Video: McCain says he hasn’t changed his position on immigration
posted at 11:44 pm on January 19, 2008 by Bryan
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Well here ya go folks, carne rojo, rare as it can be. John McCain sponsored McCain-Kennedy, which would have amnestied millions of illegal immigrants without securing the border first. McCain has shifted his immigration stance recently, while lying that he never supported amnesty at all, to acknowledge that the border ought to be secured first.
But somehow, that’s not a change in his position. Ooooook.
The bottom line is that he still supports what McCain-Kennedy would do even though a majority of Americans don’t and even though the base of the party absolutely hated that bill.
Straight talk or arrogance: You make the call.
If the embedded clip doesn’t work for you, try viewing it at this link.
(h/t Gateway Pundit)
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »
Guys, we have a lot more trouble than the possibility that McCain might make it to the White House:
McCain’s daughter: ‘I think Obama’s cute’…
bnelson44 on January 20, 2008 at 11:45 AM
True, but that is a pretty damn big issue, and every Dem is wrong on it.
Don’t get me wrong – I’m not a McCain fan….but sitting out the general rather than voting for the GOP nominee is as good as a vote for the Dems, and I just don’t get that holier-than- thou mindset.
Priscilla on January 20, 2008 at 11:48 AM
You’re an embarrassment.
All true and all cause for major concern, however in addition to the war I would add his speaking out on pork spending and having a pretty good record to back that up. Those are two really big ones for me.
Dash on January 20, 2008 at 11:51 AM
McCain could say the sun rises in the East and I wouldn’t believe him.
Except for his whole, “Bloodthirsty terrorists appreciate our compassion” shtick.
Lehosh on January 20, 2008 at 11:51 AM
He’s good on Iraq, bad on immigration… but where was McCain when that giant monster was eating New York? I notice a curious silence on that topic from all of our leading candidates… but I haven’t checked Ron Paul’s website yet.
Doctor Zero on January 20, 2008 at 11:52 AM
Conservative editorialists, radio hosts, and bloggers are unhappy. They don’t like the Republican presidential field, and many of them have been heaping opprobrium on the various GOP candidates with astonishing vigor.
For example: John McCain–with a lifetime American Conservative Union rating of 82.3–is allegedly in no way a conservative. And, though the most favorably viewed of all the candidates right now, both among Republicans and the electorate as a whole, he would allegedly destroy the Republican party if nominated.
by William Kristol
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/607onvmn.asp
bnelson44 on January 20, 2008 at 11:54 AM
Everyone needs to keep their eye on the ball:
And as for who best to unify the various constituencies of the Republican party, we’ve already found that candidate: Hillary Clinton.
bnelson44 on January 20, 2008 at 11:56 AM
Am I mistaken in remembering that Bill Kristol was one of those douche bags on FOX chortling about “those crazy, racist nativists” during the amnesty debate?
I don’t think I am.
Lehosh on January 20, 2008 at 11:57 AM
Game Over?
GOP life after South Carolina.
An NRO Symposium
bnelson44 on January 20, 2008 at 11:58 AM
There comes a point when the Republicans like MCCain go so far left that it makes no difference who wins.
I will sit out the Federal election if McCain is the nominee. I will not take “the slow boat” to socialism rather than the “fast boat” to socialism.
They all end up in the same place: The loss of our freedoms, the loss of our country, and the loss of our way of life.
woodswalking1 on January 20, 2008 at 12:00 PM
Excellent point.
For all the talk by FAUX news about Thompson needing to pull out of the race, I find it ironic that they haven’t said the same thing about Edwards.
They keep with the mantra that if you don’t win SC you dead. Did Mitt win? Did Rudy? Did Paul?
I will be canceling cable when the election is over, if I want liberalism I can get it for free from ABC, CBS, NBC & PBS.
RobertInAustin on January 20, 2008 at 12:04 PM
John McCain–with a lifetime American Conservative Union rating of 82.3 is “so far left”???? I’m afraid some of you guys are starting to see the world with blinders on. In the mean time, one of two real socialists are about to take the White House.
