Posted on 12/29/2007 9:10:23 PM PST by freespirited
Are you on LSD?
I don’t know how you could judge that from the present polls. it is a long time until november.
“Yep, and playing right into the Democrat plan.”
The plan at freerepublic as best I can tell, is to fight for Thompson and Hunter in the primary, and knock off all of the rinos.
The consensus here is that the Democrat plan is to get someone besides those two, to win the republican nomination.
I usually agree with FactCheck, but not always. This is one of those cases.
First, on Social Security for illegals. It is true that the Republicans tried to make it so illegals could not EARN social security while they were illegal, and McCain blocked them.
It is also true that illegals living in the United States could not collect that social security unless they became legal.
BUT, we have an arrangement with Mexico, where credited social security benefits are passed to Mexico for their citizens. Because of McCain’s blocking the amendment, those benefits would have included social security earned by illegals, to be paid to them by the United States through money sent to Mexico.
Therefore, McCain’s vote meant that illegals would get paid Social Security. ROmney is right, FactCheck (and McCain)were wrong.
On the second issue, amnesty. It is true that, as FactCheck says, in order to get citizenship or permanent legal resident status, you had to pay fines.
However, the bill that was about to pass in the Senate, which McCain was sponsoring, had another provision. If you were here illegally, you could file paperwork to get a temporary visa, and you just had to pay a fee for the paperwork, which is NOT a criminal penalty.
You may also have been forced to pay your taxes, but taxes are not a penalty, we all have to pay them.
So McCain’s bill provided “amnesty”, in that an illegal could stay here for years with a real visa, and therefore be “legal” for a time period, without having to pay any penalties — the definition of “amnesty”.
I would also note FURTHER that the bill originally considered, the one that was talked about at the time Romney said he thought the bill sounded reasonable, did not have the de-facto amnesty.
In fact, most people didn’t know it was in THIS version until Jeff Sessions put out his fine paper detailing all the bad things in the bill.
So I’m sorry, Factcheck was wrong, as we pointed out before, and just because they are goring Romney now is no reason to abandon our principles and agree with them.
Romney’s never grabbed a gun, he’s never passed a bill that took away anybody’s gun, and when he DID pass a bill which restricted the new purchase of some weapons, he did so with the support of the NRA, in a way that prevented the liberals from enacting a much more severe measure.
But it's all OK. Let him dig his own political grave.
Fred is hovering at 10.8% in Iowa and 3.8% in NH. He couldn’t defeat Edwards at this point. Get a grip.
The day is coming when the defeated Thompson will withdraw and endorse Mitt.
Don’t you have some Jews to bate or something?
You're too much with the comedy! No way does Thompson endorse a liberal weasel like Romney.
I thank you for your honesty. But it is a foundation of conservatism that we not adopt the left’s “end justifies the means” yellow journalism simply because we think our job is to “derail” someone.
I realise that leaves some here with a conundrum. Their principles of conservatism require they defend conservative values, respect the facts, and judge people fairly.
But if they do that, they can’t fulfil their “mission” to “derail Romney”, so they throw their own principles out the window. Some of them can’t bring themselves to do it directly, so they instead find liberal newspaper articles to do it instead — because the liberals never had any trouble making wild assumptions and misrepresenting the facts.
Once they have some “news article” that has completely misrepresented the facts in what they rarely label their “analysis” section, the freepers feel free to quote liberally from the liberals, after all it’s “just what was in the article”.
My plan is to fight for conservative principles, support candidates who are pushing those conservative principles, and get those candidates elected.
It is unfortunate that you believe a conservative site has decided to work a cross-purposes with the conservative mission, simply because they don’t like a candidate.
It all sounds good in theory , but the problem is that Romney is not , nor has he ever been a Conservative. You can’t trust him in his lust for power , as he will do and say anything to acquire it .
Yep , Romney was a pleaser for the Libs and a teaser for Conservatives ...
Soon there will be weeping and wailing arising from the Fred bully boys here, as their candidate goes down and out in Iowa and NH. Now that’s comedy!
And it’s only a matter of days.
McCain and Thompson in the battle of their lives for 3rd place in Iowa. Thompson with a death grip on 6th place in NH.
“My plan is to fight for conservative principles, support candidates who are pushing those conservative principles, and get those candidates elected.
It is unfortunate that you believe a conservative site has decided to work a cross-purposes with the conservative mission, simply because they don’t like a candidate.”
I of course aren’t much fond of your goal of getting Mitt Romney elected and selling that to us here at FR, but really, sell it to JR not to me, I never care about your fluffy opinions.
When I read Jim Robinson’s posts 229 and 256, at this link I accept his statement as the truth, of what he desires for and from freerepublic.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1945602/posts?q=1&;page=201
1. "It claims McCain "voted to allow illegals to collect Social Security." That's untrue. Nobody who is in the country illegally could be paid any Social Security benefits under McCain's immigration bill."
Nobody who is in the country illegally under McCain could be paid any Social Security benefits...well,duh, McCain would makes the illegals LEGAL, then give them Social Security benefits. This shot at Mitt misses, Romney is correct.
2."It implies McCain supported "amnesty" for illegal immigrants. That word isn't accurate. Illegal immigrants wouldn't have received a blanket pardon under..."
Only devious dishonest people define amnesty as a "blanket pardon". This shot also misses. This assault on Mitt is oh for two, I didn't bother to read further.
Full disclosure, my GOP candidates go in this order: Hunter, Thompson, Romney, Guliani, Paul, McCain.
Whatever are you going to do when your candidates are out?
Good post about FactCheck.
>>You may also have been forced to pay your taxes, but taxes are not a penalty, we all have to pay them.<<
In the Senate “comprehensive immigration” bill, some weasel sneaked in a provision so that the Z-visa people would not have to pay back taxes. If I remember correctly, McCain found out about it, and wrote an amendment, but I think his amendment required Z-visa people to pay back taxes only if they applied for “permanent status” (I. e. green card). I’m not sure if McCain and Bush really thought that was good enough (if they were “Z-immigrants” forever they would never have to pay back taxes), or he wanted to fool us by claiming that the requirement to pay taxes was one reason that the immigrations bill was “not amnesty.” Bush’s “comprehensive immigration reform” talking points (mistakenly or dishonestly) claimed that “they would have to pay back taxes” even before McCain’s amendment passed.
At that time, I adopted the tagline:
“Illegals: representation without taxation. US Citizens: Taxation without representation.”
Just a small sample of what a mess the entire McCain immigration bill was.
“Whatever are you going to do when your candidates are out?”
I will answer by using JR’s post 263 from the link below.
“Uh, this is Free Republic. We advocate for conservatives/conservatism not RINOS/liberalism. We will continue to advocate for life, family, liberty, national security, individual freedom, limited government, low taxes, originalist judges and the constitution, etc, regardless of who wins the current election. You can shove your dose of RINO reality where the sun don’t shine. I’m sure it’ll do wonders for you.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1945602/posts?q=1&;page=201
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.