That’s a nice dodge. You know exactly why McCain isn’t talking about immigration (at least in his English language ads!) because he knows the base doesn’t trust him on the issue. Hence the total cave on his own immigration bill.

You make the claim that McCain has totally changed his views on immigration policy, yet you put the onus on me to prove you’re wrong.

Um, sorry dude. I know McCain has caved on immigration to satisfy guys like Rush Limbaugh. You’re the one saying he still supports amnesty or amnesty like proposals. Really? I don’t see anything like that on his webpage, in his ads, in his public speeches, anywhere. Indeed, the Republican platform specifically states that the party is opposed to amnesty. Why didn’t Maveriky McCain have that struck from the platform? Because he’s caved to the party base on the issue, that’s why.

Actually it us under the Address The Undocumented.

Okay. You want to point out where, on McCain’s webpage, it says he’d allow undocumented workers to pay a fine and get processed for green cards? Cuz I don’t see it. What I do see is a lot of stuff that sounds exactly like what the Heritage Foundation and Rush Limbaugh have been asking for.

You claim McCain completely changed his immigration policy which is not true.

Dude, I’ve explained to you why I believe McCain has changed his position on immigration and I’ve even given you links to McCain’s own policies which are nothing like what’s in the McCain-Kennedy bill. Indeed, some of it’s the exact opposite. Where’s the call for fines? No where. There are McCain’s own words that he’s no longer supporting his own legislation. There’s the clear absence of any talk of amnesty in his speeches, his website, any articles anywhere. I’ve given you my reasons for reaching my conclusions. You’ve provided nothing in response to actually refute them. Indeed, you haven’t provided a single link or quote to McCain saying during the campaign that he supports amnesty. If you could do that, you win. But so far, nothing. Why is that, Jay?

You claim he no longer supports amnesty which is not true …

Okay smart boy. Now you’ve just made a claim. Prove it. Prove to me that McCain still supports amnesty for illegal aliens. I’ve given you evidence for my claims. You’ve provided nothing that refutes it. Now’s your chance. You’re making the claim that McCain supports amnesty. Prove it.

j mccann
Sep 19th, 2008 at 8:41 am

countdown to McCain camp bringing back Rev. Wright…
9……8……..7……….6……..

And lo/behold:

# j mccann
Sep 19th, 2008 at 3:30 pm

McCain’s racist supporters??? LOL!
The biggest racists in this whole “race debacle” are Rev. Wright and his congregation, and that issue is a loooong way from dead . . . blah blah blah . . . pot, meet kettle.

Uncanny how mccann was able to predict this.

Please show me how important immigration is to voters at this time? When was the last time Obama mentioned the Iraq War? Probably at his convention speech. I guess that means I can take it that his Iraq war policy has changed.

Why is so hard to “prove” that McCain supports amnesty if he actually does?

Here we go again with a typical fucking Fafaroo-like tactic. You make the claim that McCain has totally changed his views on immigration policy, yet you put the onus on me to prove you’re wrong. Nice try Wendell. It doesn’t work. You’re asserting McCain no longer supports amnesty. Prove it or STFU.

Hmmm, how come there’s no mention of this particular McCain-Kennedy feature on McCain’s website:

Actually it us under the Address The Undocumented.

Because he needs the support of people like Rush Limbaugh who excoriated him in the primaries.

He got the support of Limbaugh the moment he became the nominee Fafaroo. Don’t be such a moron. I know it’s hard, but try.

So either he’s switched his position on immigration and dropped the offensive “amnesty” proposals or he’s lying to his own supporters about what his plan is.

Please. You’ve reached two bullshit conclusions and tell me pick one. You can’t admit that once again you’ve been caught wallowing in your own bullshit. You claim McCain completely changed his immigration policy which is not true. You claim he no longer supports amnesty which is not true and then you try to hilariously claim that he must have done so because if no, there’s no way that Rush Limbaugh would support him for President.

You have been weighed, you have been measured and you have been found wanting. Good night.

And spare me the GOP platform nonsense. Like that proves anything. What a dolt.

You made an assertion. Back it up, or shut up. Simple as that dude. If you cannot back up the claims you make, DON’T MAKE THEM. A fucking child knows this and yet you keep repeating the same mistake.

It won’t happen though, because his freakin’ flip-floppin’ head would explode.

We oppose amnesty. The rule of law suffers if government policies encourage or reward illegal activity. The American people’s rejection of en masse legalizations is especially appropriate given the federal government’s past failures to enforce the law.

http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/NationalSecurity.htm#Def5

Now, Jay, if your argument for separating McCain’s immigration policy from Limbaugh’s immigration policy wishes rests on the assertion that McCain still supports amnesty, could you please explain why his party’s platform specifically rejects amnesty?

And when you ask, “please show me where McCain has said that he no longer supports amnesty” can you show us a single instance of McCain stating during this campaign that he supports amnesty?

Wait, what? Your argument that McCain’s current immigration position is nothing like Limbaugh’s is based on the fact that McCain still supports “amnesty”? Or more precisely, your argument seems to be that no one can prove McCain now opposes amnesty.

Well, hell, Jay, if McCain supports amnesty why isn’t he running on that? Why is so hard to “prove” that McCain supports amnesty if he actually does?

One of the biggest issues conservatives had with McCain-Kennedy was that its process for resolving the status of illegal immigrants involved, as the Heritage Foundation, wrote:

McCain-Kennedy would establish a worker visa program that would allow employers to temporarily hire foreign citizens to fill jobs that cannot be filled with U.S. laborers. That is not a bad idea. However, the act proposes to allow individuals unlawfully here to stay and sign up for the program by paying a $1,500 fine. That is a bad idea. It is, in effect, an amnesty–which undercuts the rule of law by rewarding those who have acted wrongly and will only encourage further illegal entry. Effective internal enforcement must deter further illegal entry. Any effective deterrent must require individuals to leave and apply for admission without prejudice or advantage.

Hmmm, how come there’s no mention of this particular McCain-Kennedy feature on McCain’s website: http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/68db8157-d301-4e22-baf7-a70dd8416efa.htm

Indeed, McCain’s website proposal on “Border Security” reads like a point for point cave to many of the criticisms that the Heritage Foundation, and others, had of McCain=Kennedy.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/GovernmentReform/em975.cfm

At the same time, if McCain still supports everything in McCain-Kennedy, only with a new emphasis on border security first, McCain-Kennedy Plus, if you will, why isn’t that what he’s saying on the campaign trail? Why isn’t he saying, “I’ve added border security measures to my original bill and when I’m president I’ll get McCain-Kennedy Plus passed!”

You know why he isn’t saying that: Because he needs the support of people like Rush Limbaugh who excoriated him in the primaries. So either he’s switched his position on immigration and dropped the offensive “amnesty” proposals or he’s lying to his own supporters about what his plan is.

So which is it, Jay?

Can you prove that? Even a little?

I’ll bet. It must be exhausting shoveling all that bullshit all AND carrying water for McNovocain.

It’s been a long week.

Fuck it, just insert crack.

But going on the assumption you’re sincere… you’re the biggest fucking idiot this blog has seen this side of Frankie. Good work on that. For the billionth time… you cannot simply boil down 60s of video footage of Wright and conclude that his church is “bitterly racist and Marxist.” Well, you could, but you’d be a simpleton for doing so. Additionally, and relatedly, 60s of video footage of Wright does not say anything about Obama. Sorry to burst your bubble.

And for you to claim that the biggest racists are those in Wright’s church… the biggest racists are Wright’s congregation… and not those that support the party of the Southern Strategy, including Limbaugh… well… you’re not very smart.

Also, “for all intensive purposes?” Hahaha…

You’re a joke. Just a pitiful human being. It’d be a funny joke if it weren’t so sad.

Obama has cut his ties to Wright back when the issue still had legs. He didn’t seek Wright’s endorsement, while McCain actively sought Hagee’s endorsement. It’s so old I even feel tired responding to it.

Well, of course the issue is not dead for a campaign desperate for issues or credibility, but the news cycle has moved on to the lies of McPalin. Even if playing the Wright card had any legitimacy it now feels like old talking points.

Sorry, man … what happened to your dramatic countdown? Don’t leave me hanging, dude

McCain’s racist supporters??? LOL!

The biggest racists in this whole “race debacle” are Rev. Wright and his congregation, and that issue is a loooong way from dead, especially considering the low blow Obama just threw at McCain with the Limbaugh thing. Limbaugh for all intensive purposes usually can’t STAND McCain, and supports him only because he’s the lesser of two evils, where as Obama spent 20 years in Wrights bitterly racist and Marxist church.

pot, meet kettle.

A. Wrong. Meaning the person espousing it is ignorant

or

B. A lie. Knowing that it is bogus and attempting to pass it off as truth.

Barack Obama and his cohorts are not stupid and they’re not ignorant. So we’ll go with B as the choice.

Like I said, go ask Sen. McCain right now what his position is on McCain-Kennedy. After being beaten up by Mitt Romney and Tom Tancredo on it he became a “secure the border” guy.

You’re lying. Simple as that. Just like Fafaroo.

And the ad contained lies and purposely took out of context quotes in crass way to play the race card. Simple as that.

By the way, the idea that Oh Noes Obama Done It Now We Gotta Use Wright in ad is so ridiculous. I’m sure the Obama people know that the McCain people will eventually use that old and tired story the same way they tried to say Oh Noes Obama Done It Now We Gotta Use Tony Rezko in an ad that didn’t do a damn thing to move the numbers.

It’s been a long week.

(Insert Tom Foley crack here)