John McCain on the issues
Obama on the issues
Clinton on the issues
bnelson44 on January 20, 2008 at 12:06 PM
Look at Fred’s website. There is nothing there about continuing on. It is like it is in hiatus. Has been like this now since last night.
bnelson44 on January 20, 2008 at 12:07 PM
Those who are calling McCain a socialist, I suggest you compare him on the issues with our real enemy:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Hillary_Clinton.htm
bnelson44 on January 20, 2008 at 12:08 PM
As will I. 4 years of Hildebeast governance would cure the slow shuffle to socialism. If mcCain or Huckabee get the nod I’ll pull all levers save POTUS when I vote. Hillary can have it.
Onager on January 20, 2008 at 12:09 PM
Religion and Politics: Obama is preaching in Atlanta today
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NzU1NTVlZWZmNGE3MmVmZTBjNDE2N2MwZGZhY2MwZjI=
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZThhYzRjODlkNTM1Yzk2ZTc3YTdhYWVkYWY4NjMyMzc=
bnelson44 on January 20, 2008 at 12:11 PM
McCain is more conservative than Rudy. You know that, right?
http://www.ontheissues.org/Rudy_Giuliani.htm
http://www.ontheissues.org/John_McCain.htm
bnelson44 on January 20, 2008 at 12:13 PM
What we need on the ballot is “none of the above”
Can you imagine a situation where these self impressed pols lose to “none of the above”. Sweet.
woodswalking1 on January 20, 2008 at 12:13 PM
Rudy is DOA. I didn’t reference him because I don’t believe he has a shot. With Hunter out and Fred on life support, my money in on Romney.
Onager on January 20, 2008 at 12:15 PM
Our military has not recovered from the last time the Clintons gutted it, and you guys are asking me to give it back to them at a time of war?
This is nuts.
bnelson44 on January 20, 2008 at 12:16 PM
RobertInAustin on January 20, 2008 at 12:04 PM
on first reading I thought AZCON was the eternal optimist and the word trounce came to mind….then you responded…I’ll wait till that tues in feb. thanks
jerrytbg on January 20, 2008 at 12:17 PM
Hey Bro, you can get many cannels here: http://www.tvunetworks.com/
news, movies.
Just download their player. I use it to watch Fox news while blogging etc.
TheSitRep on January 20, 2008 at 12:18 PM
bnelson, exactly correct. McCain isn’t great, but throwing a tantrum and voting dem or staying home is putting politics above the troops. I thought that was a John Kerry thing.
funky chicken on January 20, 2008 at 12:19 PM
We are what we elect. The Republican party is a joke if we elect John McCain or Mike Huckabee.
I think I am tossing my vote in 2008. Maybe if Romney wins I will think about it.
msipes on January 20, 2008 at 12:22 PM
bnelson44 on January 20, 2008 at 12:16 PM
“they”, wouldn’t dare. Their own party would impeach, esp. after the next hit. The ranker coming from the libs is all about power. imho
jerrytbg on January 20, 2008 at 12:24 PM
Just wait and see, who knows.
I won’t jump ship on my boy. It is over when HE says its over.
If Fred says its over, than I accept it and move on.
Fred!
RobertInAustin on January 20, 2008 at 12:24 PM
It’s too bad that American politics are so screwed up right now and that McCain didn’t switch parties back in 2002, or whenever that was. It would be so nice if 2008 were a race between Fred (R) and McCain (D) instead of McCain (R) and Hillary (D), (or whomever the Democrats nominate).
FloatingRock on January 20, 2008 at 12:25 PM
Thanks, but I use a MAC. Maybe I can find a MAC version of such a service.
Fred!
RobertInAustin on January 20, 2008 at 12:28 PM
Absolutely well said, rh!
tickleddragon on January 20, 2008 at 12:30 PM
The problem is Hucktard and Juanita Macarena, our politics are pretty much just as bad as usual.
Fredalanche!© ◄ Donate!
TheSitRep on January 20, 2008 at 12:31 PM
It isn’t a tantrum, it is straight talk and standing on principle.
The only thing McCain has going for him is his support of the troops but the way things are going in Iraq by the time the Hildebeast gets elected we will have Iraq in a good sport and no one would walk away from Afganistan.
