If you lived in Colorado, would you vote for Tom Tancredo for governor? [Archive]

fj45lvr

10-16-2010, 11:31 AM

Is that the same guy who advised bombing Mecca as a solution to the problem of Islamist violence, and who wanted to put the Guantanamo Bay Concentration Camp under the executive purview of television character Jack Bauer?

If so, then no way. But if it's somebody different, I wouldn't want to discriminate against a potentially great candidate just because of his last name.

Exactly my thought when I saw this poll.

EndDaFed

10-16-2010, 11:40 AM

The terror nut? No thanks.

Brett85

10-16-2010, 12:03 PM

The terror nut? No thanks.

God forbid we vote for someone who believes that terrorism is a threat.

Fozz

10-16-2010, 12:04 PM

God forbid we vote for someone who believes that terrorism is a threat.

I don't know of any American politician who believes terrorism isn't a threat.

Dumb strawman.

Brett85

10-16-2010, 12:09 PM

I don't know of any American politician who believes terrorism isn't a threat.

Dumb strawman.

Maybe so, but I was just criticizing the person who called him a "terror nut." But regardless, it's a non issue since Governor's don't deal with the terrorism issue or foreign policy in general.

teamrican1

10-16-2010, 01:39 PM

Brett85

10-16-2010, 02:05 PM

He has some bad positions, yes. But he'd be the first sitting Governor to support the end of the War on Drugs since Gary Johnson. And Tom has gone on record opposing it before the election, which makes it that much more impressive. One completely radical, pro-freedom position is enough for me considering his opponents are both establishment tools.

Right, and he's even said that other hard core drugs should be decriminalized, not simply weed. He takes a view on this issue that most people would consider to be radical.

ChaosControl

10-16-2010, 02:17 PM

Nope. Won't vote for a pro-war nut. And I also disagree with him on immigration and that is sort of his main thing.

Lucille

10-16-2010, 02:25 PM

He has some bad positions, yes. But he'd be the first sitting Governor to support the end of the War on Drugs since Gary Johnson. And Tom has gone on record opposing it before the election, which makes it that much more impressive. One completely radical, pro-freedom position is enough for me considering his opponents are both establishment tools.

That's the main reason I voted yes.

http://www.tancredoforgovernor.co/contractwithcolorado.html

And like TC said, a governor has no control over our insane bipartisan foreign policy.

Theocrat

10-16-2010, 02:27 PM

I didn't agree with Tancredo's foreign policy when ran for President in 2008, but I could vote for him as Governor of Colorado.

By the way, I voted wrongly in the poll. It should be "Yes" instead of "No."

Ekrub

10-16-2010, 02:33 PM

As was said, I'd vote for him as Governor. Never vote for him for any federal office though. (as long as his foreign policy views are the way they are)

wormyguy

10-16-2010, 02:54 PM

As people in this thread (and reason magazine (http://reason.com/blog/2010/10/11/the-not-your-job-prize-meg-whi)) have pointed out, foreign policy is entirely irrelevant to gubernatorial elections.

ClayTrainor

10-16-2010, 02:55 PM

Is that the same guy who advised bombing Mecca as a solution to the problem of Islamist violence, and who wanted to put the Guantanamo Bay Concentration Camp under the executive purview of television character Jack Bauer?

Same Guy...

YouTube - Tom Tancredo advocates bombing of Mecca and Medina (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7ceyrBw50Y)

Southron

10-16-2010, 04:33 PM

I'm not sure, but I really like his immigration stance.

Not sure how that would translate over as governor though.

Meatwasp

10-16-2010, 05:41 PM

Same Guy...

YouTube - Tom Tancredo advocates bombing of Mecca and Medina (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7ceyrBw50Y)
Since I read that! Nope wouldn't vote for him.

bowen161

10-16-2010, 06:25 PM

He voted for TARP, that alone shows that he doesn't fully believe in any true idea of the free market

Maximus

10-16-2010, 06:28 PM

"He's bad on foreign policy"

Since when does the governor of Colorado have any say in national foreign policy?

Koz

10-16-2010, 06:49 PM

Ok, here is the scoop on why I cannot vote for someone who has a foreign policy of attack first ask questions later.

All politicians whether they are running for local dog catcher or governor or the house or senate have higher aspirations. Tancredo is no different, as he has already run for president. So, if you poeple keep voting for local or statewide candidates that have an awful foreign policy then you should all expect that they will eventually make it to the house, senate and ultimately a few of them will wind up president.

Saying that he can't do anything with foreign policy as governor is a cop out. Governor is a stepping stone to the presidency. If you vote for any candidate that has a bad foreign policy you are perpetuating that and ensuring as a nation that we have bad foreign policy.

Inkblots

10-16-2010, 07:00 PM

Another thing to consider is that if Dan Maes gets less than 10% of the vote in the gubernatorial race, the GOP will lose automatic ballot access for the next 4 years. That means their activists will have to go to the trouble of gathering signatures for ballot access petitions, just like all other parties that aren't part of the Red-Blue duopoly. I think this is another good reason to vote for Tancredo over Maes - if GOP activists are exposed to how unfair the election and ballot access laws in most states are to parties that aren't in the top 2, they might be more open to reforms to make the system more fair in future elections. Exposing the way the deck has been stacked against real choice in this country will be good for everyone.

erowe1

10-16-2010, 07:05 PM

Justinjj1

10-16-2010, 07:14 PM

AuH20

10-16-2010, 07:22 PM

I've yet to hear anything actually good about Tancredo (besides possibly his drug stance, which I have never heard him discuss).

And I would argue that his position on foreign policy is very relevant, because it shows you the mindset of this xenophobic muttonhead.

