Quantcast

NON-PARTISAN immigration group NumbersUSA [with almost two million members] reports that Romney "owned" Arizona on account of his staunch opposition to illegal immigration. Does that surprise you?

tncdel 2012/02/29 05:15:14
You!
Add Photos & Videos
Add a comment above

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Footage 2012/02/29 17:12:05
    NO, that doesn't surprise me at all [explain why].
    Footage
    Arizona is a state deeply impacted by illegal immigration, perhaps more than any other. The state has beseeched the federal government for help with the problem year in and year out, and was finally forced to take matters into their own hands first by passing the Legal Arizona Workers Act in 2007, punishing businesses for knowingly hiring illegals, then SB1070. The result? The federal government sues the state.
  • SoCalEx-Dem 2012/02/29 16:15:06
    NO, that doesn't surprise me at all [explain why].
    SoCalEx-Dem
    +1
    Arizona has the most trouble with the illegals and the government won't help them so they support the guy who they think will help their cause. Makes perfect sense to me.
  • WhereIsAmerica? ~PWCM~JLA 2012/02/29 14:16:04
    NO, that doesn't surprise me at all [explain why].
    WhereIsAmerica? ~PWCM~JLA
    +2
    Obama hasn't done crap for AZ, they are angry and sick of being invaded.
  • Andy 2012/02/29 12:51:51
    NO, that doesn't surprise me at all [explain why].
    Andy
    +2
    Arizona is tired of the Federal Government not stepping up and defending the southern border of Arizona!!
  • chaoskitty123 2012/02/29 12:25:24
    NO, that doesn't surprise me at all [explain why].
    chaoskitty123
    It doesn't surprise me but it also doesn't surprise me this is political talk to get votes. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.co... This topic comes from MSNBC but it addresses the matter pretty straightforward. It makes a point with this quote by Obama...

    Quote
    "I think most Americans feel there should be an orderly process to do it. People shouldn't just be coming here and cutting in front of the line essentially and staying without having gone through the proper channels."
    End Quote

    Romneys own remarks, however, seem to point to the illegals being sent home. Great political double talk when he has offered no plan for closing the border to keep most of them from coming right back or for dealing with the Neocons in his own party who would block him at every turn or possibly even force his hand to open the border even more.

    It is the Neocons who keep kicking the border door open with Mexico and the Liberals just fight to protect their rights when the illegals get here... rights they shouldn't be afforded as they are not entitled to any special protections here beyond a safe bus ride home they have to pay for.

    Romney is speaking like a child indicating he really doesn't know what to do on this issue.

    Here's a plan...

    Bring the troops home, open up military training bases along t...













    It doesn't surprise me but it also doesn't surprise me this is political talk to get votes. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.co... This topic comes from MSNBC but it addresses the matter pretty straightforward. It makes a point with this quote by Obama...

    Quote
    "I think most Americans feel there should be an orderly process to do it. People shouldn't just be coming here and cutting in front of the line essentially and staying without having gone through the proper channels."
    End Quote

    Romneys own remarks, however, seem to point to the illegals being sent home. Great political double talk when he has offered no plan for closing the border to keep most of them from coming right back or for dealing with the Neocons in his own party who would block him at every turn or possibly even force his hand to open the border even more.

    It is the Neocons who keep kicking the border door open with Mexico and the Liberals just fight to protect their rights when the illegals get here... rights they shouldn't be afforded as they are not entitled to any special protections here beyond a safe bus ride home they have to pay for.

    Romney is speaking like a child indicating he really doesn't know what to do on this issue.

    Here's a plan...

    Bring the troops home, open up military training bases along the border with Mexico, work in conjunction with Mexico to keep the drugs and illegals on their side of the border... and the guns we send their crime cartels on our side of the border.

    You could even shut down many of our prisons and put violent criminals in desert towns monitored by the military where they can live a normal life... and choose execution by stepping out of the patrol zone where soldiers have shoot to kill orders.

    Simple, cost effective, addresses numerous issues, even addresses our views of "humane" treatment for violent criminals and saves the taxpayer billions of dollars at every turn while training our military to take on policing actions since we seem to think we're supposed to fight wars of occupation where our soldiers must become police officers.

    Romneys plan... erm... he doesn't have one and is copying Obama except where he says he would tell the illegals to get to the back of the line. Woohooo... what a plan.

    Look, believe the obvious lies all you like and say Romneys tough on illegal immigration... there is no plan from Romney to do anything where illegal immigration is concerned and anyone with half a brain can see this is just another sweet lie just like Bush jr liked to whisper to get votes and then he did the opposite of what he promised.

