Posted on 09/26/2011 9:01:32 PM PDT by Mike10542
You think because I don’t agree with you about Santorum that I am pro some other candidate? Please, right now I think the entire lot of them are second stringers and also rans.
If I was to pick my canidate of the names bantered around it would be Christie and he’s not even in the race.
Santorum did not simply lose just because he’s was a republican, yes, endorcing Spectre did him no favors.. but he had problems and alienated a lot of folks that are the big funders of the Republican party in this state. He alienated a lot of folks he should have been cultivating. He may have lost either way, but he definitely didn’t help his cause.
Santorum sounds good, and I don’t personally dislike the guy, but I don’t see him winning. In fact I don’t see any of the current crop winning.
What conservative keeps a house in PA he’s never been to, just so a PA school district will pay for his kids cyber education??? Riddle me that, Mr he’s Mr. Conservative. Santorum is weasely, and he lost support not only over Spectre, but for other things he had done or doublespoke on over the years.
Sadly right now I see Romney as likely the last guy standing unless something drastically changes, and that frankly stinks.. I don’t want Romey, and find it dispicable, but I don’t see anyone else whos formally in this thing taking him out.. He’ll wind up the last man standing by default unless something drastically changes.
Christie? That’s your guy? He won’t get any states south of the Mason Dixon and not many in the Mid West. At the very least you need to be pro 2nd Amendment and against Obamacare if you are running as a Republican. Christie is anti gun and all for Obamacare. Notice he is the only GOP Gov not joining in the states lawsuits? Interesting isn’t it?
"They [the children of illegals] are being educated, right up to and through high school.Where did it come to pass that if you're here illegally, you have a right to a college education, let alone the right to have it subsidized, when all Americans do NOT have their college educations subsidized?
I mean, this is perverse, to be honest with you.
And it is also the position of the Bush family. And I think…if I'm wrong, I stand corrected…it's the position of some of our "inside-the-beltway" publications.
But it is not the position of the American people, who have to pay this bill, endlessly."
"They [the children of illegals] are being educated, right up to and through high school.Where did it come to pass that if you're here illegally, you have a right to a college education, let alone the right to have it subsidized, when all Americans do NOT have their college educations subsidized?
I mean, this is perverse, to be honest with you.
And it is also the position of the Bush family. And I think…if I'm wrong, I stand corrected…it's the position of some of our "inside-the-beltway" publications.
But it is not the position of the American people, who have to pay this bill, endlessly."
>>Any fence that can keep illegals out can be used to keep Americans in.<<
That is the EXACT idiotic point Ron Paul made during the debate recently.
Great response!
We can afford to put a few more guards along the border than are used for one prison.
So can fence climbers.
Have you ever crossed the border from the US to either Mexico or Canada?
I have crossed the US border into Mexico three times. I have crossed the US border into Canada about a dozen times. All of these crossings were over 15 years ago, but my crossings were never hindered by US border agents. I admit I do not know if it is different today.
Only Mexican and Canadian agents gave a damn. I believe it would be much harder for the US to keep us in than it is for them to keep invaders out.
We have a Marxist muslim and usurper in the Red House ( oops! White House) and you think that communist or fascist tyranny is not possible here? You are trusting, indeed!
I, too, am very very very frustrated with illegal immigration but there are problems with a border fence:
A border fence is hugely expensive while we have in place, already, all the infrastructure needed to prevent illegals from working, using the hospitals, sending their kids to K-12 school ( VERY expensive!), obtaining identification, using fake social security numbers, renting homes or apartments, and obtaining anchor baby status....etc. All it takes is the will to implement these measures.
Also....A border fence would mean using eminent domain to seize thousands of acres of land from **American** ranchers. It would make access to water more difficult and in some cases impossible for their **AMERICAN** ranchers. It would mean the defacto ceding large stretches of the Rio Grande to the Mexicians.
And...A border fence would be hugely damaging to the environment.
Honestly....Before spending a few billion on a border fence don't you think we should implement the less expensive measures first? At least give it a solid try for five years or so?
We have been using the “less expensive measures” for many decades. How many million more illegals do we need to import before you learn that enforcement is less expensive than support of more millions every year?
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.