There is an ad running in our area that is not anti-illegal immigration, but anti-immigration all together. It focuses on reducing LEGAL immigration.
It is full of visual images of hispanics and middle-easterners and it's got me ticked off. It is running during the GOP caucuses. I did not catch the organization, but it is one of those ads that is NOT helping the GOP in this area.
Yep. That looks pretty doggone close. If it is not them, it is a group with similar sympathies. It's really irritating.
Shades of The Know-Nothing Party I wonder how many members of he Federation for American Immigration Reform and like groups are of Irish or Italian Greek ancestry, or are Catholic? One of the wonderful things about the study of history is it make you realize there really is nothing new under the sun.
My Rant Thanks for the link to the no nothing party, think I'll share that link to a couple of guys I know with the same stance on immigration as a whole. My self all I want is the borders secured and legal immigration – and no amnesty no Dream act. And I don’t want the government to increase numbers allowed. I am Catholic, 5 generation Texan and proud of it.
No, RomneyCare is just for the states, Romney says. But according to Buzzfeed, Romney suggested otherwise in July of 2009:
Health care cannot be handled the same way as the stimulus and cap-and-trade bills. With those, the president stuck to the old style of lawmaking: He threw in every special favor imaginable, ground it up and crammed it through a partisan Democratic Congress. Health care is simply too important to the economy, to employment and to America’s families to be larded up and rushed through on an artificial deadline. There’s a better way. And the lessons we learned in Massachusetts could help Washington find it.
Our experience also demonstrates that getting every citizen insured doesn’t have to break the bank. First, we established incentives for those who were uninsured to buy insurance. Using tax penalties, as we did, or tax credits, as others have proposed, encourages “free riders” to take responsibility for themselves rather than pass their medical costs on to others. This doesn’t cost the government a single dollar. Second, we helped pay for our new program by ending an old one — something government should do more often. The federal government sends an estimated $42 billion to hospitals that care for the poor: Use those funds instead to help the poor buy private insurance, as we did.
Obama losing the election will turn me on. Big time.
Don't care what that man and his mom jeans do after that.....he and Mooch can hoolahoop through the veggie garden stark naked.
As long as he is done from any decision/non decision making policies.
Just go the hell away and let us keep our country, our faith, our Constitution and Declaration of Independence, and pride that we are Americans. Those that fought and died for us to have that right will not let you take it.
Because I'm really grumpy...BITE ME Obama and the leftist puppet hands that support you.
"We want a conservative nominee because that's our best chance of winning. Look at the races in the last 30 years, we nominated a moderate: [John] McCain, [Bob] Dole, Gerald Ford. When George [H.W.] Bush ran for re-election back in 1992, after raising taxes and increasing spending. They all ran as moderates. We all lost," Santorum said.
"Every time we've run as a conservative, we've won," the candidate continued. "Why? Because Americans want a choice. If it's a difference between somebody, Tweedledum and Tweedledee, you know what, this country is going to probably going to stick with the person they know. We need to have a sharp contrast. Someone who paints a very different vision for America."
Is this really fair? IMO, Bush the Elder lost mainly because of the economy and the perception that he was out of touch, Dole lost because of perceptions over his age and the fact that he was running against an incumbent during a healthy economy, and McCain lost partly because of Sarah Palin being (then) seen as unready and Obama's popularity as a candidate. Romney has his own problems, but each of the nominees mentioned lost for different reasons, under different circumstances. (It should also be noted that Eisenhower, Nixon, and Bush the Younger-all generally moderate-won reelection, although also each under different circumstances and in different times. Reagan won by being conservative, but he also had broad appeal and a message that the average person could relate to. While Reagan wasn't afraid of a fight, he didn't win by being angry, which is what I get from Santorum a lot of the time.)
Bush the elder really was a moderate Republican...remember Voo Doo economic, Kinder gentler conservatism? I think he won in 88 for two reasons, a lot of people thought it was going to be a 3rd Reagan term, and "Read My Lips No New Taxes" When he went back on Read My Lips...his campaign was toast, because a lot of people believed him. Of course it didn't help that he was running against one of the best politicians I've ever seen...Bill Clinton. In 08 if it had been Bill instead of Hillary today Obama would be known a Senator Obama.
Without Sarah McCain would have lost even worse.
What the Republican party has not figured out is that Republicans don't win unless they appeal to Republicans. Period. Forget the stupid independents (I am now one of them). You don't win a race by compromising your principles and getting on your knees to service people who probably won't bother voting anyway. How many times do we have to prove that "appealing to the middle" does NOT win elections. Looking for the "independent vote" is just as phony baloney as Kwanzaa and it a strategy perpetuated by the same idiots who push Kwanzaa. It has NEVER worked for either party.