    You want to claim Romneys big on doing something about illegal immigration... show us a plan he's proposing and how he plans to get it past the Liberals and Neocons as together they can block anything Romney might plan to do on this issue.

    Logic and common sense... Romney is talking out of his backside and something stinks about what he's saying if you actually possess any concept of what the word truth means.

    I think the man can beat Obama because of the Independents and Democrat crossover vote... but don't promote his lies as truth as even if he can beat his Republican adversaries with this, supporting this BS from him will only empower Obama to pull those independent and crossover Democrats back to his side when Romney gets caught by people who will demand to see his plan for carrying this out and to prove he's not another GWB lying through his teeth to get votes... then kick the doors open along the border with Mexico doing the opposite of what he promised.
    (more)
  • tncdel chaoski... 2012/02/29 16:44:41
    tncdel
    But Romney seems to be taking the wise counsel of NumbersUSA and others, including the author of the states' toughest immigration laws:
    http://www.sodahead.com/unite...
  • LisaSmith 2012/02/29 06:46:33
    NO, that doesn't surprise me at all [explain why].
    LisaSmith
    +1
    http://www.humanevents.com/ar...

    What's their problem with Romney?

    by Ann Coulter

    02/22/2012




    6816
    Comments


    As governor of one of the most liberal states in the union, Mitt Romney did something even Ronald Reagan didn't do as governor of California: He balanced the budget without raising taxes.

    Romney became deeply pro-life as governor of the aforementioned liberal state and vetoed an embryonic stem cell bill. (Meanwhile, Newt Gingrich lobbied President George W. Bush to allow embryonic stem cell research.)

    Romney's approach to illegal immigration in Massachusetts resembled what Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona is doing today, making her a right-wing heroine.

    Romney pushed the conservative alternative to national health care that, had it been adopted in the 49 other states, would have killed Obamacare in the crib by solving the health insurance problem at the state level.

    Unlike actual Establishment candidates, Romney has never worked in Washington, much less spent his entire life as a professional politician. He's had a Midas touch with every enterprise he has ever run, including Bain Capital, the Olympics and Massachusetts.

    The chestnut about Mitt Romney being pushed on unsuspecting conservatives by "the Establishment" is the exact opposite of the truth. The Esta...





















































    http://www.humanevents.com/ar...

    What's their problem with Romney?

    by Ann Coulter

    02/22/2012




    6816
    Comments


    As governor of one of the most liberal states in the union, Mitt Romney did something even Ronald Reagan didn't do as governor of California: He balanced the budget without raising taxes.

    Romney became deeply pro-life as governor of the aforementioned liberal state and vetoed an embryonic stem cell bill. (Meanwhile, Newt Gingrich lobbied President George W. Bush to allow embryonic stem cell research.)

    Romney's approach to illegal immigration in Massachusetts resembled what Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona is doing today, making her a right-wing heroine.

    Romney pushed the conservative alternative to national health care that, had it been adopted in the 49 other states, would have killed Obamacare in the crib by solving the health insurance problem at the state level.

    Unlike actual Establishment candidates, Romney has never worked in Washington, much less spent his entire life as a professional politician. He's had a Midas touch with every enterprise he has ever run, including Bain Capital, the Olympics and Massachusetts.

    The chestnut about Mitt Romney being pushed on unsuspecting conservatives by "the Establishment" is the exact opposite of the truth. The Establishment, by any sensible definition, is virulently opposed to Romney -- and for completely contradictory reasons.

    The entire NFM (non-Fox media) hate Romney because he is the only candidate who stands a chance of beating Obama.

    Meanwhile, many of the pillars of the conservative establishment also implacably oppose Romney. Fox News is neutral, but its second-highest-rated host, Sean Hannity, is anti-Romney, as is prominent Fox News contributor Sarah Palin -- who has also offered herself up as a possible presidential nominee at a contested convention. (Wouldn't a former candidate for vice president on a major party's ticket be part of the Establishment?)

    The No. 1 conservative talk-radio host in America, Rush Limbaugh, is critical of Romney, and another top conservative talk-radio host, Mark Levin, is adamantly against Romney -- though both Limbaugh and Levin supported Romney as the conservative alternative to John McCain in 2008, and Romney has only gotten better since then.



    Purely to hurt Romney, the Iowa Republican Party fiddled with the vote tally to take Romney's victory away from him and give it to Rick Santorum -- even though the "official count" was missing eight precincts. Isn't the party apparatus of a state considered part of the Establishment?