Onager on January 20, 2008 at 12:35 PM
I remember watching a 60 Minutes piece, must have been about 15 or 20 years ago now, where they were doing an expose on an incredibly corrupt member of the Senate. I don’t remember the guy’s name, but he held some very powerful committee positions (I think one was appropriations), and every member of the Senate knew that he was basically just a criminal, but nobody was willing to do anything about it because standing up against this guy would have meant that they (the whistleblowers) would be locked out of the game. The 60 Minutes producers repeatedly tried to get John McCain to do an on-camera interview for the piece, because McCain was portraying himself as Mr. Integrity in the Senate. McCain refused to make any comment, on camera or off, and was shown rudely (and with typical McCain hostility) rebuffing a reporter who dared to question him about why he wouldn’t talk.
Anybody who thinks McCain is going to “change” things for the better in Washington is living in a dream world. McCain isn’t the solution to what’s wrong with Washington — he’s the problem, and he has been for many years now.
AZCoyote on January 20, 2008 at 12:41 PM
AZ–
Keating five is the group. McCain was up to his neck in this corruption.
woodswalking1 on January 20, 2008 at 12:43 PM
People here need to wake up real fast! I’ve said it before, but it needs to be repeated. Fred was my number two, but he isn’t going to get the nomination. If you still think he has a chance, you are EXTREMELY delusional. There is a term we use in psychology called motivated reasoning. It means you made up your mind to support Fred and now when you hear something good about him you use it to justify your continued support. When you hear something bad about him you get defensive and dismiss it out of hand. People need to get realistic about what is going on. Most conservatives either enthusiastically support Romney or could hold their nose and vote for him. The same is NOT true for Huckabee or McAmnesty. As a veteran I take personal exception to people who used to serve but have since done all that they can to help destrpy America. That’s why I especially can’t stand Kerry or Murtha…and it’s a big reason I can’t stand McCain. Amnesty for illegals puts us on a track to having our nation completely destroyed. I would NEVER vote for someone who supports this. And I’m sickened that there are people here commenting who call themselves conservative excuse away all that McCain has done to damage our nation! If you want to stop Huckabee and McCain (and even more importantly Clinton or Obama) get behind Mitt now. The longer you wait, the more likely it is that liberals like Clinton, Obama, or McCain will be leading our nation and moving it permanently to the left.
davenp35 on January 20, 2008 at 12:45 PM
Let’s see:
He is anti abortion
He is anti pork
He knows we are in a war on terrorism
He consistantly supported what turned out to be the winning strategy in Iraq
He supports increasing efforts in Afganistan and Pakistan
He has the experience
He is pro vouchers
He is pro requiring schools to allow voluntary prayer.
Rated only 45% by the NEA
Pro nuclear power
Strong on foreign policy issues
Strong on defense
Rated only 15% by the AFL-CIO
There’s a lot more here:
http://www.ontheissues.org/John_McCain.htm
bnelson44 on January 20, 2008 at 12:47 PM
What is this whole “McCain is good on one issue, the Iraq war” crap?
I dont care what “rating” some group gave McCain to measure his Conservatism. Does this group define conservatism the same way voters in SC did when interviewed? When they called themselves conservative but that “issues” werent involved when choosing a candidate? Or that they said “some of these candidates were just TOO conservative”?
McCain on the war “I will close Gitmo and give them all attorneys”. THAT is tough on the war?
Immigration?
Taxes?
I mean he pondered for a month John Kerrys offer to be his VP for Christs sake! And overtly said “I really like some of the Democratic Parties stances on some issues”
broker1 on January 20, 2008 at 12:47 PM
You know this brings up an issue for me…I DO NOT want a man who’s been in senate for that long. It’s not supposed to be a career, it’s supposed to be a temporary representing of your district.
And don’t anybody come at me with Fred was in Senate..because he didn’t stay there…and hasn’t been in the same govt office for decades. We need those clingers-on OUT of our govt.
tickleddragon on January 20, 2008 at 12:47 PM
So– The hero McCain returned from Viet Nam. Dumped his wife, married his current one and proceeded to join the establishment.
He went on to become the ultimate Washington insider. This coupled with his voting track record leads me to conclude that he is simply a self serving opportunist. Just what we don’t need in the White House!
woodswalking1 on January 20, 2008 at 12:47 PM
Bottom line: Two things I learned in officer training. 1. Enforce standards and 2. STAND ON PRINCIPAL.
