The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: fightingquaker13 on October 22, 2011, 02:32:54 PM
-
Many of you are familiar with Florida Senator Marco Rubio. He won our last Senate race against Crist and Meeks based largely on Tea Party and Conservative support, and a large part of his appeal was his compelling personal story. He repeatedly talked about how much he loved this country because his family was forced into exile due to the communist thug Fidel Castro. That got him the Cuban vote and made him popular with conservatives because his flag waving patriotism seemed to be genuinely from the heart and based on family tragedy. Hell, we all love an exile who seems to love this country more than we do and is quick to remind us that we shouldn't take our liberty for granted. A touching story right?
But wait, this is Florida. ::) Turns out that the Rubios immigrated in 1956, while Castro was still in exile in Mexico and plotting the revolution. There had not been a shot fired and nary a communist thug in sight when they left. Now I have no problem with folks immigrating legally as his parents did. BUT, when you make your whole political bio about your family fleeing oppression when they were comfortably sipping mojitos in Coconut Grove before the revolution even started? WTF? Did he think no one would notice this? How dumb do you have to be to lie about something like this? Did he think no one would notice? I don't get public figures who do this. Why lie about the little stuff when you know its not going to be hard for someone to catch you and it will destroy your credibility? Its like Hillary and the "snipers" in Bosnia. I'm not even asking for an honest politician, as I know that's never going to happen. But is it too much to ask to get one smart enough not to lie when they know they're going to get caught? :P
FQ13
-
What I don't understand is how you could vote for someone to be President without any experience that would favor him for the job. What I don't understand is how you voted for this same person who possibly renounced his citizenship. Why didn't that give you pause? And one more item, I don't understand why you voted for someone who has tight associations with an authentic domestic terrorist - Bill Ayers.
Forget your questions about Rubio and his judgment, Quaker, you need to reflect upon your own.....
-
What I don't understand is how you could vote for someone to be President without any experience that would favor him for the job. What I don't understand is how you voted for this same person who possibly renounced his citizenship. Why didn't that give you pause? And one more item, I don't understand why you voted for someone who has tight associations with an authentic domestic terrorist - Bill Ayers.
Forget your questions about Rubio and his judgment, Quaker, you need to reflect upon your own.....
Shooting the messenger fullauto? I expected better. Two points. First I won't be repeating my error. Second, I'm not a US Senator. You voted for this guy (I voted for Crist). Are you telling me you're not pissed off?
FQ13
-
I heard something about this earlier regarding a hatchet job done on Marco Rubio by WaPo.
The explanation for Rubio's assertion seems to be anchored ihis parents going back to Cuba for a visit (I think it was in 1961), but with the intention of staying. They simply missed home, and Florida wasn't turning out to be the replacement they had hoped it would be.
Once back in Cuba, they discovered the tremendous levels of oppression and persecution--a situation that gave some fresh impetus to their desire to return again to Florida.
In any event, Marco is the American born son of immigrants. The first time they were fleeing Batista--a certifiable bastard if ever there was one. The second time was due to Castro's oppression making it impossible to stay.
This whole story has been nothing more than a wet dream from the left. They are frightened to death of Marco because he has a great back story, is young, personable and decidedly conservative. So, they will vilify him with whatever detestable lie they can produce.
That you, an academic with several letters after your name, would fall for this is no great surprise. You bought into the Odamna bullsh!t, too.
Sheesh, Quaker, at least with this post you have eliminated my doubt as to you being the real you and not some imposter.
Crusader
-
Allright, I give up. If the Florida conservatives who voted for the guy are defending him, who am I to bitch? I voted against him and will probably do so again as long as there is someone like Crist in the race, so it really doesn't matter to me. But seriously, what does a Conservative Republican have to do to piss you guys off? ;D
FQ13
-
But seriously, what does a Conservative Republican have to do to piss you guys off? ;D
FQ13
Start acting like a progressive.....
Anyway it's been awhile since you and I had a go.... ;D
-
... what does a Conservative Republican have to do to piss you guys off? Grin
FQ13
All he would have to do is exactly what Suntan Charlie did--act like a Dummycrap, behave like a RINO, support the growth of government...
Oh yeah, you said Conservative.
My basic policy in that regard is if the left doesn't like him/her, he/she is probably worthy of some support.