PROs:
NAFTA has been a disaster for many places, especially Mexico. (Dec 2007)
No NAFTA Superhighway from Canada to Mexico. (Sep 2007)
Voted NO on implementing CAFTA, Central America Free Trade. (Jul 2005)
Voted YES on withdrawing from the WTO. (Jun 2000)
Block NAFTA Superhighway & North American Union. (Jan 2007)
Rated B+ by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun rights voting record. (Dec 2003)
Voted NO on Medicare Prescription Drug expansion.
Voted NO on overriding veto on expansion of Medicare. (Jul 2008)
Voted YES on end offshore tax havens and promote small business. (Oct 2004)
Voted NO on $167B over 10 years for farm price supports. (Oct 2001)
Voted YES on eliminating the Estate Tax ("death tax"). (Apr 2001)
Voted NO on $156M to IMF for 3rd-world debt reduction. (Jul 2000)
Opposes “hate crimes” legislation. (Sep 2007)
Voted NO on $60B stimulus package for jobs, infrastructure, & energy. (Sep 2008)
Voted NO on defining "energy emergency" on federal gas prices. (Jun 2008)
Voted NO on revitalizing severely distressed public housing. (Jan 2008)
Voted NO on regulating the subprime mortgage industry. (Nov 2007)
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)
Voted YES on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
Voted YES on disallowing the invasion of Kosovo. (May 1999)

CONs:
Voted YES on prohibiting needle exchange & medical marijuana in DC. (Oct 1999)
Voted YES on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)
Voted YES on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)
Voted YES on TARP
Voted YES on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date. (Jun 2006)

AlexMerced

10-16-2010, 07:23 PM

NONONONONONONO

I'd tape his mouth shut

Brett85

10-16-2010, 07:26 PM

PROs:
NAFTA has been a disaster for many places, especially Mexico. (Dec 2007)
No NAFTA Superhighway from Canada to Mexico. (Sep 2007)
Voted NO on implementing CAFTA, Central America Free Trade. (Jul 2005)
Voted YES on withdrawing from the WTO. (Jun 2000)
Block NAFTA Superhighway & North American Union. (Jan 2007)
Rated B+ by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun rights voting record. (Dec 2003)
Voted NO on overriding veto on expansion of Medicare. (Jul 2008)
Voted YES on end offshore tax havens and promote small business. (Oct 2004)
Voted NO on $167B over 10 years for farm price supports. (Oct 2001)
Voted YES on eliminating the Estate Tax ("death tax"). (Apr 2001)
Voted NO on $156M to IMF for 3rd-world debt reduction. (Jul 2000)
Opposes “hate crimes” legislation. (Sep 2007)
Voted NO on $60B stimulus package for jobs, infrastructure, & energy. (Sep 2008)
Voted NO on defining "energy emergency" on federal gas prices. (Jun 2008)
Voted NO on revitalizing severely distressed public housing. (Jan 2008)
Voted NO on regulating the subprime mortgage industry. (Nov 2007)
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)
Voted YES on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
Voted YES on disallowing the invasion of Kosovo. (May 1999)

CONs:
Voted YES on prohibiting needle exchange & medical marijuana in DC. (Oct 1999)
Voted YES on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)
Voted YES on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)
Voted YES on TARP
Voted YES on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date. (Jun 2006)

I don't think that banning same sex marriage is a negative. If same sex marriages were recognized by the government it would make the government much more involved in marriage than it already is. Also, gay marriage is not a criminal issue. Gays aren't getting thrown in jail for attempting to get married. People who support gay marriage simply support extra rights for gays, not equal rights.

AuH20

10-16-2010, 07:27 PM

I don't think that banning same sex marriage is a negative. If same sex marriages were recognized by the government it would make the government much more involved in marriage than it already is. Also, gay marriage is not a criminal issue. Gays aren't getting thrown in jail for attempting to get married. People who support gay marriage simply support extra rights for gays, not equal rights.

But it shouldn't be a constitutional amendment. With that said, his record isn't that poor, as I showed.

erowe1

10-16-2010, 07:45 PM

PROs:
NAFTA has been a disaster for many places, especially Mexico. (Dec 2007)
No NAFTA Superhighway from Canada to Mexico. (Sep 2007)
Voted NO on implementing CAFTA, Central America Free Trade. (Jul 2005)
Voted YES on withdrawing from the WTO. (Jun 2000)
Block NAFTA Superhighway & North American Union. (Jan 2007)
Rated B+ by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun rights voting record. (Dec 2003)
Voted NO on Medicare Prescription Drug expansion.
Voted NO on overriding veto on expansion of Medicare. (Jul 2008)
Voted YES on end offshore tax havens and promote small business. (Oct 2004)
Voted NO on $167B over 10 years for farm price supports. (Oct 2001)
Voted YES on eliminating the Estate Tax ("death tax"). (Apr 2001)
Voted NO on $156M to IMF for 3rd-world debt reduction. (Jul 2000)
Opposes “hate crimes” legislation. (Sep 2007)
Voted NO on $60B stimulus package for jobs, infrastructure, & energy. (Sep 2008)
Voted NO on defining "energy emergency" on federal gas prices. (Jun 2008)
Voted NO on revitalizing severely distressed public housing. (Jan 2008)
Voted NO on regulating the subprime mortgage industry. (Nov 2007)
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)
Voted YES on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
Voted YES on disallowing the invasion of Kosovo. (May 1999)

CONs:
Voted YES on prohibiting needle exchange & medical marijuana in DC. (Oct 1999)
Voted YES on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)
Voted YES on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)
Voted YES on TARP
Voted YES on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date. (Jun 2006)

I agree that his record more good than bad, especially when you put him in a position where his hawkish foreign policy is not a factor.

These old Conservative Indexes from JBS consistently give him high marks for his votes as well.
http://www.lloydbaileysscuba.com/truth/ConservativeIndex.php

His anti-drug war stance is definitely not the only thing about him that makes him better than most other Republicans.

AuH20

10-16-2010, 07:52 PM

I agree that his record more good than bad, especially when you put him in a position where his hawkish foreign policy is not a factor.

These old Conservative Indexes from JBS consistently give him high marks for his votes as well.
http://www.lloydbaileysscuba.com/truth/ConservativeIndex.php

His anti-drug war stance is definitely not the only thing about him that makes him better than most other Republicans.

