View Full Version : Tom Tancredo 2008
How the hell can anyone here support such a wretched fearmonger and bigot like him, just for wanting to legalize pot and for being in the CP?
YouTube - Tancredo Ad - Consequences (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wv4bYWBTgdw&feature=related)
YouTube - TANCREDO FOR PRESIDENT ad (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3w0uFNaxE4&feature=related)
This guy isn't a supporter of liberty, he is vomit.
FrankRep
10-16-2010, 12:05 AM
This guy isn't a supporter of liberty, he is vomit.
Ron Paul on Border Security (http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/border-security/)
Ron Paul.com
A nation without borders is no nation at all. After decades of misguided policies America has now become a free-for-all. Our leaders betrayed the middle class which is forced to compete with welfare-receiving illegal immigrants who will work for almost anything, just because the standards in their home countries are even lower.
If these policies are not reversed, the future is grim. A poor, dependent and divided population is much easier to rule than a nation of self-confident individuals who can make a living on their own and who share the traditions and values that this country was founded upon.
Ron Paul’s six point plan puts a stop to illegal immigration:
1. Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.
2. Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.
3. No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.
4. No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
5. End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.
6. Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.
The facts on the ground are being created right now. Every day that passes makes it more difficult to reverse the damage that has already been done.
YouTube - RON PAUL 101 - IMMIGRATION (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfJFcSF80dE&feature=player_embedded)
Unlike Tancredo, Ron Paul doesn't use bigoted and hateful rhetoric to argue against illegal immigration.
Tom Tancredo doesn't have the sanity to govern anyone, let alone an entire state.
low preference guy
10-16-2010, 12:12 AM
whatever, at least he wants to legalize pot. he doesn't have the power to bomb muslims from the governor's mansion.
FrankRep
10-16-2010, 12:14 AM
Unlike Tancredo, Ron Paul doesn't use bigoted and hateful rhetoric to argue against illegal immigration.
Were those videos "hateful rhetoric" in your opinion?
Were those videos "hateful rhetoric" in your opinion?
Yes.
AuH20
10-16-2010, 12:16 AM
People get so offended when the negative consequences of our open border and hypocritical drug policies are displayed. The collateral damage from this madness is not pretty inside the U.S or in Mexico and other foreign locales.
whatever, at least he wants to legalize pot. he doesn't have the power to bomb muslims from the governor's mansion.
That's not the f*cking point.
People get so offended when the negative consequences of our open border and hypocritical drug policies are displayed. The collateral damage from this madness is not pretty inside the U.S or in Mexico and other foreign locales.
He is fomenting anti-Hispanic bigotry and even racism. There is no need to link an entire race to child molesting, drugs, or murder.
The other day I strongly criticized the John Birch Society for supporting NWO conspiracies.
Another major reason why I don't like them is because they are willing to support people like Tancredo.
FrankRep
10-16-2010, 12:22 AM
Were those videos "hateful rhetoric" in your opinion?
Yes.
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Talking about the illegal Mexican Drug Cartels and gangs raping, murdering, and causing crime is hardly "hateful rhetoric." I give him credit for having the courage to speak out against what is actually happening and not bowing down to political correctness.
low preference guy
10-16-2010, 12:23 AM
That's not the f*cking point.
what is it? that he is a bigot?
suppose he succeeds in legalizing pot. what bad thing could he possibly do that outweighs the benefits of legalizing pot? he is not going to walk around shooting mexicans as far as i know.
FrankRep
10-16-2010, 12:26 AM
He is fomenting anti-Hispanic bigotry and even racism. There is no need to link an entire race to child molesting, drugs, or murder.
Being against Illegal Immigration isn't Racist or anti-Hispanic. Don't play those games.
low preference guy
10-16-2010, 12:29 AM
..
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Talking about the illegal Mexican Drug Cartels and gangs raping, murdering, and causing crime is hardly "hateful rhetoric." I give him credit for having the courage to speak out against what is actually happening and not bowing down to political correctness.
Yes it is hateful rhetoric, especially with the graphic images. Nothing good comes from his sick propaganda.
Imagine a candidate who opposes affirmative action, and then runs an ad showing black street gangs and then talking about how those gangs are involved in drugs, rape and murder. And then the ad says that affirmative action would result in these people becoming our teachers, doctors, etc.
