it attempts to address the threat to the party by Hispanics voting as a bloc. I've addressed this in a separate reply.
Therefore I plead innocent to charges of wordsmithing and to charges of naïveté.
The story of American jobs and labor is deeply intertwined with predatory Federal, state and local taxation and regulation....
South Koreans sleep soundly on their border with NORKS because of American Taxpayer dollars and the American GI.
Why can’t Texans, New Mexicans, Arizonans and Californians?....BECAUSE
Illegal immigration is THE KEY to the perpetuation of the status quo in DC......
Predatory tax and regulatory policies-actions that basically serve to perpetuate and grow governments-leave what business is left in the country seeking disposable labor.
Illegal Labor is the Feds out for preserving the status quo regarding Taxes and Regulation. Interestingly, that is WHY the Feds encourage in-state tuition etc for illegals under-the-table -their presence providing disposable labor allows Federal, State and local regulatory and tax excess in the status quo to continue
Immigration is the ultimate litmus test as to the candidates in question commitment to meaningful regulatory and tax reform. If they are wishy-washy on the subject...they have no real intent to disturb the DC status quo...
Real ”leadership” is that which will place Flyover Country’s interest ahead of the Feds....haven’t yet seen anything meaningful anywhere from anybody to indicate that might happen. We have just one more election cycle to make that happen via rule of law. Otherwise its the end of the run for America.
What don't you practice hating the sin instead of the sinner?
Newt Gingrich's 1996 GOPAC Memo--Language: A Key Mechanism of Control
“Newt’s a master of manipulating the language to achieve his ends”
Do you really believe this? If so, vote Newt we need a master in the WH!
For those who constantly whine and go on about amnesty, for get about it.
You are doomed to disappointment. Two of your favorite concepts will never come about.
There will be no fence from sea to sea. It is expensive, impractical and ineffective
Your definition of amnesty is so broad as to be pretty much worthless. All the illegals presently here will never be permanently deported to never return...... it just isn’t going to happen.
The political problem is very large and complex. The simplistic solutions constantly dredged up and put forward are unworkable, inadequate and verge on stupidity. The problem is too large and complex.
Newt and others always preface any thoughts by indicating the first step is to enforce existing laws and secure the border. These statements are always ignored because sanctimony demands no amnesty. The fact that the process demanded is impossible carries no weight. The principle must prevail. No amnesty. All other courses be damned.
Newt brought the question forward just as Cain brought forward the question of taxes. the issue is on the table. There is long and broad discussion. Some refuse to listen and irrationally hold to their sanctimonious positions.
And Newt's and your parsing of amnesty is little different.
I would have more respect for you and Newt if you would just be honest about what is being promoted here. But you won't for political reasons.
That is because we fulsomely praised Ronald Reagan for his ability to communicate with the American people and we despaired so often over George Bush's inability to do so.
Thank God, once again we have a candidate who can communicate.
Of course he is. That's why he's so good in the debates and has a bunch of folks bamboozled. As a master debater and expert in the language, he can argue both sides of an issue with equal intensity. logic, and passion. In the past, he used this technique against the Rats, as indicated in his 1996 memo for up and coming GOP office holders and candidates. Now he's turning it against Conservatives to try and sneak through to the nomination.
All of the posts on this thread and others touting his 10 point plan are predicated on the assumption that Newt means what he says.
Unfortunately, he doesn't.
I normally have much respect for your posts, which is why I’m saddened by your obfuscation regarding the semantics of amnesty.
NO ONE SUPPORTING AMNESTY during Bush’s CIR used that word, and they ALL denied that was the intent. It was the intent, and that is why we here at FR, and the American people as a whole, opposed and defeated it.
To say now that Newt supporting CIR isn’t a support of amnesty because he didn’t actually use the word amnesty is playing a game of twister with reality to justify your support of Gingrich.
Support Newt in spite of amnesty if you like, but his position on the issue is clear, and bandied with yet another insult to conservatives: how inhumane we are to demand respect for the rule of law.
If nominated or elected, Newt will not respect the conservative position on enforcing our immigration laws. He doesn’t respect our position now.
Do you think it makes your argument more cogent?
Does it compensate for insecurity?
Are you just naturally arrogant?
I go back to calling you a fool.
This from the guy trying to sell amnesty as something else.
Trying to change the meaning of words is the height of arrogance.
Bub.
It started off with my pointing out that Gingrich's participation in the group letter might be a policy which could be criticized as "inevitably leading to amnesty," but it was not a call for amnesty because it was not a call for granting citizenship.
Now, you and other posters are accusing me of twisting words when it is the original article that did so. I for one in the the very first reply pointed out that Gingrich can be criticized for setting us up for amnesty but not for endorsing it. That remains true.
In reply after reply posters have stated what they assumed to be Gingrich's motivation without the slightest support for their allegations and even when those allegations are directly contradicted by the express language of Gingrich's solutions page which I have quoted in this thread. It is remarkable indeed how these judgments are made on the basis of one's handicapping of the horse race.
Incidentally, in the very first reply I made a full disclosure that I had previously supported Gingrich. How many other FReepers have done the equivalent on this thread? I also expressed my dismay over his immigration policies. Yet the ironies go on.
There should be a path to permanent citizenship.......but that path should begin back in Mexico.
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.