Thread: Duncan Hunter to announce important message at 2:00 pm

Originally Posted by Bren4824

Originally Posted by Nicole

Originally Posted by MW

Bren wrote:

Did you not watch either debate?? Did you not hear him saying both days----NO AMNESTY. NONE---ZIP----NADDA!!! Did you not see him going after McCain about this??

Yep, and we also heard McCain say he didn't support amnesty. Oh, and Guiliani doesn't support amnesty either.

Romney lost more points with me last night when when he waffled on on calling McCain's comprehensive immigration plan amnesty. First he says it's amnesty and then he says it's not. He should have stuck with his guns and continued to call it amnesty because the American people know that's what it was. Why should we support someone that is constantly flip-flopping and waffling? How can we trust that they'll hold their ground once in office? I'm sorry, but Romney has some serious credibility issues that need resolved.

True. First of all McCain looked like a miserable old jerk. But Romney would have scored more points if he did not say "well it technically isn't amnesty because you make them pay $5,000". Romney needs to pick a point and stick with it.

By the way there is a BRAND NEW Romney commercial running today in New Hampshire where he calls McCain's plan Amnesty. This is after the debate when he said McCain's plan is "technically" not amnesty. These are the problems I have with Romney and why I cannot trust him.

""well it technically isn't amnesty because you make them pay $5,000"

This is sarcasm!!! I cannot believe that you do not see it.

To me that is not sarcasm. If he really tried to be sarcastic he did a bad job. He seemed to back down. He should have insisted it is amnesty. This is the same garbage "it is not amnesty because they have to pay a fine garbage" that we have fought the senate on for the past couple of years . When I hear anyone utter that it is "technically" not amnesty I get angry.

Wrong Ron Paul will not put troops on the border and many here think that he will open the border up

Is anyone else going to put troops on the border?

And why would 'many here' think Ron Paul will open the border. I don't believe they think that at all. It is some kind of spin that is being put out there and repeated over and over again -

We have very little choice here if we want to stop illegal immigration. We are not all going to get our first choice - so it doesn't make any sense to destroy all the others.

By the time we get through shredding all the ones who will do something about illegal immgiration, all we'll have left are the ones who are pro-illegal.

It's one thing to debate and disagree - but spin and disinformation is suicidal.

Originally Posted by Once_A_Democrat

Originally Posted by GOrwell

Originally Posted by BearFlagRepublic

Originally Posted by MW

His early withdrawal will be especially devastating to me because I don't feel there is another candidate running that I can support with a clear conscience.

I agree 100%. If Duncan is indeed announcing his withdrawal, there is nobody left for me. I will not vote in the primaries, and will most likely vote Third Party, unless you Romney supporters can do an amazing job of convincing me that he will end our immigration crises.

I hope he is not pulling out

Ron Paul, unless you disagree with him on the war, and some do but still support him.

The main problem right now is:
1. You cross the border have a kid and your safe, you can ride that paycheck out.

2. Riding that paycheck out cost us billions.

Ron Paul will end welfare for illegals and will end birth right citizenship.

And off course pull out our troops from protecting Iraq and put them on the border...

Wrong Ron Paul will not put troops on the border and many here think that he will open the border up

He will bring the troops home and put the guard, which should be defending our borders, on the border. Said this as recently as Sunday night at a NH town hall meeting.

Bren wrote:

Romney made it clear that he does NOT support any form of amnesty!!

I don't know what debates you were watching-----but he made it clear---NO AMNESTY!!!!

He supported it before he was against it. Romney is a slick politician who is going to do and say whatever it takes to strengthen his chances for the White House. Personally, I think the man is lacking in the integrity department and I know his lacking on credibility. In other words, he just doesn't measure up. "No amnesty" are only words. Unfortunately most of the candidates seem to have a different definition of the words than we do. Honestly, I like what he's saying, but I just think supporting him is too risky. It all comes back to his history of flip-flopping and waffling. Thank you, but no thank you.

McCain and Rudi made it very clear that they would have to
pay a fine , learn English and get amnesty and get to stay

Romney made it very clear there would be no amnesty and the
would not be allowed to stay

Now it doesn't get any clearer than that and he said it
3 times
At the ABC debate , Sunday on the Chris Wallace show
and at the Fox forum debate

Originally Posted by Nicole

Originally Posted by Bren4824

Originally Posted by Nicole

Originally Posted by MW

Bren wrote:

Did you not watch either debate?? Did you not hear him saying both days----NO AMNESTY. NONE---ZIP----NADDA!!! Did you not see him going after McCain about this??