I'd definitely call it racist, but you'd probably say "it isn't hateful rhetoric, because this is actually happening and he's courageous to bring it up instead of giving in to PC".
Am I wrong?
what is it? that he is a bigot?
suppose he succeeds in legalizing pot. what bad thing could he possibly do that outweighs the benefits of legalizing pot? he is not going to walk around shooting mexicans as far as i know.
He is a PSYCHO. He is INSANE. He is a NUTCASE.
That alone should be reason enough for him not to qualify for public office. He will be an embarrassment to the Tea Party and the liberty movement.
AuH20
10-16-2010, 12:35 AM
Yes it is hateful rhetoric, especially with the graphic images. Nothing good comes from his sick propaganda.
Imagine a candidate who opposes affirmative action, and then runs an ad showing black street gangs and then talking about how those gangs are involved in drugs, rape and murder. I'd definitely call it racist, but you'd probably say "it isn't hateful rhetoric, because this is actually happening and he's courageous to bring it up instead of giving in to PC".
Am I wrong?
But it's not propaganda. If there were white gangs partaking in this garbage, I'd be the first applauding such an ad. Why do minority X get a pass? It's baffling. We tiptoe around serious problems, so as not to offend. If you have a problem you identify it, so you can solve it. You don't make excuses for behavior.
But it's not propaganda. If there were white gangs partaking in this garbage, I'd be the first applauding such an ad. Why do minority X get a pass? It's baffling. We tiptoe around serious problems, so as not to offend. If you have a problem you identify it, so you can solve it.
It is possible to identify a problem without being a bigot, believe it or not. And the reasons minority X gets a pass is because it is a MINORITY. Minorities are more vulnerable than whites of being the target of discrimination or bigotry or even racism. And people like Tancredo perpetuate such racism.
low preference guy
10-16-2010, 12:42 AM
He is a PSYCHO. He is INSANE. He is a NUTCASE.
That alone should be reason enough for him not to qualify for public office. He will be an embarrassment to the Tea Party and the liberty movement.
if putting insane psycho nutcases in office is what it takes to legalize pot or move in that direction, i'd say go ahead and do it. unless he were to go around shooting mexicans in the head, but that's not going to happen.
AuH20
10-16-2010, 12:45 AM
It is possible to identify a problem without being a bigot, believe it or not. And the reasons minority X gets a pass is because it is a MINORITY. Minorities are more vulnerable than whites of being the target of discrimination or bigotry or even racism.
So for the sake of protecting the fragile psyche of minorities, there is acceptable victim toll that we don't discuss openly? A sort of quasi affirmative action of non-condemnation for drug related violence and other irresponsible behavior?
FrankRep
10-16-2010, 12:46 AM
It is possible to identify a problem without being a bigot, believe it or not. And the reasons minority X gets a pass is because it is a MINORITY. Minorities are more vulnerable than whites of being the target of discrimination or bigotry or even racism.
I don't believe in special treatment based on race or minority status. No passes.
The problem with many libertarians is that they are too insensitive to racism. Libertarians are supposed to believe that the government should not give special rights to any certain race.
But some people here are taking it further, and arguing that people should say whatever they want about terrible people of a certain race, if they are willing to say the same about similar white people.
It must feel nice to be in the comfort of being part of the majority race, and then give snide comments on what you call "political correctness".
low preference guy
10-16-2010, 12:55 AM
The problem with many libertarians is that they are too insensitive to racism. Libertarians are supposed to believe that the government should not give special rights to any certain race.
But some people here are taking it further, and arguing that people should say whatever they want about terrible people of a certain race, if they are willing to say the same about similar white people.
It must feel nice to be in the comfort of being part of the majority race, and then give snide comments on what you call "political correctness".
i'm a minority and i don't give a crap about all that. that mentality is what keeps minorities down.
i'm a minority and i don't give a crap about all that. that mentality is what keep minorities down.
Minorities should not always act like victims, and they should not ask the government for special rights, but they also should not tolerate bigotry against them.
low preference guy
10-16-2010, 12:58 AM
Minorities should not always act like victims, and they should not ask the government for special rights, but they also should not tolerate bigotry against them.
i'm with you on that, but they shouldn't ask for special treatment like you're suggesting.
FrankRep
10-16-2010, 01:03 AM
The problem with many libertarians is that they are too insensitive to racism. Libertarians are supposed to believe that the government should not give special rights to any certain race.