We have posters talking about him like he's Scott Brown or something. I think it's more than fair to hammer his on his bad votes, but conversely you cannot overlook his good votes, like voting against Bush's medicare drug expansion.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Tom_Tancredo_Health_Care.htm

Voted NO on limited prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients.

Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act of 2003: Vote to adopt the conference report on the bill that would create a prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients. Starting in 2006, prescription coverage would be made available through private insurers to seniors. Seniors would pay a monthly premium of an estimated $35 in 2006. Individuals enrolled in the plan would cover the first $250 of annual drug costs themselves, and 25 percent of all drug costs up to $2,250. The government would offer a fallback prescription drug plan in regions were no private plans had made a bid.Over a 10 year time period medicare payments to managed care plans would increase by $14.2 billion. A pilot project would begin in 2010 in which Medicare would compete with private insurers to provide coverage for doctors and hospitals costs in six metropolitan areas for six years. The importation of drugs from Canada would be approved only if HHS determines there is no safety risks and that consumers would be saving money.

Reference: Bill sponsored by Hastert, R-IL; Bill HR.1 ; vote number 2003-669 on Nov 22, 2003

Fozz

10-16-2010, 08:51 PM

FrankRep

10-16-2010, 08:55 PM

U.S.-Mexico Border Security Now!

DHS Alerted AZ Sheriffs That Mexican Drug Cartel Was Sending Assassins Into Arizona Valley, Then Did No More Than Set Up Signs To Warn Travelers Away (http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/dhs-alerted-arizona-sheriffs-mexican-dru)

Mexican assassins headed to Arizona (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/15/mexican-assassins-headed-arizona/)

Mexican Assassins Headed to Arizona, U.S. Warned (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/10/16/mexican-assassins-headed-arizona-warned/)

DHS Issued Memo Admitting Mexican Narco Assassins Operate in Arizona (http://www.prisonplanet.com/dhs-issued-memo-admitting-mexican-narco-assassins-operate-in-arizona.html)

Arizona Under Siege By Mexican Drug Cartels (http://newsblaze.com/story/20101016075523mcut.nb/topstory.html)

Mexican drug cartel war spills onto American soil (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/10/mexican_drug_cartel_war_spills.html)

Sheriff: Cartels planned to send 'assassins' to Arizona (http://www.gvnews.com/articles/2010/10/16/breaking_news/doc4cb8858da409e992151585.txt)

ClayTrainor

10-16-2010, 08:59 PM

U.S.-Mexico Border Security Now! End the War on Drugs, Now!!!

DHS Alerted AZ Sheriffs That Mexican Drug Cartel Was Sending Assassins Into Arizona Valley, Then Did No More Than Set Up Signs To Warn Travelers Away (http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/dhs-alerted-arizona-sheriffs-mexican-dru)

Mexican assassins headed to Arizona (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/15/mexican-assassins-headed-arizona/)

Mexican Assassins Headed to Arizona, U.S. Warned (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/10/16/mexican-assassins-headed-arizona-warned/)

DHS Issued Memo Admitting Mexican Narco Assassins Operate in Arizona (http://www.prisonplanet.com/dhs-issued-memo-admitting-mexican-narco-assassins-operate-in-arizona.html)

Arizona Under Siege By Mexican Drug Cartels (http://newsblaze.com/story/20101016075523mcut.nb/topstory.html)

Mexican drug cartel war spills onto American soil (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/10/mexican_drug_cartel_war_spills.html)

Sheriff: Cartels planned to send 'assassins' to Arizona (http://www.gvnews.com/articles/2010/10/16/breaking_news/doc4cb8858da409e992151585.txt)

...

Inkblots

10-16-2010, 09:21 PM

Can you provide a source for that?

Here you go: http://blogs.denverpost.com/thespot/2010/10/02/memo-outlines-gop-woes-if-dan-maes-doesnt-win-10-percent/15575/

Justinjj1

10-16-2010, 09:30 PM

He voted YES for the war on Iraq
He voted YES for TARP

ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT TOM TANCREDO.

EndDaFed

10-16-2010, 09:37 PM

God forbid we vote for someone who believes that terrorism is a threat.

A piss poor threat at that. More people likely die each year in America by slip and fall than from terrorism I bet. So you think it's rational to devote so many resources to a "threat" that is close to non existent? Not only that but it entails pissing on the 4th amendment. You can't pick and choose which rights should not be pissed on by government. If the actions of government were rational and its goal were to protect Americans it would devote most of its resources to fighting heart disease because after all that kills close to a million Americans each year. That is of course we hold true to meme behind this terrorism hype that the government must protect the lives of Americans.

Also anyone who advocates nuking mecca is far from rational and probably belongs in a mental institution.

ClayTrainor

10-16-2010, 09:38 PM

He voted YES for the war on Iraq
He voted YES for TARP

ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT TOM TANCREDO.

How about YES on the patriot act too. :p

erowe1

10-16-2010, 10:37 PM

The PATRIOT Act, TARP, the Iraq war, and his intention to bomb Mecca carry a lot more weight than legalizing pot or the other issues in which he is "good".

Again, your biggest points against him are all federal-only issues.

I also wouldn't rate all of those as highly as you. I'd rate Medicare Part D and No Child Left Behind, both of which I think he opposed, as both much worse than the Patriot Act (though I'd put the Iraq war up there as worse than NCLB, and pretty close to tied with Medicare Part D, and TARP probably somewhere around equally as bad as NCLB).

Southron

10-16-2010, 10:38 PM

amy31416

10-16-2010, 10:51 PM

Again, your biggest points against him are all federal-only issues.

I also wouldn't rate all of those as highly as you. I'd rate Medicare Part D and No Child Left Behind, both of which I think he opposed, as both much worse than the Patriot Act (though I'd put the Iraq war up there as worse than NCLB, and pretty close to tied with Medicare Part D, and TARP probably somewhere around equally as bad as NCLB).