Because of that… if McCain or Huckabee are the nominees I will vote Libertarian (or write in for Fred).
don’t vote for the guy you think can win… just because you think he can win or the other guy “got in too late”.
If not enforcing our boarders and socialist policies will ruin this country… then why is it better if it comes from our guy? I’d rather let the Dems bankrupt us… then at least we have a chance to elect a REAL conservative to clean up the mess. After 8 yrs of Bush… can we affort to have another Neo-Con/Compassionate Conservative (ie Liberal-lite) trashing the conservative name in the white house?
BadBrad on January 20, 2008 at 12:48 PM
You’ve just identified one of the nastiest worms in the apple. People who are supporting these candidates have been influenced, by careless flaunting of our culture, by the crafty machinations of politicians, by simple lack of attention, or by other means, into viewing the laws of this country as mere recommendations or as pesky obstacles. With no compulsion or reason to respect law and order, it’s little wonder the Conservatives have been marginalized to such an extent.
RushBaby on January 20, 2008 at 12:49 PM
Yes, I know about McCain’s involvement in the Keating scandal. (It got a lot of media coverage here in AZ, as did McCain’s slap-on-the-wrist “punishment”). The 60 Minutes piece was unrelated to that scandal.
AZCoyote on January 20, 2008 at 12:49 PM
BadB is right ont the money.
It’s time to stand on principal.
“None of the above still has my vote”.
woodswalking1 on January 20, 2008 at 12:50 PM
WRONG. I’m not sticking with Fred out of stubbornness about Fred. I’m sticking with Fred because he’s the only one representing my views.
This crap about us fredfolk being stuck on fred just because, is just that crap.
If you guys can offer someone like fred, with my principles, then I’ll vote for him. But John McCain, Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney are NOT representing my principles.
tickleddragon on January 20, 2008 at 12:50 PM
Why are you shilling so hard for this POS traitor McCain?!? You can’t be serious! If he were the nominee I would do EVERYTHING in my power to ensure he wasn’t elected. There is no reason any conservative should be willing to support him. Who cares if he’s tough in the GWOT? Any Republican nominee would be. No candidate who supports amnesty would EVER get a vote from me.
davenp35 on January 20, 2008 at 12:51 PM
EXACTLY!
tickleddragon on January 20, 2008 at 12:52 PM
They didn’t teach you to win the battle? Your saying you were taught to lose with principle. If you were, they did you a disservice, sir. Officers are suppose to lead their troops to victory and get the other guy’s troops to give up not lead a their troops into depression.
bnelson44 on January 20, 2008 at 12:53 PM
RushBaby–
KUDOS!
woodswalking1 on January 20, 2008 at 12:54 PM
Ok…that was just a totally obnoxious thing to say. You KNOW that’s not what he was saying.
tickleddragon on January 20, 2008 at 12:54 PM
for a man who prides himself on straight talk mccain sure does lie alot. clinton parsed words, but mccain is brazen about it. i could never vote for a man so willing to surrender my country and culture to the third world.
warren1816 on January 20, 2008 at 12:55 PM
here is some more you left out:
- McCain-Fiengold
- McCain-Kennedy
- McCain-Leiberman
- Wanted to switch parties in 2002
- voted against bush tax cuts
- is against using interrogation techniques on terrorists that are used ON OUR OWN TROOPS/AGENTS in training.
- Most of all it is the arrogant way he tried to cram that McCain-Kennedy Shamnesty bill down our throats
BadBrad on January 20, 2008 at 12:56 PM
According to Mark Levin McCain didn’t raise a hand to stop Clinton and the Dems from gutting our military.
FloatingRock on January 20, 2008 at 12:57 PM
It’s amazing to me the folks that can overlook all these liberal leanings, while trying to tell us that we need to abandon our principles.
You’re weak, unprincipled sheep. Stop trying to make us eat the sh!t sandwich, please!
tickleddragon on January 20, 2008 at 12:57 PM
Excellent post, rockhauler. Excellent, excellent post. There seem to be a lot of people nowadays who just do not understand the idea of sticking to principles and a moral code. This idea seems to be foreign to too many people today.
