Previous 11 - 20 Next
Well, it's not an "inalienable right" to them, and is a right Muslims would like government to abolish. And you know what, they can't handle the criticism either which shows how fragile their religion is: words can hurt it so they respond with protests and violence. Islam means submission to God (relying on the people in charge to decide what God wants). I bet they'd object to submission to my idea of God, but still support forcing me to submit to their idea of God. Hypocrites and liars.
It's not funny when Muslims use violence to get their way as they often do. Heck, Muslims want to make slaves out of everyone else (or else kill them for being heathens). They don't support equality before the law, even for Muslims as the different sects have been fighting for centuries to dominate the others. They will also be in conflict: they lie to get power, they use government to oppress others, and Mohammad was even worse than hypocritical TV preachers.
Mohammad led the first Muslim war of domination and his followers continued the pillaging, looting, and rape of others in other nations. The Crusades were a response to this but didn't recapture all the land that was lost to Muslims. This guy is the ones Muslims worship. Mohammad was no prophet or even a man of God. He was a thief who invaded other countries to steal and make slaves of the citizens if he didn't just kill them for not being Muslim. I'd say Mohammad is more like a devil.
Maybe that's why the progressives/liberals in the US support Islam, even though Muslims don't support free speech, gender equality, freedom of religion while they do support cruel and unusual punishments, female genital mutilation, the freedom of women to drive cars and polygamy. When your primary effort is to eviscerate the free speech enshrined in the first amendment, those who are against it are your allies. Besides not being tolerant, Muslims don't support diversity either. Let's get out of the Middle East, until the fanatics and their supporters who want to control others, learn you can't have freedom (and the prosperity/happiness that comes with it), unless you are first willing to give it to others.
What's so liberal about requiring the government to prove someone has committed a crime before confiscating their property? In fact, allowing this is a big government position, and endangers your property to government confiscation as well. The winners here are those doing the confiscation. What's so liberal about locking up people who've not harmed others? I would think that a conservative wouldn't want this. Heck, why not lock up those who insult Islam, call the president a liar, or question homosexuality? Forcing me to pay to prosecute, have a trial, and jail a pot smoker, does harm my pocketbook and me. Drug laws are big government laws that harm people who aren't drug users.
I don't see any "partnering with Eric Holder" that is any different with Republicans partnering with Obama and the Democrats to pass legislation (lots of spending bills). Didn't the GOP partner with Obama to pass the Sequester (it was Obama's idea after all)? I agree with Paul. Government shouldn't be confiscating people's property who've not committed any crime, and laws putting peaceful pot smokers in jail doesn't help my wallet or my safety. In fact, supporting this, is supporting more government and less freedom. It's not conservative. You do conservatives the disservice of telling voters, you support people in government confiscating other people's property. With that position, you'll likely lose the election and find your property confiscated. You cannot have freedom, unless you are willing to give it to others first.
I agree that the GOP establishment won't nominate a fiscal conservative. But they aren't the ones doing the nomination, instead voters will decide.
I strongly disagree that "voting records are complete rubbish." In fact, voting records show who a politician is much more so than their rhetoric, and it's the first thing we should look at in evaluating a candidate. I believe you meant that a "100% conservative voting record" doesn't tell us where a candidate stands on immigration, because it depends on who's evaluating the voting record, and what they believe a conservative position is. I agree with you, Rubio was pushing Amnesty.
When a conservative media outlet like National Review says Rubio is pushing amnesty, I'd have to say your post is a bald faced lie.
Why makes you believe that "Obama has ensured that a Democrat won't win for at least a decade"? The GOP establishment will pull a GW Bush: govern unlike they promised, and lead to Democratic control of the WH, Senate and House like before when voters get fed up with lies from Republicans. The Democrats lie that they are for the little guy instead of themselves and their 1% rich friends, while the GOP establishment lies that it is fiscally conservative and for less and limited government. Yet voters keep electing these guys, thinking the biggest fundraisers are the likely winners. They ignore the fact, that the biggest fundraisers, are often the ones who'll sell us out the most to get those funds.
"Why in the world do so many Republican presidential aspirants take the amnesty position, when the constituents are so completely against it?" The reason is two fold. First, the only hope our government has of fulfilling its promises (mostly regarding Social Security, Medicare and now Obamacare) is to grow the economy significantly. So to do that, their plan is to grow the population. There will be no "comprehensive immigration reform" because no Democrat wants to take a position other than the status quo, and Republicans don't want to have to take a position either. Labor unions want less immigration, but Democrat politicians want more provided they are reliable voters for Democrats. Many citizens don't want more immigrants because they see them as consuming tax money rather than contributing to it. Rich business owners want cheap labor, and illegal aliens are the cheapest, and don't make problems either. Most Republican politicians would prefer productive immigrants rather than welfare immigrants, but they can't pass a law providing benefits to citizens that aren't provided to other legal residents, and Democrats don't want these kind of immigrants. The liberal elite also like cheap maids, nannys, and gardners. After all, Obama didn't address this when Democrats controlled all branches of government, because there was no money to be gained from changing immigration law (unlike taking over the health care insurance industry where corporations paid huge sums to get approved as an Obamcare vendor, and guaranteed profits, and this will continue each year yielding more campaign cash). The rich and Democrats prefer illegal immigrants to legal ones. Consider regardless of each politicians' position amnesty, where does each politician stand on immigration (how many each year, why types of immigrants are favored, etc.)? The reason they don't take a position, is that it only hurts them with one group or another.
Previous 11 - 20 Next