Really? Medicare Part D and NCLB are worse than the Patriot Act?

Here's the thing--you don't have to participate in Medicare Part D or NCLB--you don't have a choice about the effects of the Patriot Act.

Anything that removes choice is FAR worse than these bullshit "social" programs. Which is why I am so flipping angry about health care reform--it removes my ability to choose without penalty...I never have to participate in Medicare or the educational system if I choose not to--and there's no penalty (mostly.)

amy31416

10-16-2010, 10:52 PM

For those worried about his hardline stance on terrorism, he's on the record saying Obama is a bigger threat than terrorists.

I could see a lot of hostility between the state of Colorado and DC if he wins.

Until there's another Republican as the president--then what? Status quo?

Bush was a bigger threat than terrorists too--what of that?

erowe1

10-16-2010, 11:01 PM

Really? Medicare Part D and NCLB are worse than the Patriot Act?

Far worse, IMHO, as are bunches of other laws, including some that Tancredo voted against.

Here's the thing--you don't have to participate in Medicare Part D or NCLB--you don't have a choice about the effects of the Patriot Act.
You don't have a choice not to pay for the unfunded liabilities of Medicare Part D one way or another. The effects of the Patriot Act are minuscule compared to that and tons of other things the government does. The loss of freedom from the minimum wage, which Tancredo has voted against, is probably many times more than the freedom lost due to the Patriot Act. Really, most of what the Patriot Act accomplished was to take a bunch of bad things the feds were already doing pursuant to laws that have existed for decades, and made it easier for them to do those things.

cindy25

10-17-2010, 12:37 AM

if Tancredo wins he will run for president on an anti-immigrant 3rd party, and that means second term for Obama. I don't know if this is a good thing, depends on who the GOP candidate is.

speciallyblend

10-17-2010, 03:06 PM

yes

Fozz

10-17-2010, 03:12 PM

yes

So as long as a candidate wants to legalize pot, he's good enough?

FrankRep

10-17-2010, 03:19 PM

if Tancredo wins he will run for president on an anti-immigrant 3rd party, and that means second term for Obama. I don't know if this is a good thing, depends on who the GOP candidate is.

Tancredo is anti-Illegal Immigration and I don't support him running for President nor would he have a chance to win.

speciallyblend

10-17-2010, 03:20 PM

So as long as a candidate wants to legalize pot, he's good enough?

nope

Brett85

10-17-2010, 03:36 PM

So as long as a candidate wants to legalize pot, he's good enough?

He's better than his opponents. Does a candidate have to be perfect before you can vote for him or her?

Brett85

10-17-2010, 03:38 PM

Really? Medicare Part D and NCLB are worse than the Patriot Act?

Here's the thing--you don't have to participate in Medicare Part D or NCLB--you don't have a choice about the effects of the Patriot Act.

Anything that removes choice is FAR worse than these bullshit "social" programs. Which is why I am so flipping angry about health care reform--it removes my ability to choose without penalty...I never have to participate in Medicare or the educational system if I choose not to--and there's no penalty (mostly.)

The Patriot Act has had no effect on my life at all. I support reforming the Patriot Act to make it fit within the confines of the Constitution, but all of these big spending bills have a much more direct impact on my life since it will end up taking more money away from me.

emazur

10-17-2010, 03:46 PM

He's a mixed bag, though another plus for him is national sovereignty. He believes the North American Union is coming and he opposes it:
YouTube - Tom Tancredo: Obama will forge a North American Union (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwUL0X6MUZQ)

FrankRep

10-17-2010, 03:51 PM

He's a mixed bag, though another plus for him is national sovereignty. He believes the North American Union is coming and he opposes it:

Ron Paul also opposes the North American Union proposals.

Ron Paul CNN/YouTube Debate - North American Union
YouTube - Ron Paul CNN/YouTube Debate - North American Union!!! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbyebk-V-Hs)

Lou Dobbs: Obama Backing North American Union
YouTube - CNN-Lou Dobbs- Obama Backing North American Union Agenda (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgGEv-cdoms)

Marci Kaptur on North American Union
YouTube - Marci Kaptur North American Union Cintra (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAs7XZVgKhI)

amy31416

10-17-2010, 03:53 PM

The Patriot Act has had no effect on my life at all. I support reforming the Patriot Act to make it fit within the confines of the Constitution, but all of these big spending bills have a much more direct impact on my life since it will end up taking more money away from me.

Pretty please--what parts of the Patriot Act are even close to Constitutional?

If, and, but and the do not count.

I know economics are important, but I don't trust people who put it above principles--especially basic principles of freedom "just because it doesn't affect them."

Brett85

10-17-2010, 03:58 PM

FrankRep

10-17-2010, 04:01 PM

There's certain parts of the Patriot Act that simply break down communication barriers between intelligence agencies. That has no affect on the civil liberties of Americans, but I suppose you think that intelligence agencies themselves are unconstitutional?

Based on the history of reforms, if the Patriot Act was reformed it will probably become even more UnConstitutional.

erowe1

10-17-2010, 04:12 PM

Pretty please--what parts of the Patriot Act are even close to Constitutional?

If, and, but and the do not count.

I know economics are important, but I don't trust people who put it above principles--especially basic principles of freedom "just because it doesn't affect them."

To be honest, I'm not quite clear on which parts of the Patriot Act are unconstitutional. I've seen videos of Judge Napolitano talking about it, where he can't make his case against it on constitutional grounds without resorting to a living document approach to the Constitution. I've tried to find something that presents a simple straightforward case against the Patriot Act on constitutional grounds that doesn't do that, but that just uses the simple words of the Constitution and shows how specific provisions of the Patriot Act are unconstitutional, and I haven't been able to find anything. Do you know of any?

Don't get me wrong. I'm still against it. I'm just not convinced that it's clearly unconstitutional.