Unfortunately, there are too many people who hold the same view of conservatives sticking to principles and a moral code that the Left has about the military and their moral code. The Left can’t comprehend the military actually standing for something and considers them stupid. The same insults are being thrown at conservatives this campaign season with regards to not voting for a candidate who is not conservative.
The problem is that the American voting public, and this includes political blogs such as HotAir, have stopped focusing on the issues and ideology and now are engaging in identity politics. Sure, right-wing sites are laughing at the Democrats arguing over whether they should be sexist or racist, but the Republican side is doing the exact same thing.
Whenever you see the “exit polls” from the alphabet networks and the writeups after the primaries, do you see anyone talking about issues? No, on both the mass media and here on sites like HotAir and NRO, you see them playing identity politics. Women voted this way, Blacks voted this way, the military voted this way, evangelicals voted this way. No talk of issues, just talk of classifying Americans into groups.
Which then results in comments on websites and comments on TV saying “evangelicals are stupid for voting for X” or “women are ___ for voting for Y”. Still, no talk of issues or ideology, simply identity politics.
Am I the only one who is interested in WHY people voted for candidates? What are the issues in which they are interested?
How about “Voters whose main concern was the economy voted for X”, “Voters whose main concern was national security voted for Y”, “Voters whose main concern was social issues voted for Z”, etc etc. This is what should matter, not identity politics. All this identity politics does is split the entire country and have a bunch of people talking on websites about “hating evangelicals” or “hating Iowans” or saying “South Carolina is stupid”, etc. Meanwhile no talk of issues and ideology.
Brilliant.
WE are the problem. Not the mass media, not the politicians. WE, the People. If we want better elected leaders, we need to hold them to higher standards. We need to stop fighting amongst ourselves and start getting back to talking about issues and ideology.
Michael in MI on January 20, 2008 at 1:00 PM
He was saying to give up ground to the enemy (Clinton/Obama) on principle. What was I suppose to think he was saying?
bnelson44 on January 20, 2008 at 1:00 PM
Romney and Rudy would be just as good on spending and pork.
Buy Danish on January 20, 2008 at 1:03 PM
A McCain Presidency:
We are awash with illegals, including, God only knows how many, active terrorists.
The welfare system and our hospital system reaches a the point of collapse.
Our courts are overloaded with terrorists claiming all of the rights of Americans.
Political free speech becomes a thing of the past as legislation such as McCain/Feingold is expanded.
Talk radio disappears as the fairness doctrine is introduced and signed by McCain.
Sounds Great, doesn’t it?
woodswalking1 on January 20, 2008 at 1:05 PM
Giving up ground is nominating someone just like them in the first place.
tickleddragon on January 20, 2008 at 1:06 PM
No, they were taught to win with principle. That is the whole idea of the COIN Manual and what is taught there. They are not to lower their standards to that of the enemy and are to maintain their principles and standards, even if it leads to their deaths. They are not to dishonor the military nor their country. It would be easier to not conduct operations by a code of conduct and simply wipe out everything in Iraq, terrorist or civilian, but we do not do that, because they are fighting with the principle that the American military does not do that. They have higher standards.
And, because of those higher standards, we are winning the counterinsurgency in Iraq and winning more hearts and minds every day. If we decided to throw away our principles and just fight like the enemy, the Iraqi people would still hate us just as they now hate al Qaeda.
Michael in MI on January 20, 2008 at 1:07 PM
You’re not the only one interested in knowing why people are voting the way they are, Michael. I’m very curious to know why 33% of Republican voters in S.C. voted for McCain. I know there are a lot of retired military people in S.C., but I also know that most South Carolinians were outraged by the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill. Did McCain voters in S.C. just decide to forgive and forget? Did they think McCain’s support for the surge was more important than his treachery on illegal immigration? Did they buy his “I never supported amnesty” spin?
I don’t know. But like you, I sure would like to know.
AZCoyote on January 20, 2008 at 1:08 PM
I never said anything about ‘losing with principal’. Wining is the #1 principal… in war.
but this isn’t a choice between winning or losing. If we select a RINO the general election will be a choice between losing and losing. either you didn’t read it or you were purposefully spinning what I said. I’ll let you all decide which.
BadBrad on January 20, 2008 at 1:09 PM
If we’re stuck with McCain, we’ll have to support him because the alternative is worse. If he wins, he’s beholden (and we must never let him forget it). If he loses, it won’t matter.
