Posted on 11/01/2007 8:55:33 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
It’s his former stand on illegal immigration. He was pretty pro in the Senate, and said lately that illegals should have be able to have aspiration to citizenship. That is the flipflot I am referring to.
Fred’s on Sean Hannity today!
You love to over complicate things.
You posted:
Yes, quite. ***but it isn’t.
I once had a comment pulled because someone was so thin-skinned they couldn’t handle a funny light-hearted jab from http://www.blogthings.com
So, no, it is not clear.
Talking about somebody being thin skinned yet hit abuse because Jellybean called you scum is what caught my eye..
said lately that illegals should have be able to have aspiration to citizenship
That line is taken out of context -- in the proper context, he points out that such aspirations must fall in line behind the folks who've gone through the proper channels.
The concept is, you’re supposed to be able to say what you want about the CANDIDATES. Well, mostly. JimRob doesn’t like it when a Freeper knocks down a good conservative like Reagan to make a socialist like Tootyfruityrudy look good. But there is a wide degree of latitude when talking about the CANDIDATES. When you call another Freeper a personal insult, it is supposedly frowned upon. But, looking at this thread, those rules do not seem to apply. Sometimes the rules are massaged a little because the PTBs like a certain candidate and allow a lot of leeway for that candidate’s followers, and allow very little leeway for disliked candidate’s followers. That’s just the way things are.
This is a socon forum and I’m pushing a socon candidate. That’s about as simple as I need things to be.
Talking about somebody being thin skinned yet hit abuse because Jellybean called you scum is what caught my eye..
***Have you seen the light-hearted stuff at Blogthings? The difference in magnitude is pretty striking. But, to be clear, I don’t hit the abuse button whenever someone has delivered a personal insult. That happens too much in Free Republic — someone that thin-skinned would be better off baking cookies for a church choir. I hit the abuse button so that I can get the debate back onto the topic, rather than just trading insults. It didn’t work here.
Ditto that. It is one of the most misquoted lines of Thompson’s. The thing about getting to the back of the line, as Thompson proposed is that it does fall under the current law and, unless they have reason reason to apply for asylum, they would not qualify for legal residency because of criminally being here in the past.
>It’s his former stand on illegal immigration. He was pretty pro in the Senate>
>>No, he wasn’t.<<
Check out:
http://profiles.numbersusa.com/improfile.php3?DistSend=TN&VIPID=743
Let’s bring the “thin skinned” and “scum” attacks and other comments of the like down a notch, OK.
The only form of "amnesty" I'd support is to say to those who are here currently illegally that if they 1) go home, and 2) get in the back of the line, then we won't hold their previous illegal entry against them.
Any other offenses would still be in play, and this extremely limited amnesty would only apply to those who leave voluntarily (i.e., anyone apprehended and deported doesn't qualify).
There are a few cases that fall under existing asylum laws I would consider, such as how we deal with Cuba’s residents who are able to get here.
Was just seeking clarity from Kevmo, but agreed...
Yup...
Yup
heh heh..
It will be fun to be on the same team down the road...
Your car will look good with a Fred sticker ;-)
Lets avoid the personal attacks everyone.
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.