-
Hmmm, seems to me I recall a certain Democratic Senator from Illinois talking about how those bastards at the insurance company denied his mother treatment for her cancer because it was a pre-existing condition. Wasn't that one of the main themes he later used to push his health care platform? Too bad that wasn't really true. Not that you would find much about it in the LSM.
-
Hmmm, seems to me I recall a certain Democratic Senator from Illinois talking about how those bastards at the insurance company denied his mother treatment for her cancer because it was a pre-existing condition. Wasn't that one of the main themes he later used to push his health care platform? Too bad that wasn't really true. Not that you would find much about it in the LSM.
I believe that is the same one who's parents met at a racial equality demonstration a couple of years after his birth.
-
I believe that is the same one who's parents met at a racial equality demonstration a couple of years after his birth.
Was it that they met there, or she found out his name there ?
Regardless of today's morals any white woman f*cking a black guy in 1961 was a whore by the standards of that day.
You will notice that she never had later relationships with white men, the best she could do was go half way around the world a add an Asian to her collection.
He must have had low standards.
Solus, don't underestimate Batista, under his rule Cubans achieved the highest standard of living they have ever enjoyed.
At the time of Castro's revolution the standard of living in Cuba was the highest in the region.
Also, if ol' Fulgencio had been the prick he is alleged to have been Castro never would have been released from prison in an amnesty.
-
http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/
Rubio scares the crap out of the DC establishment,...he'll be around in 2012, 2016, 2020, and beyond. Cause he's young, and realizes the schmucks on the hill are older....some much older,...and will be dying off...Think he'll get the Hispanic and Tea Party vote? Seeing how us white boys will be the minority at our current demographic birth rate,...At least there is hope,...IF we make it that far.
Miami Herald: WaPost "Hit" on Rubio Manipulates Facts. (The Miami Herald, Scum Sun-Sentinel,Palm Beach Rags, aren't worth putting at the bottom of my bird cage BTW....
Manuel Roig-Franzia is a reporter for the Washington Post who once got punched by his 70 year old editor, Henry Allen, for writing “the second worst story [Allen had] seen in Style in 43 years.” That’s right, Roig-Franzia wrote a horrible piece in the Style section. His 70 year old editor did not like it. Roig-Franzia reportedly called his 70 year old editor and Marine a “c**ksucker”, and the Marine punched him.
Manuel Roig-Franzia has a well documented history of being an apologist for the Cuban communist regime and a hater of the Catholic church. He is also now writing a book on Marco Rubio.
We can get a sense of the book by his stunning hit job on Marco Rubio in the Washington Post.. Roig-Franzia claims Rubio has embellished his “compelling version of his family’s history that had special resonance in South Florida.” Again, keep in mind that Roig-Franzia is an apologist for the Cuban communist regime.
Hey FQ, The FL jobs numbers came out and the unemployment rate for the state, is actually down albeit not a bunch....I'm sure your buddy Gov. Scott had nothing to do with that either.... ;)
-
here's the rest of the article TW. also cross reported on redstate.com
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=47026
Manuel Roig-Franzia is a reporter for the Washington Post who once got punched by his 70 year old editor, Henry Allen, for writing “the second worst story [Allen had] seen in Style in 43 years.” That’s right, Roig-Franzia wrote a horrible piece in the Style section. His 70 year old editor did not like it. Roig-Franzia reportedly called his 70 year old editor and Marine a “c**ksucker”, and the Marine punched him.
Manuel Roig-Franzia has a well documented history of being an apologist for the Cuban communist regime and a hater of the Catholic church. He is also now writing a book on Marco Rubio.
We can get a sense of the book by his stunning hit job on Marco Rubio in the Washington Post. Roig-Franzia claims Rubio has embellished his “compelling version of his family’s history that had special resonance in South Florida.” Again, keep in mind that Roig-Franzia is an apologist for the Cuban communist regime.
Roig-Franzia writes, “a review of documents — including naturalization papers and other official records — reveals that the Florida Republican’s account embellishes the facts. The documents show that Rubio’s parents came to the United States and were admitted for permanent residence more than 21 / 2 years before Castro’s forces overthrew the Cuban government and took power on New Year’s Day 1959.”
Now, there are two problems for Roig-Franzia. First, the communist apologist failed to actually quote Marco Rubio embellishing his story. The Miami Herald really destroys the piece.
The Washington Post just released this interesting story headlined “Marco Rubio’s compelling family story embellishes facts, documents show.” The paper flagged a clear inaccuracy in his official Senate biography that states the Senator’s parents “came to America following Fidel Castro’s takeover.”
That’s false. Rubio’s parents came to the US before then, in 1956. They remained in the US after Castro took over in 1959. They returned to Cuba for brief stints early on, before the country devolved into Soviet-style totalitarianism.
But the top of the story suggests Rubio himself has given this “dramatatic account:” that “he was the son of exiles, he told audiences, Cuban Americans forced off their beloved island after ‘a thug,’ Fidel Castro, took power.”
However, the story doesn’t cite one speech where Rubio actually said that.
To back up the lead, the Washington Post excerpts from a 2006 address in the Florida House where Rubio said “in January of 1959 a thug named Fidel Castro took power in Cuba and countless Cubans were forced to flee… Today your children and grandchildren are the secretary of commerce of the United States and multiple members of Congress…and soon, even speaker of the Florida House.”
The catch: If you listen to the speech, Rubio isn’t just talking about those who specifically fled Cuba after Castro took power. He doesn’t say that his parents fled Cuba. Instead, he was talking about “a community of exiles.” That is: He was talking about all the Cubans who live in Mia
What’s more, Manuel Roig-Franzia does not say how he came to know these facts about Marco Rubio. But Gabriel Malor knows.
Rubio has been hounded since he rose to prominence by birthers intent on sabotaging any further rise he might have in politics. Malor notes, “Birthers intent on somehow proving that he’s not a “natural-born citizen” dug up his parents’ adjustment and naturalization paperwork. That’s where WaPo got the dates for his parents’ arrival to the United States.”
That’s right boys and girls. Manuel Roig-Franzia, who was once punched by a 70 year old for atrocious writing in a freaking style section, uses a Birther originated attack to discredit Marco Rubio and can’t even offer up a quote from Rubio.
And you know what? Even if he could offer up a quote, does it matter? How many of you know the full and accurate story of your parents and grandparents?
[This article was crossposted from RedState.com]
-
From Deepwater's post:
Rubio has been hounded since he rose to prominence by birthers intent on sabotaging any further rise he might have in politics. Malor notes, “Birthers intent on somehow proving that he’s not a “natural-born citizen” dug up his parents’ adjustment and naturalization paperwork. That’s where WaPo got the dates for his parents’ arrival to the United States.”
Okay, I've got to say this. Does it seem a bit odd that conservative Republicans are attacking "birthers"? Next thing you know they'll be attacking "Swift Boaters". I know these are wasted words, but I thought I'd throw them out there. Just sayin'. ;D
FQ13 who wants to belive you can't have it both ways. ::)
-
I don't know if the Quaker is being deliberately obtuse or not, but to elucidate a bit on the term birthers...
The anti-Rubio birthers and the anti-Obama birthers share only the commonality of the same name. While the anti-Obama birthers come from the far right wing--generally speaking--the anti-Rubio birthers are from the looney left.
Please recognize that I am in no way an apologist for either of the aforementioned political factions, but I would offer the following thoughts to help in the basic understanding of the two dissimilar perspectives.
The anti-Obama birthers make the basic point that the Obama administration has been less than forthcoming in providing any life records of our current prez. We don't know what grades he made, who paid for his education, where and under what passport he traveled, or much of anything else about him. In point of fact, this prez has spent several millions of dollars in keeping those records hidden. This has led to some speculation on the facts of his birth.
The anti-Rubio birthers have seized on a statement never actually attributed to Rubio. They have trumpeted their so-called facts regarding these statements in an attempt to discredit a young, good-looking, smart conservative who will have a lengthy career making the left look like the fools that they actually are. That his life records--including the facts of his birth--have been made available for any to look at, study, ponder and review (in stark contrast to the prez's records) somehow escapes these lefty nutbags.
Calling both of these groups birthers is as logical as noting that Ron Paul and the Fighting Quaker both claim the term Libertarian. Does this mean that both gentlemen share a common lunacy? Of course not. The are each completely loony in their own individual ways.
I hope this clears things up for you.
I live only to serve,
Crusader Rabbit