Medicare Part D and No Child Left Behind, on the other hand, along with most other laws that get passed, are blatantly outside the scope of the powers enumerated in the Constitution.

low preference guy

10-17-2010, 04:13 PM

To be honest, I'm not quite clear on which parts of the Patriot Act are unconstitutional. I've seen videos of Judge Napolitano talking about it, where he can't make his case against it on constitutional grounds without resorting to a living document approach to the Constitution. I've tried to find something that presents a simple straightforward case against the Patriot Act on constitutional grounds that doesn't do that, but that just uses the simple words of the Constitution and shows how specific provisions of the Patriot Act are unconstitutional, and I haven't been able to find anything. Do you know of any?

Don't get me wrong. I'm still against it. I'm just not convinced that it's clearly unconstitutional.

I heard Rand Paul saying that it goes against the fourth amendment. Can government officials write their own warrants under the Patriot Act?

erowe1

10-17-2010, 04:16 PM

I heard Rand Paul saying that it goes against the fourth amendment. Can government officials write their own warrants under the Patriot Act?

I don't know what the specifics are about how FISA warrants can get written. My understanding is that it's not an official writing his own warrant personally, but that it is the executive branch and not the judicial branch writing these warrants. I might be wrong about that. But the 4th Amendment doesn't say anything about who has to write a warrant.

amy31416

10-17-2010, 04:32 PM

There's certain parts of the Patriot Act that simply break down communication barriers between intelligence agencies. That has no affect on the civil liberties of Americans, but I suppose you think that intelligence agencies themselves are unconstitutional?

I don't recall reading anything in the Constitution about the Federal government's responsibility to run a massive intelligence agency.

amy31416

10-17-2010, 04:38 PM

To be honest, I'm not quite clear on which parts of the Patriot Act are unconstitutional. I've seen videos of Judge Napolitano talking about it, where he can't make his case against it on constitutional grounds without resorting to a living document approach to the Constitution. I've tried to find something that presents a simple straightforward case against the Patriot Act on constitutional grounds that doesn't do that, but that just uses the simple words of the Constitution and shows how specific provisions of the Patriot Act are unconstitutional, and I haven't been able to find anything. Do you know of any?

Don't get me wrong. I'm still against it. I'm just not convinced that it's clearly unconstitutional.

Medicare Part D and No Child Left Behind, on the other hand, along with most other laws that get passed, are blatantly outside the scope of the powers enumerated in the Constitution.

For one, it violates the first amendment because a government who listens in on everything you say, and can prosecute you based on it--is not respecting free speech.

That it violates the 4th amendment is pretty obvious, right?

erowe1

10-17-2010, 04:47 PM

For one, it violates the first amendment because a government who listens in on everything you say, and can prosecute you based on it--is not respecting free speech.

That it violates the 4th amendment is pretty obvious, right?

I don't know.

What part of the Patriot Act says they can listen in on everything you say? And what part violates the 4th Amendment?

Is there something in it that authorizes searches or wiretaps without warrants?

amy31416

10-17-2010, 05:22 PM

I don't know.

What part of the Patriot Act says they can listen in on everything you say? And what part violates the 4th Amendment?

Is there something in it that authorizes searches or wiretaps without warrants?

I'm not going to comb through the entire bill to humor you, but here's some resources:

http://www.scn.org/ccapa/pa-vs-const.html

http://w2.eff.org/patriot/sunset/206.php

http://w2.eff.org/patriot/sunset/209.php

http://w2.eff.org/patriot/sunset/220.php

http://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2007/09/court-strikes-2/

http://w2.eff.org/patriot/sunset/201.php

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20011005_ramasastry.html

etc. etc....it's easy to research on the internets.

erowe1

10-17-2010, 05:27 PM

I'm not going to comb through the entire bill to humor you, but here's some resources:

http://www.scn.org/ccapa/pa-vs-const.html

http://w2.eff.org/patriot/sunset/206.php

http://w2.eff.org/patriot/sunset/209.php

http://w2.eff.org/patriot/sunset/220.php

http://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2007/09/court-strikes-2/

http://w2.eff.org/patriot/sunset/201.php

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20011005_ramasastry.html

etc. etc....it's easy to research on the internets.

That's understandable. I wouldn't expect you to comb through the bill. Do any of those links provide an explanation of how it's unconstitutional, without resorting to a living document approach, and that provide actual details about the provision in the PA that they're talking about?

amy31416

10-17-2010, 05:34 PM

That's understandable. I wouldn't expect you to comb through the bill. Do any of those links provide an explanation of how it's unconstitutional, without resorting to a living document approach, and that provide actual details about the provision in the PA that they're talking about?

I'm not sure I understand what you mean about resorting to a "living document" approach--I think the 1st and 4th amendments are pretty straightforward and no, I don't think that there's any weird revisionism going on.

My understanding is that most people who go with the "living document" argument are liberals who want to pretend that things like the 2nd amendment has no place in modern times--never heard of it being applied to the 1st, though I suppose that some alleged conservatives may apply it to the 4th because of the terrorism bogeyman.

Anyways, read the articles and decide for yourself. My take on it is that the lawyers who drafted it were crafty and usually violated the spirit/intent of the Constitution and the rights guaranteed within, thus making it more difficult to strike down.

speciallyblend

10-17-2010, 05:45 PM

So as long as a candidate wants to legalize pot, he's good enough?

we are not just talking marijuana but i can tell you if a politician is willing to defend 75 yrs of lies and marijuana prohibition. Then i am ready to remove him from office for defending lies and spreading lies and a lack of common sense. This has gone beyond marijuana! this is not about marijuana anymore just basic Liberty and Freedom!!!

Tom Tancredo's bump in polls is because of his position on legalized marijuana, even his campaign has admitted this to me on the phone;) The Colorado Marijuana Movement is why tancredo even has a chance in this race!!!!

The Marijuana Movement will be a crucial key to the Liberty Revolution Movement take it or leave it is what i tell folks;)

Brett85

10-17-2010, 06:07 PM

we are not just talking marijuana but i can tell you if a politician is willing to defend 75 yrs of lies and marijuana prohibition. Then i am ready to remove him from office for defending lies and spreading lies and a lack of common sense. This has gone beyond marijuana! this is not about marijuana anymore just basic Liberty and Freedom!!!