But some people here are taking it further, and arguing that people should say whatever they want about terrible people of a certain race, if they are willing to say the same about similar white people.
1.) Who's attacking race? Illegal Immigration isn't about race.
2.) The government shouldn't give special rights based on race or minority status.
Brett85
10-16-2010, 02:50 AM
He is fomenting anti-Hispanic bigotry and even racism. There is no need to link an entire race to child molesting, drugs, or murder.
He's linking illegal immigration to those things. You're the one bringing race into it.
johngr
10-16-2010, 03:03 AM
i'm a minority and i don't give a crap about all that. that mentality is what keeps minorities down.
NAMs' genetic inheritance, as a group, though obviously there are outlyers (such as yourself or you wouldn't be posting here), is what keeps them down.
sarahgop
10-16-2010, 05:11 AM
i love tancredo. why do you support hickenlooper?
Fredom101
10-16-2010, 08:29 AM
How the hell can anyone here support such a wretched fearmonger and bigot like him, just for wanting to legalize pot and for being in the CP?
YouTube - Tancredo Ad - Consequences (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wv4bYWBTgdw&feature=related)
YouTube - TANCREDO FOR PRESIDENT ad (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3w0uFNaxE4&feature=related)
This guy isn't a supporter of liberty, he is vomit.
I completely agree, Tancredo is not a libertarian, nor does he want people to be free. He doesn't belong on RP forums.
Brett85
10-16-2010, 08:43 AM
I completely agree, Tancredo is not a libertarian, nor does he want people to be free. He doesn't belong on RP forums.
Then Ron Paul doesn't belong on RP forums. Ron Paul supports securing the borders and opposes amnesty for illegals. His position on immigration is almost identical to Tancredo's. Ron Paul's views are closer to Tom Tancredo's then they are to many people on this forum.
Cowlesy
10-16-2010, 08:49 AM
Ron knows you cannot have open borders while simultaneously operating a Welfare State. I don't know his view personally, but I bet if you told him the Welfare State were no more, he would be for open borders.
Until then, he supports border control.
erowe1
10-16-2010, 08:49 AM
That's not the f*cking point.
It seems like a pretty important point to me. If his foreign policy is irrelevant to the powers of the governor, then why should it be a deal breaker issue for those who would support him?
Over his years in Congress, once you separate out that issue, his voting record was actually very good, not perfect--he did support TARP--but very good. In each of JBS's Freedom Indexes over his tenure, he scored among the top few Republicans, and that's even with the points counted against him for his hawkish votes.
amy31416
10-16-2010, 08:51 AM
Then Ron Paul doesn't belong on RP forums. Ron Paul supports securing the borders and opposes amnesty for illegals. His position on immigration is almost identical to Tancredo's. Ron Paul's views are closer to Tom Tancredo's then they are to many people on this forum.
We should judge Tancredo and RP based on only one issue? I don't think so.
RP has many, many other positions on a lot of other issues. If Tancredo was good on those other issues, I'd give him a second look...but I don't think he is.
Then Ron Paul doesn't belong on RP forums. Ron Paul supports securing the borders and opposes amnesty for illegals. His position on immigration is almost identical to Tancredo's. Ron Paul's views are closer to Tom Tancredo's then they are to many people on this forum.
Tancredo is a bigot, Ron Paul isn't. Tancredo wants to incinerate Mecca. Ron Paul wants a non-interventionist foreign policy. Tancredo is an ally of Geert Wilders, an Islamophobe who wants to ban the Quran in his country. Ron Paul rejects Islamophobia and any collective form of bigotry. Tancredo believes the biggest threat to our country is Barack Obama. He is a dumb ass. Tancredo supported most big government neocon legislation when he was in office, with the exception being amnesty, of course. Ron Paul is a champion of liberty.
Tom Tancredo is a scum, and I can't believe so many people here support him. And I can't believe how easy it is for some people here to be lured into supporting highly destructive neocons if it means they can smoke a joint.
We should judge Tancredo and RP based on only one issue? I don't think so.
RP has many, many other positions on a lot of other issues. If Tancredo was good on those other issues, I'd give him a second look...but I don't think he is.
Apparently all it takes is to be tough on the Mexicans and legalize weed. :rolleyes:
It seems like a pretty important point to me. If his foreign policy is irrelevant to the powers of the governor, then why should it be a deal breaker issue for those who would support him?