    I'm not sure what part of the Establishment supports Romney. Is it Romney supporter Christine O'Donnell, erstwhile tea party candidate for the U.S. Senate from Delaware? Am I the face of the Establishment? (If so, the country is going to be just fine.)

    I would think that the pristine example of the Republican Establishment is Weekly Standard editor and Fox News contributor Bill Kristol. But he wants anybody but Romney, even proposing that we choose someone not running by means of a contested convention.

    Who are we trying to get nominated in a contested convention, anyway?

    Without having seen this mystery candidate in action, how do we know he won't be another Rick Perry? You'll recall that Perry was the dream candidate until we saw him talk.

    In 2008, Romney was enthusiastically supported not only by Limbaugh and Levin, but also by Sean Hannity, Rick Santorum, Herman Cain, Laura Ingraham, Michael Savage and many others who now seem to view Romney as a closet liberal. This is especially baffling because there is no liberal candidate in the Republican primary this year.

    Just four years ago, one Republican candidate for president was avowedly pro-abortion (Rudy Giuliani). One had opposed Clinton's impeachment and tort reform (Fred Thompson). One supported amnesty for illegals, restrictions on core First Amendment speech, federal laws to combat nonexistent global warming, and opposed Guantanamo and the Bush tax cuts ("tax cuts for the rich!") and called waterboarding "torture."

    That last one was our nominee: John McCain.

    This year, every Republican candidate for president opposes abortion, promises to repeal Obamacare, opposes raising taxes, and on and on. Only one candidate is strong on illegal immigration, which is second only to repealing Obamacare as the most important issue facing the nation.

    That's the alleged liberal, Mitt Romney.

    Conservatives scratch their heads wondering how the NFM can convince millions of unemployed and underemployed Americans paying $3.57 for a gallon of gas that the economy is improving simply by repeatedly saying so.

    But then a large minority of those same conservatives are completely convinced that Romney is an Establishment candidate simply because they have heard that repeated so often.

    As we say to dunderhead liberals: What we're looking for here is facts, not chants or epithets.

    But instead of popping Champagne corks over our final triumph over Rockefeller Republicanism, some conservatives are still fighting old wars, rather like an old cold warrior prattling about the Soviet Union after the rest of us have moved onto the war on terrorism.

    This strange new version of right-wing populism comes down to reveling in the feeling that you are being dissed, hoodwinked or manipulated by the Establishment (most of which happens to oppose Romney) the same way liberals want to believe that "the rich," the "right-wing media" and Wall Street Republicans (there are three) are victimizing them.

    It's as if scoring points in intra-Republican squabbles is more important than beating Obama. Instead of talking about the candidates' positions -- which would be confusing inasmuch as Romney is the most conservative of the four remaining candidates -- the only issue seems to be whether "They" are showing respect for "Us."

    Striking a pose as the only true fighter for real Americans may be fun, but this is no way to win elections. This is Sharron Angle on a national level.

    The obsession with sticking it to the Establishment (which includes Christine O'Donnell, but excludes Bill Kristol) by voting for a loose cannon demagogue or a crusading Catholic who can't seem to move the conversation past contraception is as pie-in-the-sky delusional as anything dished by Democrats carrying on about "green jobs."

    If saving the environment is the best way to create new jobs, then it could be true that being a hard-core environmentalist nutcase is the best way to appeal to the mass of independent voters.

    Similarly, if reducing contraception use, lobbying for Freddie Mac and promoting huge government programs such as moon colonies and No Child Left Behind are the best ways to create jobs, then it could be true that Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum are our strongest candidates in a general election.

    Of course, it might also be true that dousing yourself in fairy dust does not guarantee that you will find the perfect mate and get the perfect job.

    We're being asked to hand Obama another four years in the White House in order to "send a message." To whom? And what message? That we're morons? Message received!

    Meanwhile, Romney cheerfully campaigns on, the biggest outsider and most conservative candidate we've run for president since Reagan, while being denounced by the Establishment as "too Establishment."
    (more)
  • chaoski... LisaSmith 2012/02/29 12:04:47
    chaoskitty123
    Lol, she begins with a truth wrapped in a lie as Romney did in fact resolve Massachusetts budget deficit without raising taxes... he just raised the cost of everything else leading to greater cost of living for people living there. His healthcare bill was extensively rewritten by Ted Kennedy making it a precurser to Obamacare which Romney allowed to retain his name and he then signed Romneycare into law.