Tom Tancredo's bump in polls is because of his position on legalized marijuana, even his campaign has admitted this to me on the phone;) The Colorado Marijuana Movement is why tancredo even has a chance in this race!!!!

The Marijuana Movement will be a crucial key to the Liberty Revolution Movement take it or leave it is what i tell folks;)

If that's the case then he needs to run an ad touting his position on legalizing marijuana.

LibertyEagle

10-17-2010, 06:08 PM

The Marijuana Movement will be a crucial key to the Liberty Revolution Movement take it or leave it is what i tell folks;)

That may very well be true in Colorado, but that doesn't necessarily apply to many other states. In fact, I think it would have the opposite effect.

speciallyblend

10-17-2010, 06:15 PM

If that's the case then he needs to run an ad touting his position on legalizing marijuana.

he has been that is why he is closing in;)

speciallyblend

10-17-2010, 06:18 PM

That may very well be true in Colorado, but that doesn't necessarily apply to many other states. In fact, I think it would have the opposite effect.

especially states where the gop loves big government!!! most people that are against it are because of 75 yrs of lies and brain washing!!! depends if the state believes the earth is round or flat!!

the states that are against depend on uneducated brainwashed drug folks who think the earth is still flat!!

it comes down to basic common sense once the facts are presented to the brainwashed folks!!no matter what facts you present to some they will still say the earth is flat!!!

Fozz

10-17-2010, 06:19 PM

He's better than his opponents. Does a candidate have to be perfect before you can vote for him or her?

No, he doesn't have to be perfect, but he has to be sane, which Tancredo is not.

GreenLP

10-17-2010, 06:26 PM

Do Coloradans know there is a Libertarian Gov candidate (http://www.lpcolorado.org/candidates/2010/jaimes-brown)?

Voting for anybody else is just voting for the lesser of two evils.

FrankRep

10-17-2010, 06:27 PM

No, he doesn't have to be perfect, but he has to be sane, which Tancredo is not.
Another nonsense attack. :rolleyes:

LibertyEagle

10-17-2010, 06:34 PM

especially states where the gop loves big government!!! most people that are against it are because of 75 yrs of lies and brain washing!!! depends if the state believes the earth is round or flat!!

the states that are against depend on uneducated brainwashed drug folks who think the earth is still flat!!

it comes down to basic common sense once the facts are presented to the brainwashed folks!!no matter what facts you present to some they will still say the earth is flat!!!

That may very well be true, sb. But, that doesn't change the fact that leading with legalizing marijuana, in a whole lot of states, would not be a winning strategy.

speciallyblend

10-17-2010, 06:35 PM

Do Coloradans know there is a Libertarian Gov candidate (http://www.lpcolorado.org/candidates/2010/jaimes-brown)?

Voting for anybody else is just voting for the lesser of two evils.

yes we do, but the lp candidate isn't doing well and he could of easily registered republican and ran in the primary liked Ron Paul asked him to. the lp blew it when they nominated bob barr in 2008. I was lp for 12 yrs but i heard Ron Paul unlike the rest of the colorado lp. the lp in the race is a wasted vote in my view but if folks want to vote lp more power to you as you make sure hickenlooper wins! I will be voting Tancredo if i don't vote for tancredo i will vote lp!!

I am voting to win with tancredo! if the colorado lp/tp/cp had joined the gop like Ron Paul asked we wouldn't need the lp . WE WOULD ALREADY BE THE GOP!!! the lp in my county did what needed to be that is why Kevin Cannell is running in the gop not the lp. he has a great chance to win now as gop!!!

speciallyblend

10-17-2010, 06:42 PM

That may very well be true, sb. But, that doesn't change the fact that leading with legalizing marijuana, in a whole lot of states, would not be a winning strategy.

those states don't deserve liberty then. I live in the United States of Colorado ,everything east of denver aka new jersey can stay where it is. I no longer concern myself with states outside of colorado unless they want to join our state:)

honestly liberty eagle i have written off this country! I just pay my slave taxes and hope to move to some land pay my slave land taxes and never leave colorado ever again and if i do leave colorado i am leaving the country or planet!!!

we have 250,000 in medical bills(thanks to corrupt insurance) my wife is disabled and im doing my best to stay afloat! I am to the point of not caring anymore to be honest!! f them all is the nicest way to say it!!

GreenLP

10-17-2010, 06:49 PM

yes we do, but the lp candidate isn't doing well and he could of easily registered republican and ran in the primary liked Ron Paul asked him to.
To only lose in the primary?

the lp blew it when they nominated bob barr in 2008.
No, they didn't blow it when they nominated former GA congressmen Bob Barr. They blew it by not nominating former Alaskan Senator Mike Gravel as VP. Who in the hell in Wayne Root?!

I was lp for 12 yrs but i heard Ron Paul unlike the rest of the colorado lp.
If Ron Paul really wanted to help LPism, why don't he simply switch his party affiliation? What has the Republican Party done for this country, but wreck it just as much as the Dems have?

the lp in the race is a wasted vote in my view
No, voting for someone who is NOT your political philosophy is a wasted vote.

WE WOULD ALREADY BE THE GOP!!!
That's like saying LPs to infiltrate the Dem Party and say WE WOULD ALREADY BE THE DEM PARTY!!!

LibertyEagle

10-17-2010, 06:56 PM

FrankRep

10-17-2010, 06:56 PM

If Ron Paul really wanted to help LPism, why don't he simply switch his party affiliation? What has the Republican Party done for this country, but wreck it just as much as the Dems have?

Ron Paul has loyalty to the Constitution, not the Libertarian Party.

Ron Paul is currently in office today because he's a Republican.

speciallyblend

10-17-2010, 06:57 PM

To only lose in the primary?

No, they didn't blow it when they nominated former GA congressmen Bob Barr. They blew it by not nominating former Alaskan Senator Mike Gravel as VP. Who in the hell in Wayne Root?!

If Ron Paul really wanted to help LPism, why don't he simply switch his party affiliation? What has the Republican Party done for this country, but wreck it just as much as the Dems have?

No, voting for someone who is NOT your political philosophy is a wasted vote.

That's like saying LPs to infiltrate the Dem Party and say WE WOULD ALREADY BE THE DEM PARTY!!!

i will make the argument simple for you ok;) I will not vote for the lp until they help reclaim the gop! If the lp wants to be a viable 3rd party. then they will need to wait for the gop to crumble or become the gop until then don't bother trying to get me to vote lp. I registered republican so we can win. the lp will not win that is why Ron Paul is in the gop not the lp! if you wanted to further the lp movement you would join the 2 party system like Ron Paul explained! We now have lp/ron paul republicans who are positioned to win in the gop not lose in the lp!! Kevin Cannell in lake county colorado can win on the gop ticket!

maybe you haven't listened to ron paul reasoning on why to join the gop if you had you wouldn't be lp. your right though the lp might be viable once the gop crumbles if we cannot save the gop in the next few yrs maybe in 6-10 yrs i might vote lp, keep up the good work in the lp. i will keep up the work in the gop!!

the smart lp members in lake county joined the republican party and democratic party to help influence policy in the 2 paqrty system! alot more effective then voting for 4-5% candidates outside the fixed 2 party system!

Tancredo can win the lp candidate cannot in this race!! If Dan Maes hadn;t blown it i would of voted for Dan Maes . If i don't vote for Tancredo i will vote lp bottom line!!

libertybrewcity

10-17-2010, 06:58 PM

I would vote for him for one simple reason: redistricting.

REDISTRICTING is very very important this time around because whoever wins the state house, senate, and govenorship in most states decides who remains in power in the state for the next ten years.

If the Republicans cannot win the state house or senate, they absolutely MUST win the gubernatorial race, otherwise they will be screwed. Tancredo's power as governor willl be limited to begin with because he only has veto power, but his power to negotiate on redistricting could benefits literally hundreds of races across the state for the next decade.

I don't live in the state, but please consider what I have said!

speciallyblend

10-17-2010, 07:01 PM

Ron Paul has loyalty to the Constitution, not the Libertarian Party.

Ron Paul is currently in office today because he's a Republican.

exactly!!!!

speciallyblend

10-17-2010, 07:02 PM

GreenLP

10-17-2010, 07:03 PM

I will not vote for the lp until they help reclaim the gop!
Well then I will not vote for the LP until they help reclaim the Dem Party. Things will just continue to go around in circles as they have been.

Brett85

10-17-2010, 07:03 PM

he has been that is why he is closing in;)

Is the ad on youtube anywhere?

speciallyblend

10-17-2010, 07:06 PM

Well then I will not vote for the LP until they help reclaim the Dem Party. Things will just continue to go around in circles as they have been.

naa dont worry. we are more effective in the gop then the lp has been since its creation. i think that alone says alot;)

speciallyblend

10-17-2010, 07:06 PM

Is the ad on youtube anywhere?

i am not sure let me try a search i saw it on tv the other night;)

speciallyblend

10-17-2010, 07:07 PM

Well then I will not vote for the LP until they help reclaim the Dem Party. Things will just continue to go around in circles as they have been.

whatever makes you juicy!!! you actually might be more effective in the dem party then the lp depending on your county!!! our democratic and republican party in lake county has many lp members(now gop/dnc) and actually is more republican then most of the rino in our republican party but we were able to beat the gop establishment by 16 votes in our primary;)

FrankRep

10-17-2010, 07:10 PM

Is the ad on youtube anywhere?

He had some news coverage last year.

YouTube - EVEN TOM TANCREDO WANTS MARIJUANA LEGALIZED! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFJyDE1Bits)

Brett85

10-17-2010, 07:14 PM

He had some news coverage last year.

YouTube - EVEN TOM TANCREDO WANTS MARIJUANA LEGALIZED! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFJyDE1Bits)

Yeah, I saw that. I'm just surprised that he actually ran an ad about it in a general election. That's pretty gutsy. It's also interesting that the Republicans in the state are still moving to Tancredo in droves. Either they agree with him on the issue or they just don't care.

speciallyblend

10-17-2010, 07:15 PM

all i could find, the ad is out there, just no one has you tubed yet
news clip here
YouTube - EVEN TOM TANCREDO WANTS MARIJUANA LEGALIZED! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFJyDE1Bits)

FrankRep

10-17-2010, 07:18 PM

Yeah, I saw that. I'm just surprised that he actually ran an ad about it in a general election. That's pretty gutsy. It's also interesting that the Republicans in the state are still moving to Tancredo in droves. Either they agree with him on the issue or they just don't care.

Tancredo's tough stance on Illegal Immigration is most likely the aspect winning over the Conservatives.

I don't see any pro-drug political ads from him.

speciallyblend

10-17-2010, 07:20 PM

Yeah, I saw that. I'm just surprised that he actually ran an ad about it in a general election. That's pretty gutsy. It's also interesting that the Republicans in the state are still moving to Tancredo in droves. Either they agree with him on the issue or they just don't care.

remember a large amount of ron paul republicans etc is why Dan Maes won the primary but then dan maes started doing events and saying one thing at one and opposite at others. the liberty movement in colorado has dropped dan maes like a dead fly!!! tancredo is moving forward because of the liberty republicans and the marijuana movement;)

Fozz

10-17-2010, 07:27 PM

Another nonsense attack. :rolleyes:

It isn't a "nonsense attack". It is the truth. Tom Tancredo does not have the mental capacity to hold public office.

libertarian4321

10-17-2010, 07:31 PM

low preference guy

10-17-2010, 07:35 PM

It isn't a "nonsense attack". It is the truth. Tom Tancredo does not have the mental capacity to hold public office.

if he pulls out legalizing pot, he'd be better than the other 49 governors in the nation.

Knightskye

10-17-2010, 07:37 PM

Protect American workers (and help honest employers ensure that their employees are legally in the country) through the use of a mandatory workplace verification system such as E-Verify.

Other than that, his issues page looks great.

Theocrat

10-17-2010, 07:41 PM

No.

Not even if there wasn't a viable third party option (e.g. Libertarian).

Why would I vote for him, just because he's the slightly lesser EVIL?

I'd still be supporting EVIL if I voted for him...

What in Tancredo's platform (http://tancredoforgovernor2010.org/issues/index.php) do you find to be evil, so much so that it makes him unworthy to run as a governor?

speciallyblend

10-17-2010, 07:42 PM

.

Other than that, his issues page looks great.

you know if Tancredo wins it sends a HUGE MESSAGE to the Colorado GOP and National GOP considering the only lively thing at gop conventions in Colorado was the Liberty Movement/Ron Paul Republicans:) Tancredo Winning would send a huge message to the failed gop leadership in colorado and around the country;)

Son of Detroit

10-17-2010, 07:43 PM

http://www.krcc.org/krccnews/tancredo200.jpg

speciallyblend

10-17-2010, 07:45 PM

http://www.krcc.org/krccnews/tancredo200.jpg

John Hinckley or Tom Tancredo??? i saw the pick and for a minute i thought john hehe

Zatch

10-17-2010, 10:02 PM

No.

Not even if there wasn't a viable third party option (e.g. Libertarian).

Why would I vote for him, just because he's the slightly lesser EVIL?

I'd still be supporting EVIL if I voted for him...

A vote for the libertarian party is a vote for the lesser of three evils. You are still voting for evil if the libertarian party candidate isn't perfect. ;)

Knightskye

10-17-2010, 10:16 PM

http://www.krcc.org/krccnews/tancredo200.jpg

Seasons don't fear the reaper. :D

Brian4Liberty

10-18-2010, 12:18 PM

Did Tancredo say "nuke" Mecca or "bomb" Mecca in his admittedly hypothetical discussion? Seem that the term "nuke" gets thrown around a lot, but I have only seen him use the term "bomb". Reminds me of Johnson's accusations against Goldwater. How many around here would be campaigning against Goldwater?

Speaking completely hypothetically and without endorsing any policy, mutually ensured destruction (MAD) was the official stance of the US for quite a long time in regards to retaliating against a strike on the US. When Reagan dropped a few bombs on Qaddafi's tent, the consensus was that it limited terrorism for a while, especially terrorism emanating from Libya. Of course applying this threat to a religion's holy place instead of a particular countries leadership would not a be a valid extension of the long standing MAD policy...

Tancredo voted for TARP? Now I'm MAD! ;)

Brian4Liberty

10-18-2010, 12:21 PM

Seasons don't fear the reaper. :D

More cowbell! :D

johnrocks

10-18-2010, 12:25 PM

I voted yes even though he pissed me off voting for TARP , Governors don't deal in foreign policy.

Brian4Liberty

10-18-2010, 12:26 PM

Just for fun:

YouTube - LBJ Daisy ad (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkWAhuXtalw)

specsaregood

10-19-2010, 07:23 AM

Another thing to consider is that if Dan Maes gets less than 10% of the vote in the gubernatorial race, the GOP will lose automatic ballot access for the next 4 years.

Can you provide a source for that?

Here you go: http://blogs.denverpost.com/thespot/2010/10/02/memo-outlines-gop-woes-if-dan-maes-doesnt-win-10-percent/15575/

Another source:
http://dailycaller.com/2010/10/18/as-tancredo-surges-in-colorado-will-gop-be-punished-in-2012-presidential-election/

Along with this gem:

“We will be left to compete for ballot position with the Greens, Socialists, American Communist Party, Libertarians. Prohibitionists etc,” he said.

But in the case this would happen, GOP leaders have said, an effort would be made to change the law.

“It’s not that a big of a deal,” GOP chairman Dick Wadhams recently told FoxNews.com. “The statue can be changed and I anticipate it will be changed. Our party will not function any differently as far as the nomination process goes.”

Already planning on using the govt to benefit their party.

erowe1

10-19-2010, 08:21 AM

Another source:
http://dailycaller.com/2010/10/18/as-tancredo-surges-in-colorado-will-gop-be-punished-in-2012-presidential-election/

Along with this gem:

Already planning on using the govt to benefit their party.

That guy doesn't even see anything wrong with what he's saying. In his mind, he's merely trying to uphold the spirit of the law, rather than the letter of the law. And the spirit of the law was to make sure Democrats and Republicans have ballot access and other parties don't. If by some accident of history, like Maes getting <10%, it turns out to have the opposite effect....well then, that just wouldn't be right.

Lucille

10-19-2010, 09:15 AM

Tancredo celebrates rising poll numbers, mocks GOP (http://coloradoindependent.com/64476/tancredo-celebrates-rising-poll-numbers-mocks-gop)

“They say I’m going to sink the Republican Party if I draw too many votes. That’s funny. There is someone in this race sinking the Republican Party but it’s not me. It’s the guy running as a Republican who’s polling 12 percent,” he told the Colorado Independent and then burst into laughter.
[...]
“Look at the recent track record. Bush I and II and then McCain? I didn’t vote for Bush I in 1980. I was one of two GOP delegates to vote against putting him on the ticket with Reagan. I said, ‘c’mon no way I’m voting for that guy.’ It was me and one other delegate who voted against him.”

Tancredo also dismissed the new Sarah Palin branch of the GOP.

“Palin, yeah. Where is she in the total scheme of things?”

Heh. And where is Palin in the scheme of things? Ask Rockwell (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/65723.html):

Sarah’s continuing purpose is to drain all anti-government energy out of the Tea Party, and focus it on her Bill Kristol-guided self instead. In other words, the religious right is serving its usual Republican purpose of promoting perpetual war in the Middle East, and nationalism and the police state here at home, as allegedly mandated by the Bible.

"...as allegedly mandated by the Bible." Lew slays me!