If the country was in better shape I’d stay home too. Please don’t.
dhimwit on January 20, 2008 at 1:12 PM
Exactly…
BadBrad on January 20, 2008 at 1:13 PM
OMG someone needs some shooling. Your analogy it pathetic. A soldier giving up principle to win a war would be dropping a 2000 lb bomb on a building with 200 civilians in it being held hostage by a terrorist.
THAT is a soldier giving up principle. Holding to your principles and voting for a cadidate no matter what happens is principle.
broker1 on January 20, 2008 at 1:14 PM
The problem with many people is that they seem to be afraid of a Democrat in the White House. They seem to think that we have to win at all costs, no matter what, in order to stop a Democrat from being in the White House. Because, apparently, they believe that a Democrat in the White House will destroy this country and we will never recover.
Personally I don’t believe that one bit. If it does happen, it will not be because of the Democrats, it will be because We, the People, did not care enough about our country to stop it from happening. The 2008 election is not the end of this by any means. No matter who wins, we all need to continue to stay active, continue to work to get Americans informed, educated and engaged in our nation. No one person and no one Political Party can destroy this country without the consent of millions of Americans. Those who keep saying that Hillary or Obama will destroy this country are really saying that the American people do not care enough about this country to stop them.
Michael in MI on January 20, 2008 at 1:15 PM
Just like he was beholden to the citizens for putting him into office in the first place… He was sure beholden when he betrayed us those DOZEN of times. Good logic there.
tickleddragon on January 20, 2008 at 1:17 PM
NO! McCain is a man with a grudge, directed at the American people, the Republican Party, and President Bush. His political philosophy amounts to “I’LL SHOW YOU!”
RushBaby on January 20, 2008 at 1:20 PM
I love your optimism, but one person and one Party could easily destroy this country and it’s precisely because the people you put your faith in DON’T actually care enough about America. Most people could care less.
davenp35 on January 20, 2008 at 1:20 PM
Well, I’ve been a strong supporter for Fred but it’s time to get behind Romney. I think the fastest way for this party to die is if amnesty is given. We all know any of the dems would pass it, and McCain, Huck, and Rudy most likely would too. We probably wouldn’t even have these arguments now, if the Bush administration hadn’t been so incompetent in so many areas. He’s really set us back.
kongzilla on January 20, 2008 at 1:22 PM
I guess there IS still some common sense here at HotAir.
davenp35 on January 20, 2008 at 1:25 PM
We shut them down before, we will again. This isn’t simply a Dem vs. Rep issue. BOTH sides piled on Congress to stop Shamnesty. So your assumption is flawed.
I will give a second look at Romney IF he’s the nom. Until then, he is not representing my principles, so he does not get my primary vote.
tickleddragon on January 20, 2008 at 1:25 PM
I guess there IS still some common unprincipled sense here at HotAir.
davenp35 on January 20, 2008 at 1:25 PM
FIFY
tickleddragon on January 20, 2008 at 1:27 PM
RushBaby on January 20, 2008 at 1:20 PM
OH RUSHBABY……..and it shows when he looses his temper!!! major kudos…
jerrytbg on January 20, 2008 at 1:29 PM
TD’s right about that. McCain has certainly never felt “beholden” to the voters of Arizona who put him in the Senate. In our last election, Arizona voters passed (by overwhelming numbers — more than 70% on each) 5 ballot initiatives against illegal immigrants. Our legislature, again with overwhelming public support, passed a law last year to permanently strip business licenses from AZ employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens (first violation is temporary license suspension; second violation is permanent suspension). Yet McCain, to this day, continues to support a massive amnesty plan for illegal aliens — something the majority of Arizona voters oppose.
So much for “representative” government.
AZCoyote on January 20, 2008 at 1:29 PM
Thanks, AZ.
tickleddragon on January 20, 2008 at 1:31 PM
What does FIFY mean?
I just learned last night what IIRC means.
Thanks.
cjs1943 on January 20, 2008 at 1:35 PM
You guys and your faux principles are laughable. Fred wasn’t conservative on a number of issues. I didn’t see you crying about him. You should be concerned with making progress where you can. The longer you keep this high and mightly attitude the more damage you will do. Newsflash: You aren’t the 300 making your final stand. You’re fools for not getting behind the one candidate left who would actually govern as a conservative. You remind me of the cult a few years back that wouldn’t allow it’s members to have children. Guess what? You too will be gone in no time. You vote for the best candidate of who is left and you keep pushing to make non-election progress for conservatism. You don’t jump off a cliff just because you decided it would somehow be the more principled thing to do.
davenp35 on January 20, 2008 at 1:36 PM
“Fixed it for you”.
What’s IIRC?
tickleddragon on January 20, 2008 at 1:36 PM
Pull the other one, Sport. I SAID that he represents the closest to my principles.
tickleddragon on January 20, 2008 at 1:37 PM
tickleddragon, I’m with you on the principles thing, my comment is based on the assumption that Fred isn’t going to be in it much longer. You are right we did stop them from giving amnesty. But how about that border? It’s still open, and wow what a surprise, the funding just isn’t there to build the fence that was promised.
kongzilla on January 20, 2008 at 1:37 PM
…which by the way…is WAY closer than any of the other folks. Don’t impune my sense of principle because you’ve sold yours.
tickleddragon on January 20, 2008 at 1:38 PM
Right on, Hero.
davenp35 on January 20, 2008 at 1:38 PM
I wanted Fred to be the candidate, but, he isn’t the guy I thought he would be. Big letdown for me. Duncan Hunter is now out, too. Sorry, but for me that only leaves Mitt. McCain, Huckabee, and Guilliani never.
cjs1943 on January 20, 2008 at 1:39 PM
If I recall correctly
RushBaby on January 20, 2008 at 1:39 PM
We stopped the bill…it’s a start, and better than if we hadn’t.
Let me state this ONCE again. I will support only the one that represents the closest to my principles in the primaries… once the nom is chosen, I will take a second look at Mitt, should he be the nom. But that does not extend to McVain or Schmuckabee.
tickleddragon on January 20, 2008 at 1:40 PM
So, you’re saying I shouldn’t make assumptions about you while you’re making assumptions about me? LOL
davenp35 on January 20, 2008 at 1:40 PM
IIRC means “If I Recall/Remember Correctly”.
cjs1943 on January 20, 2008 at 1:40 PM
Thanks, RB.
tickleddragon on January 20, 2008 at 1:40 PM
For the sake of sportsmanship, I will refrain from further assumptions, if you do.
tickleddragon on January 20, 2008 at 1:41 PM
Good man! Using logic, which you have done, doesn’t seem to be feature of a number of other commenters on here.
davenp35 on January 20, 2008 at 1:42 PM
I am simply sick and tired of people trying to get me to abandon my principles to accept someone I don’t like based on him being picked by others. It’s not going to happen, so please, for the love of all that’s holy, stop trying.
tickleddragon on January 20, 2008 at 1:43 PM
Insults don’t help your case, dave.
tickleddragon on January 20, 2008 at 1:43 PM
Right on.
davenp35 on January 20, 2008 at 1:43 PM
davenp35 on January 20, 2008 at 1:42 PM
Aren’t you from MN? How do you like the idea of having Al Franken for a senator?
cjs1943 on January 20, 2008 at 1:44 PM
I live in San Diego, but the thought of anyone going to cast a vote for Franken makes me LOL. Last I saw he was tied though. Very scary.
davenp35 on January 20, 2008 at 1:46 PM
Oh, sorry. I have you confused with someone else. I’m from MN and that is what I’m afraid that is going to happen.
cjs1943 on January 20, 2008 at 1:48 PM
cjs1943 on January 20, 2008 at 1:44 PM
The topic is principals……not……nevermind.
jerrytbg on January 20, 2008 at 1:48 PM
Well, actually if you’re nit-picking, we’re talking about “principles”. School beaurocrats never entered into it. LOL. JK.
tickleddragon on January 20, 2008 at 1:50 PM
I stand corrected.
cjs1943 on January 20, 2008 at 1:50 PM
To restrain a liberal President (of either party) it will take enough conservatives in Congress. So whether you vote or don’t vote on POTUS, for the country’s sake don’t sit home. Go out and vote for whatever conservatives you have the opportunity to elect.
NellE on January 20, 2008 at 1:51 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »