Posted on 07/03/2013 5:02:09 PM PDT by markomalley
Conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh said on Tuesday that it was "quite telling" that Fox News did not want him to talk at length about his opposition to comprehensive immigration reform during his appearance on Fox and Friends.
"Now I told the people at Fox that I wanted to talk about this today three or four times and they wouldn't do it," Limbaugh said on his show after his appearance. "They were not interested in bringing this subject up. I wanted to talk about this in relationship to the current state of the Republican party and they wouldn't do it."
Limbaugh said he "had to bring it up myself to whatever extent I did, and that by the way, is quite telling to me."
Limbaugh did indeed manage to get in some comments about immigration on the show, saying, "Republicans are sitting around twiddling their thumbs worried about immigration and whether the Hispanics like them or not and being skunked on issue after issue after issue."
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Cut off welfare and ability to work illegally they will go home.
So when people scream about "we can't afford" these immigrants, they are arguing that the government entitlements are being spread too thin. "We can't afford them" is certainly not a free-market capitalist argument. In a free society, the more the merrier, only it's up to you what you make of yourself - no one else is responsible for you except you - and that's the way it should be. We are a nation of immigrants and we have been a strong and good nation, not because of government or entitlements but becasue people have been free to live there own lives.
But socialism pits person against person, as here, becasue they've become dependent on a government who's only resources are your own money - so the more people that come in, the more money you lose. That is NOT how a free society operates.
A lot of their illegal work is actually helping us becasue they’re the only ones willing to work the menial tasks below the unjust minimum wage laws thereby keeping our prices down.
You are full of crap. People like just flat nauseate me. You cannot discuss with them because they are obtuse and live in a socialist panacea. Are you a Methodist?
That is a failed model. The rise in wages would more than offset the cost of welfare programs and the personal and property damages cost as a result of their uninsured status. Not to mention the dropping crime rate.
Are you denying they are working for below minimum wage or are you denying that their lower wages translate into lower prices for us? If neither, what are you raging about?
First it is not rage it is sanity and a definite end of patience for all you one world promoters. It is like trying to tell a 2 year old the logic behind not crapping your pants. They just don’t get it.
The illegals working here in the housing construction business make $10+ a hr, much better than minimum wage. The ones that do work for under minimum wage do cost us more as a society in welfare/entitlement services than we save in goods costs. There is a whole network of under ground businesses in the mexican areas that are cash only and never pay any taxes but by George they are in line at the ER every time one is hurt or sick.
Plus, I have a BIG problem with people that come here and have no intention of assimilating and becoming a US citizen. By their own admission they have no interest in becoming citizens they just want the benefits. You want to give people the vote who have no vested interest in our success as a country or respect for our constitution since the spit on it everyday.
We have enough problems combating crimes committed by US citizens we don’t need to extra burden of dealing with crimes committed by people who by law are illegally here to start with. Don’t even get started on the whole drug gang issues.
I submit to you that government is behind pretty much all the problems you mention.
The lack of enforcing immigration laws on invading hordes is #1 on that list.
>>Conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh
Conservative talk radio host?
|
Spouse(s):
|
Roxy Maxine McNeely (19771980, div.) Michelle Sixta (19831990, div.) Marta Fitzgerald (19942004, div.) Kathryn Rogers (2010pres) |
---|
Elton John, reportedly paid $1 million, performed at their wedding reception held at the Breakers Hotel. Guests at their reception included Karl Rove, Sean Hannity, James Carville, Mary Matalin, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, and Tom Watson. On June 4, 2010, the Breakers Hotel was also the location for the rehearsal dinner luau Rush and Kathryn hosted for 400 guests. Rush has photos of their wedding available on his Facebook page. (Note: After clicking on the link, you may have to remove top frame to view photos.)
http://marriage.about.com/od/entertainmen1/p/rushlimbaugh.htm
The Icon of RINO Pop Conservatism who paid 1 million dollars for a homosexual Icon of Pop-rock to entertain the Rats and RINOs at his latest "wedding"...
~that conthervative talk radio host?
NO SURF FOR YOU, LUSH.
Unlike many apparently, I think the ideas and values of freedom are stronger than ideas of tyranny and servitude. I don't think you have to be so afraid of people - the "multitudes in the valley of [in]decision" will vote for their self interest in liberty if, like Reagan said, they are clearly shown their worth, value, and happiness as free individuals.
I'm in favor of border security as I've said from the start. I've also said that it seems to make sense to deport illegals in prison (at least the convicted ones) and some other things that can be done. Deporting 30 million sounds ludicrous and dangerous because it would be another opportunity for Obama to install his much desired police state to make it happen. But let's call what we are saying what it is. And the issue of sharing entitlements is a socialist-based argument.
Hmm.... You are in for a rude awakening illegals will never assimilate. IMO anyone that does not support deporting illegals is supporting the death of this great country and hence a traitor. Good day.
>>illegals will never assimilate.
As long as tribal membership, dialect, and epithelial melatonin density are more important than governance constrained within the purpose of securing the inalienable rights of ALL despite variance in those attributes, that is self-evidently true.
Who ate assimilated the Anasazi?
http://www.google.com/#gs_rn=19&gs_ri=psy-ab&cp=11&gs_id=1b&xhr=t&q=Anasazi+Cannibalism
Where is such a place now that we've fallen and had our private property surrendered to those who have broken in to our home and taken it by adverse possession?
Do you leave your home unlocked and let any and all come in and make themselves at home, calling yours, theirs?
I think not. You're the "Do as I say, not as I do" party, right? That seems more accurate for those who speak as you do.
Your socialism is unwelcome here. Marx has given the world evil and you embrace it? The stench of death is unbearable.
Please explain how you construe what I’ve said as Socialism.
Sorry, pal, yes unlike you I’m able to make my own opinions without being “brainwashed” by your coward hero LIMBO!!!
You ever heard the name James David Manning. What is DU, btw???
Bump. What you said, exactly.
In case you didn't see this post...
Socialism is force cloaked in "compassion." It's a wolf in sheep's clothing. It's A saying he wants to "help" (entitle) B but only by using C's money which A must take by force and only after A skims off the top for himself (B may never actually see any of that money). If you're blind, all you see is A entitling B. If you have your head screwed on straight, you see A is actually living off of C's money while making B dependent on A (like a drug dealer).
So when people scream about "we can't afford" these immigrants, they are arguing that the government entitlements are being spread too thin. "We can't afford them" is certainly not a free-market capitalist argument. In a free society, the more the merrier, only it's up to you what you make of yourself - no one else is responsible for you except you - and that's the way it should be. We are a nation of immigrants and we have been a strong and good nation, not because of government or entitlements but because people have been free to live their own lives.
But socialism pits person against person, as here, because they've become dependent on a government whose only resources are your own money - so the more people that come in, the more money you lose. That is NOT how a free society operates.
Nonsense. This definition and all the subsequent text following it would also describe Fascism, Corporatism, Communism, and even Nazism.
You desperately need education on what socialism is. I will start with a dictionary definition:|
Definition of SOCIALISM
- : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.
- a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state- : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
So when people scream about "we can't afford" these immigrants, they are arguing that the government entitlements are being spread too thin.
More utter and unmitigated garbage. In no way have I seen anyone say anything of the sort, that government entitlements would be spread 'too thin'. In fact, the argument 'we cannot afford them' is one that can be made without any prediliction to, or endorsement of, entitlements.
Example: I receive no entitlements. I have decided I cannot afford a new car. I am in no way stating that I wish to receive entitlements, or that I endorse them, by stating the financial fact I cannot afford a car.
Your primary premise -- that one would favor 'socialism' by correctly stating we cannot afford new government-dependent citizens, simply does not stand on it's merits -- as I demonstrated, by analogy, above. It is sheer and unreserved balderdash.
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.