Over his years in Congress, once you separate out that issue, his voting record was actually very good, not perfect--he did support TARP--but very good. In each of JBS's Freedom Indexes over his tenure, he scored among the top few Republicans, and that's even with the points counted against him for his hawkish votes.
For him to believe that Mecca should be bombed, or that Obama is our country's #1 enemy, shows that Tancredo does not have the sanity to hold public office, regardless of whether such positions are relevant to the type of office he wants.
I wonder if some people here are willing to vote for Dick Cheney or John Bolton for governor if they propose legalizing weed and stopping illegal immigration :rolleyes:
Brett85
10-16-2010, 09:00 AM
Tancredo supported most big government neocon legislation when he was in office, with the exception being amnesty, of course.
That's nonsense. Tancredo had a record of supporting limited government while he was in Congress, with the one exception being his vote for TARP. Many fiscal conservatives simply bought into the fear that the economy would collapse if we didn't pass TARP, and they voted for it. As one of the other posters pointed out, Tancredo consistently had one of the highest JBS freedom scores. Also, he's about as much of a "neocon" as Barry Goldwater was. Most people here simply call anybody a neocon who doesn't agree 100% with Ron Paul's foreign policy views.
Brett85
10-16-2010, 09:04 AM
For him to believe that Mecca should be bombed, or that Obama is our country's #1 enemy, shows that Tancredo does not have the sanity to hold public office, regardless of whether such positions are relevant to the type of office he wants.
He said that Mecca should be bombed if terrorists carry out a nuclear attack against us. He wasn't talking about preemtive war. Non interventionalists should believe that we should have the right to respond with nuclear force if we get nuked.
erowe1
10-16-2010, 09:05 AM
I wonder if some people here are willing to vote for Dick Cheney or John Bolton for governor if they propose legalizing weed and stopping illegal immigration :rolleyes:
I wouldn't. But in the case of Cheney, his record is a lot worse than Tancredo's on issue after issue.
I'm also not 100% sure I would support Tancredo for governor. And since I don't live in CO and won't send him money, it's a moot point. But, all things considered, I probably would.
Monarchist
10-16-2010, 09:06 AM
Tancredo is a bigot, Ron Paul isn't. Tancredo wants to incinerate Mecca. Ron Paul wants a non-interventionist foreign policy. Tancredo is an ally of Geert Wilders, an Islamophobe who wants to ban the Quran in his country.
Tancredo does not want to simply incinerate Mecca. Here you are, just like your the guy in your avatar, taking things out of context. He said that if Islamic terrorists ever used nuclear or dirty weapons against the US, then the US should destroy Mecca.
And as for Geert Wilders, have you ever heard of Theo van Gogh?
He said that Mecca should be bombed if terrorists carry out a nuclear attack against us. He wasn't talking about preemtive war. Non interventionalists should believe that we should have the right to respond with nuclear force if we get nuked.
So you think the response should be to destroy the holiest cities of a major religion?
tnvoter
10-16-2010, 09:10 AM
That's not the f*cking point.
Yeah it's not like there's been any violence by the drug trade at the border, any killings or kidnappings or anything even close to there.
/endsarcasm
Tancredo does not want to simply incinerate Mecca. Here you are, just like your the guy in your avatar, taking things out of context. He said that if Islamic terrorists ever used nuclear or dirty weapons against the US, then the US should destroy Mecca.
And as for Geert Wilders, have you ever heard of Theo van Gogh?
Still not justified. Any public official who talks like that is mentally ill.
And yes, I've heard of Theo van Gogh, as well as 9/11. And no, unlike Geert or Tancredo, I don't believe the answer is to persecute an entire religion.
Brett85
10-16-2010, 09:13 AM
So you think the response should be to destroy the holiest cities of a major religion?
The response should be to use nuclear force somewhere, as we would have to basically attack them the same way they attacked us. Which city would you nuke if they nuked one of our cities?
The response should be to use nuclear force somewhere, as we would have to basically attack them the same way they attacked us. Which city would you nuke if they nuked one of our cities?
It depends on whether they are from any city. I don't think nuking a city is the answer if the attackers are not national entities. Maybe nuke whereever the terrorists probably were located IF the country does not take them down.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.