    Quote
    Purely to hurt Romney, the Iowa Republican Party fiddled with the vote tally to take Romney's victory away from him and give it to Rick Santorum -- even though the "official count" was missing eight precincts. Isn't the party apparatus of a state considered part of the Establishment?
    End Quote

    Lol, Romney won Iowa by 8 votes meaning that any recount could easily have given Santorum the win and those 8 missing precincts could just as easily have given Santorum an unquestioned victory.

    Ann Coulter is not a reliable source for information. She points out how people like Rush Limbaugh supported Romney in 2008 but changed their stance to stand against him in 2012... but promotes how Romney supposedly changed his stance on abortion while Governor of Massachusetts meaning she acknowledges that people can change their views while at the same time seemingly expecting that others are...









    Lol, she begins with a truth wrapped in a lie as Romney did in fact resolve Massachusetts budget deficit without raising taxes... he just raised the cost of everything else leading to greater cost of living for people living there. His healthcare bill was extensively rewritten by Ted Kennedy making it a precurser to Obamacare which Romney allowed to retain his name and he then signed Romneycare into law.

    Quote
    Purely to hurt Romney, the Iowa Republican Party fiddled with the vote tally to take Romney's victory away from him and give it to Rick Santorum -- even though the "official count" was missing eight precincts. Isn't the party apparatus of a state considered part of the Establishment?
    End Quote

    Lol, Romney won Iowa by 8 votes meaning that any recount could easily have given Santorum the win and those 8 missing precincts could just as easily have given Santorum an unquestioned victory.

    Ann Coulter is not a reliable source for information. She points out how people like Rush Limbaugh supported Romney in 2008 but changed their stance to stand against him in 2012... but promotes how Romney supposedly changed his stance on abortion while Governor of Massachusetts meaning she acknowledges that people can change their views while at the same time seemingly expecting that others are not allowed to do the same.

    Coulter goes off on these rants contradicting herself on a regular basis and making herself look like a fool. She can be very level headed at times and even correct, but you just happened to have quoted her in one of her lesser moments where her "support" for Romney only confirms her as part of the establishment people claim are Romney supporters. These people like to claim Romney as an outsider being beaten up on by the establishment when the facts are that Romney is little different than Rick Perry changing his views to suit his potential voting base while trying to convince his old supporters he's still the same guy. The only difference really is that Romney was a Liberal Republican in a state where a Conservative Republican cannot win the governors office. If he were a Conservative then he lied to win office in Massachusetts where it might then be claimed that his future plans to run for the White House led him to start playing Mr Conservative after becoming Governor of Massachusetts... and he left not to head up the Olympics, but because he knew the Democrats wouldn't re elect him and the opportunity to head up the Olympics gave him an easy way out.

    I myself think Romney can win because he can pull the Independents and crossover Democrat vote... but he will lose many Republican voters who smell a wolf in sheeps clothing. to claim he did not support Liberal views and that even now he still does on many issues is a complete falsehood. If anything, Romney may be a Moderate leftwinger meaning he can walk the walk and talk the talk of being rightwing on certain issues or even claim he has changed his position on other issues to sound more Conservative... but remember, he wanted to be President even when he was Governor and part of the reason he didn't run for a second term was his stated desire to run for President in 2008.

    For all that Ann Coulter might say, she is backing a man who has waffled on many issues where he should have stood strong if he were a Conservative while outright supporting the left on issues where a true Conservative would not have.

    Maybe a case could be made for calling him a Moderate Conservative if we ignore how he changed his views on issues like abortion more for future political gain than anything more.

    Again, I think he could beat Obama and might make a decent President... but Coulters wrong on most of what she says here.
    (more)
  • LisaSmith chaoski... 2012/02/29 16:17:03 (edited)
    LisaSmith
    +1
    I feel he has the best chance to beat obama and that he is a decent guy. I am going for Romney, no matter what his failings are they are nothing compared to obama's. I just hope he actually does something about the illegals but you are probably right that nothing will get done. With obama it is certain that nothing will get done.
  • Stan Kapusta 2012/02/29 06:25:56
    NO, that doesn't surprise me at all [explain why].
    Stan Kapusta
    +2
    Arizona is one of the states that secured borders. Too many illegal immigrants and drugs walking over. The total expense alone to the American public is staggering. Combining with the escalating hatred I can see why.
  • tncdel Stan Ka... 2012/02/29 16:46:40
    tncdel
    +1
    Well, they tried at least... till Obama sent Holder to stop them from defending themselves.
  • EliteAmongOutcasts 2012/02/29 05:27:24
  • tncdel 2012/02/29 05:17:57
    NO, that doesn't surprise me at all [explain why].
    tncdel
    +3
    No doubt Arizonans want someone who will get their land back:

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/11/23 19:16:05

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals