Seriously you guys: what is the GOP leadership thinking on immigration "reform"?

[Blayglock]

Yes, vote Democrat. That will show those crummy Libs a thing or two!

Not interested in showing Libs a thing or two. I'm interested in:

1. Getting candidates into office who will implement policies that will help fix our nation.

2. Letting the Libs have their way thus speeding a downward spiral eventually leading to a major reset.

Much, much rather option 1 than 2, however, if we decide to stay the current course I would prefer a major change in my lifetime and hopefully give my kids even a modicum of a better life than what I will leave them if something major does not change. I see no chance of incremental improvement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[franzas]

You already know what I think about amnesty and the GOP

 

[Sapper740]

The majority of spanish-speaking immigrants (legal or not), only need to know one thing about politics in the US...the Democrats are the party of the poor and the Republicans are the party of the rich, white man.

Don't bother proving otherwise, they don't care. My grandparents, legal spanish-speaking immigrants, have believed this since they moved here in the 60's. They hate gay people, are devout catholics, and they believe in deporting illegals, but that doesn't matter because Clinton was a good man, blah, blah, blah...

I will say this though, the people of hispanic ancestry here in Texas are very different than the ones in California. How that translates to politics I don't know because I have only been in this state for a few months.

If the Republicans give the illegals what they want...it won't make a difference because the Democrats are still the party of the "poor".

My .02

You're right. It still boggles my mind that the GOP are perceived as the party of old, rich white people when the Democrats have more old rich white people in office than Republicans do. What we as individual Conservatives need to do is, just as we take anti-gunners to the range to show them the light, take Hispanics to the "Truth". I've been able to convert one Latina I work with to start voting Republican by having conversations with her over the last few years to show her that her perception of conservatives is wrong. She is the matriarch of her large family and she is now converting them to Republicans.

 

[Sapper740]

Not interested in showing Libs a thing or two. I'm interested in:

1. Getting candidates into office who will implement policies that will help fix our nation.

2. Letting the Libs have their way thus speeding a downward spiral eventually leading to a major reset.

Much, much rather option 1 than 2, however, if we decide to stay the current course I would prefer a major change in my lifetime and hopefully give my kids even a modi$#@! of a better life than what I will leave them if something major does not change. I see no chance of incremental improvement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I understand your sentiments but the world can't afford the turmoil that would ensue if the U.S. failed, even if just temporarily. There is a more immediate and drastic "reset" we need right now.

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

They hate gay people, are devout catholics, and ...

This is an unqualified impossibility. These two things are mutually exclusive.

You can't hate someone because they're gay (or almost anything else) and also be devoutly Catholic.

You can hate the sin or their actions, but hating them is the opposite of what Christ asks of us.

Sorry to derail but that's a fundamental misconception that I can't let slip past uncorrected.

 

[breakingcontact]

This is an unqualified impossibility. These two things are mutually exclusive.

You can't hate someone because they're gay (or almost anything else) and also be devoutly Catholic.

You can hate the sin or their actions, but hating them is the opposite of what Christ asks of us.

Sorry to derail but that's a fundamental misconception that I can't let slip past uncorrected.

Love it. Well said.

 

[Rios]

This is an unqualified impossibility. These two things are mutually exclusive.

You can't hate someone because they're gay (or almost anything else) and also be devoutly Catholic.

You can hate the sin or their actions, but hating them is the opposite of what Christ asks of us.

Sorry to derail but that's a fundamental misconception that I can't let slip past uncorrected.

You are correct. Devout was the wrong word to use and the way I wrote it gave the wrong impression.

They are strongly against gay marriage (and gay people in general). They are catholic (whether they are good catholics is another story), and would be upset if they knew the left was attacking religion in this country. But they still wouldn't vote for a Republican, even if they were proved wrong. And its not just my grandparents, it almost the whole family (the older generation). Say your a republican at a family get together and things get weird.

 

[franzas]

Must...Not...Comment...On...Democrat...Catholics...

Aghhh, I give up.

Catholic Doctrine and democrat ideologies do not line up. You cannot support both. I find it hard to believe any staunch democrat could be a good Catholic.

This is all I'll say. I already have elevated blood pressure.

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

I saw a Wendy Davis bumper sticker heading out of mass last Sunday. I told my wife I hope they were headed inside for confession and not communion. lol

You could fill a book with hypocrites and sinners who go to church (myself included). Whole 'nother topic.

 

[MrBigIron]

My mother is 82 years old. My step-father is 81 I think. She was born in east Texas, he in central Louisiana. The first time I was old enough to be cognizant of politics was when I heard them laughing about the "Peanut Farmer" and his crazy brother Billy... that they had just voted for. But I was still too young and disinterested to understand it all at the time.

However, by the time I graduated in '84 I was becoming aware of politics. I saw what Reagan was doing with Kadhafi, Grenada and Russia. I heard him speak positively about small government, and negatively about the welfare state. Peace through strength sounded good to me, because by then I was old enough to have learned what defense means. And what happens to those unwilling to defend themselves. I was a self-indulging student of Vietnam War study, and it didn't take long for me to figure out what many people still do not seem to understand... that the U.S. and Russia had been fighting indirect wars (including Vietnam, Korea, and the Soviet War in Afghanistan) ever since World War II ended. Indirectly, the Russians, in my eyes, had cost thousands and thousands of American lives. So it was with great joy that I watched President Reagan outspend the Russians on defense and bring down the wall without firing a shot. Strength through superior firepower. That's when I became a conservative.

But mom and step-father were still voting for the Dukakis' and Clintons of the world. *sigh*

In 1997, a few years after the Brady Bill became law, I asked my very religious mother why she voted Democrat. "Us Southerners have always voted Democrat," she replied. And, as someone else here mentioned, "Democrats are for the poor, Republicans are for the rich." Having learned more about Reagan by now, I was reminded of his 1962 claim that, "I didn't leave the Democratic Party. The Party left me." I guess mom didn't get the memo.

So I sat down and worked up a questionnaire on the [political] issues. I handed it to her one day and she filled it out. Then I went over the questions with her one-by-one, showing her how all of her positions on the issues matched the Republicans, and not the Democrats. From abortion (which her preacher had just did a sermon on), to taxes, to gun rights, to welfare, to small government, to public land use, to individual freedoms, to gay rights, and on and on... She favored the conservative view on pretty much every issue!

I'm happy to say that she voted for George W. in 2000 and 2004. I'm equally happy that the Brady Bill sunsetted during George W's second term (despite his attempt to play both sides on the subject). Also, I believe my step-father voted Republican in 2004 and 2008. But the frustrating part is that this only worked because it was my mother, who respected me enough to listen to reason. How many others out there continue to vote liberal ideology simply because "the Dems are for the poor, and the Republicans for the rich?"


Fred B.

 

[Sapper740]

It's strange that Republicans are always seen as for "Big Business" when "Big Business" sometimes comes dowm squarely on the side of Democrats: BOEING DEFENDS HILLARY CONTRIBUTIONS
WaPo: “Boeing chief executive W. James McNearney faced pointed questions during the company's annual shareholder's meeting Monday about Boeing's decision to make a charitable donation to the Clinton Foundation in the same year that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had advocated on behalf of the company's sales in Russia. The question came from David Almasi, a Boeing shareholder and a representative of the National Center for Public Policy Research, a conservative think tank whose members attend shareholder meetings to challenge corporate executives. ‘Assuming that building schools in Haiti was a key goal of this Company's philanthropic programs in 2010, why was it so important to support this work specifically through the Clinton Foundation and not one of the many other reputable, independent charities then working in Haiti?’ Almasi said he asked. He called the Boeing donation a ‘clear conflict of interest’ that seemed ‘reckless and unnecessary.’… Boeing contributed $900,000 to the Clinton family foundation to rebuild schools in Haiti in 2010, just months after Clinton had traveled to Russia, where she made what she called a ‘shameless pitch’ for a state-owned company to buy Boeing passenger jets… Boeing won the $3.7 billion Russian contract in June 2010.”

 

[breakingcontact]

Capital often contributes to both parties certainly.

 

[Sapper740]

Capital often contributes to both parties certainly.

Yes, for sure but this donation wasn't to the national party, it was to Hillary's family foundation specifically which smacks more of payola than philanthropy.

 

[LOCKHART]

Here's the whole deal in a nutshell. Both democrats and repubs like that cheap mexican
labor! Thats a fact! You either control your borders, or you dont. A country that cant
control its borders, is doomed! The democrats want amnesty because they believe, and
rightly so, that the so-called "illegal immigrants" will vote democrat exclusively, and I believe
they will. If the repubs go along with this, they will effectively kill their partys future. The
illegal situation could have been settled long ago by simply having a first offense charge
on people that hire them, of minimum 5000 dollar fine, for each one, and then a mandatory
prison sentence of 5 years for each additional violation. You would see an exodus down
IH-35! But, that will never happen because the politicians make money off these people.
We are screwed!

 

[SpyderJohn]

Cheap labor and their own dependent class like the DEMS have.

Let's face it, the average Republican is cheap labor and a dependent class for Faux News/GOP interests unless they are in the 1-2%.

Disagree? Then don't go to work and don't pick up your pension checks.

Statistically I think that you will find that there are as many Democratic entrepreneurs as there are Republican entrepreneurs. And some would argue (and even that's a stretch) that entrepreneurs are the only people who have any control over their futures, and that's mostly because quite a few entrepreneurs would rather live in a cave than work under conditions they don't like.

In other words everyone is dependent on someone else. If you think it's just Democrats exploiting black folks then you are kidding yourself.





Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[SpyderJohn]

. So it was with great joy that I watched President Reagan outspend the Russians on defense and bring down the wall without firing a shot. Strength through superior firepower. That's when I became a conservative.

.

Of course Gorbachev, who was trained as an economist, barely mentions Reagan or defense spending. As I recall he said the Soviets were getting dangerously close to famines and that was the beginning of the end of the Soviet Union.

And Reagan ran up huge deficits and instituted a tax structure that is currently bankrupting the nation.

Today the USA spends more than the next 6 nations on military spending. We can't keep up the spending as we back away from being the planet's only superpower, and we have demonstrated in several wars that even at our huge levels of spending we cannot dominate the planet militarily.

It's the end of an empire and Reagan accelerated that end.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

Let's face it, the average Republican is cheap labor and a dependent class for Faux News/GOP interests unless they are in the 1-2%.

Disagree? Then don't go to work and don't pick up your pension checks.

Statistically I think that you will find that there are as many Democratic entrepreneurs as there are Republican entrepreneurs. And some would argue (and even that's a stretch) that entrepreneurs are the only people who have any control over their futures, and that's mostly because quite a few entrepreneurs would rather live in a cave than work under conditions they don't like.

In other words everyone is dependent on someone else. If you think it's just Democrats exploiting black folks then you are kidding yourself.





Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Don't go to work or collect the pay I worked for because I'm in the dependent class for Fox News? I'm not quite sure you made any sense at all.

Choosing to work for a company vs run your own is still exchanging value for value. That's not dependency its a mutual business relationship (at least in right to work states). If I was to receive value (e.g. welfare) while providing an unequal amount on my end (e.g. little to no taxes) then that's a dependency. Its a dependency specifically because you have a deficit you are asking someone else to fill - not an exchange of your time/skills for an equally agreed upon amount of compensation.

I think you're understanding of government vs free association in the market is a little shakey. Drawing analogies between governments and businesses will always fail. They're designed for different purposes and have completely different goals and authority.

You also really missed my point about Republicans pandering and being as bad the Democrats on wasting money and having bread and circuses for the masses.