Yep, and we also heard McCain say he didn't support amnesty. Oh, and Guiliani doesn't support amnesty either.

Romney lost more points with me last night when when he waffled on on calling McCain's comprehensive immigration plan amnesty. First he says it's amnesty and then he says it's not. He should have stuck with his guns and continued to call it amnesty because the American people know that's what it was. Why should we support someone that is constantly flip-flopping and waffling? How can we trust that they'll hold their ground once in office? I'm sorry, but Romney has some serious credibility issues that need resolved.

True. First of all McCain looked like a miserable old jerk. But Romney would have scored more points if he did not say "well it technically isn't amnesty because you make them pay $5,000". Romney needs to pick a point and stick with it.

By the way there is a BRAND NEW Romney commercial running today in New Hampshire where he calls McCain's plan Amnesty. This is after the debate when he said McCain's plan is "technically" not amnesty. These are the problems I have with Romney and why I cannot trust him.

""well it technically isn't amnesty because you make them pay $5,000"

This is sarcasm!!! I cannot believe that you do not see it.

To me that is not sarcasm. If he really tried to be sarcastic he did a bad job. He seemed to back down. He should have insisted it is amnesty. This is the same garbage "it is not amnesty because they have to pay a fine garbage" that we have fought the senate on for the past couple of years . When I hear anyone utter that it is "technically" not amnesty I get angry.

Again, it was sarcasm. If you do not understand sarcasm, I don't know how else to explain it to you.

Originally Posted by Bren4824

Originally Posted by Nicole

Originally Posted by Bren4824

Originally Posted by Nicole

Originally Posted by MW

Bren wrote:

Did you not watch either debate?? Did you not hear him saying both days----NO AMNESTY. NONE---ZIP----NADDA!!! Did you not see him going after McCain about this??

Yep, and we also heard McCain say he didn't support amnesty. Oh, and Guiliani doesn't support amnesty either.

Romney lost more points with me last night when when he waffled on on calling McCain's comprehensive immigration plan amnesty. First he says it's amnesty and then he says it's not. He should have stuck with his guns and continued to call it amnesty because the American people know that's what it was. Why should we support someone that is constantly flip-flopping and waffling? How can we trust that they'll hold their ground once in office? I'm sorry, but Romney has some serious credibility issues that need resolved.

True. First of all McCain looked like a miserable old jerk. But Romney would have scored more points if he did not say "well it technically isn't amnesty because you make them pay $5,000". Romney needs to pick a point and stick with it.

By the way there is a BRAND NEW Romney commercial running today in New Hampshire where he calls McCain's plan Amnesty. This is after the debate when he said McCain's plan is "technically" not amnesty. These are the problems I have with Romney and why I cannot trust him.

""well it technically isn't amnesty because you make them pay $5,000"

This is sarcasm!!! I cannot believe that you do not see it.

To me that is not sarcasm. If he really tried to be sarcastic he did a bad job. He seemed to back down. He should have insisted it is amnesty. This is the same garbage "it is not amnesty because they have to pay a fine garbage" that we have fought the senate on for the past couple of years . When I hear anyone utter that it is "technically" not amnesty I get angry.

Again, it was sarcasm. If you do not understand sarcasm, I don't know how else to explain it to you.

I understand sarcasm just fine.

usanevada wrote:

McCain and Rudi made it very clear that they would have to
pay a fine , learn English and get amnesty and get to stay

Romney made it very clear there would be no amnesty and the
would not be allowed to stay

Now it doesn't get any clearer than that and he said it
3 times
At the ABC debate , Sunday on the Chris Wallace show
and at the Fox forum debate

Amazing, you folks are completely ignoring the credibility factor.

Okay, that's all I'm saying on this thread about Romney or Paul. Perhaps I'll scoot on over to one of the MANY Romney or Paul threads to share more of my thoughts.

Okay, I lied. I couldn't let this pass without commenting:

Bren wrote:

""well it technically isn't amnesty because you make them pay $5,000"

This is sarcasm!!! I cannot believe that you do not see it

The only folks that would view what Romney said as sarcasm are Romney fans. It definitely was not saracsm. He waffled, pure and simple.

MW

the credibility factor?

I can look back on Mitts record ,

He actually did stop drivers licenses and in state tuition
He also partnered with Ice in Mass.

If a person can't go on their record of what they have done
then how do we judge credibility?