Tancredo Boycotts Univision Debate, says it's "un-American"

[Knightskye]

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2007/12/07/politics/horserace/entry3590234.shtml

How's he going to deal with Cuba, or other Spanish-speaking countries? "I think it's un-American to trade with Castro. We shouldn't have to translate frageeley on our wooden crates just so they understand not to drop them on the ground!"

[SamLowrey]

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2007/12/07/politics/horserace/entry3590234.shtml

How's he going to deal with Cuba, or other Spanish-speaking countries? "I think it's un-American to trade with Castro. We shouldn't have to translate frageeley on our wooden crates just so they understand not to drop them on the ground!"


Do those countries pander to Americans that have invaded their countries illegally? Bet not.

[fortilite]

Tancredo wants to stop legal immigration, or at least it sounded like he said so. The guy is way too extreme. He gives the anti-illegal immigration movement a bad name.

[SamLowrey]

Tancredo wants to stop legal immigration,

I think most people do.

[fortilite]

I think most people do.

Can you back that up? Because I haven't seen it. And I sure don't want to stop legal immigration.

[DrRich]

I think most people do.

why would he want to stop legal immigration?:confused:

[Tsoman]

i hate the word "un-american" with a passion

[microsect]

I'm sorry but I think Tancredo is a racist F***.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/12/08/tom-tancredo-boycotts-univisionspanish-debate-attacks-their-entire-viewership/

[angelatc]

why would he want to stop legal immigration?:confused:

He actually does want a temporary moratorium on all immigration until the borders are secure and a viable guest worker plan is agreed upon.

Personally, I hate the whole "guest worker" idea. I'd rather give people the right to come and be citizens, than to come and be serfs.

[angrydragon]

Better to bomb than trade, right Tancredo?

[AlexMerced]

why would he want to stop legal immigration?:confused:

Tancredo is super isolationist, he's beyond protectionst, he want no one to come in or out of the country, and bomb all other countries

he scares me

[SamLowrey]

Tancredo is super isolationist, he's beyond protectionst, he want no one to come in or out of the country, and bomb all other countries

he scares me

Hmmm, bombing other countries isn't part of being an "isolationist" - whatever that means.

I think anyone who wants this flood of immigration should practice what they preach. Remove the door from your home - take it right off the hinges. Funny how these open border-types seem to be "isolationists" when it comes to their own personal lives.

This country is becoming balkanized and no country will survive that.

[johngr]

Tancredo is super isolationist, he's beyond protectionst, he want no one to come in or out of the country, and bomb all other countries

he scares me

He's only halfway on the same page with the Neocohens with their "invade the world; invite the world" program.

[literatim]

I am a firm believer that we need to halt all immigration and focus on improving the lives of people who already live here.

[SamLowrey]

I'm sorry but I think Tancredo is a racist F***.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/12/08/tom-tancredo-boycotts-univisionspanish-debate-attacks-their-entire-viewership/

Do you always let blogs tell you what to think?

[InRonWeTrust]

Tancredo should not be in ANY debates. He has no support at all.

[SamLowrey]

I am a firm believer that we need to halt all immigration and focus on improving the lives of people who already live here.


Exactly. And I've used this on another subject in this board - what would the GLOBALISTS do? Shouldn't the fact those who want to destroy this country are ALL big advocates of massive immigration give one pause? What are their motives.

Club Sierra sold out to such a globalist. Though the connection between immigration and the degradation of our ecology (THINK about that - what is fueling the flight to the suburbs? THINK about how much that adds to the miles driven every DAY.) is clear, they were told by the globalist that he would stop giving them MONEY if they EVER said anything bad about immigration!

[SamLowrey]

Can you back that up? Because I haven't seen it. And I sure don't want to stop legal immigration.


Do you even know the "numbers"?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4094926727128068265&q=roy+beck&total=114&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

[KingTheoden]

He really does make the rest of us look bad when he had these spasms. He simply cannot see the big picture, unlike Ron Paul. Tancredo is obsessed with the symptoms of the situation but has no ability to treat the cause.

All the more reason to support the good Doctor.

[apropos]

"Bilingualism is a great asset for any individual but it has perilous consequences for a nation," he said.

Tancredo's comment here sounds like common sense to me. I doubt anything can rip a country apart more quickly than groups/factions/regions separated by language. I know George Washington did not trust Dutch settlers who refused to speak English. That is good enough for me.

With the borders as wide open as they are right now and America's current situation in the world pecking order, I agree that we need a moratorium on all immigration for the present. Secure the border and take a step back to examine the rationale of allowing immigration in the first place.

Even a country as big as this has limited resources. Can we handle 250 million immigrants from India and China over the next ten years? Will these people have the same beliefs and worldview that contribute to a healthy, functioning republic? Believe it or not, many people in the world don't think secular democracy and hyper-individualism is a good way of life. Should we let those people into our society? Will they be loyal to America or to their native countries? Remember the Paris riots, Wen Ho Lee, and the Theo Van Gogh murder. How will our environment and national infrastructure expand to meet these new demands? More taxes to widen the roads? Also, why are we bringing in immigrants when we have places like Michigan, where thousands of legal Americans lose their jobs to the third world every year?

[SamLowrey]

Tancredo's comment here sounds like common sense to me. I doubt anything can rip a country apart more quickly than groups/factions/regions separated by language. I know George Washington did not trust Dutch settlers who refused to speak English. That is good enough for me.

With the borders as wide open as they are right now and America's current situation in the world pecking order, I think we need a moratorium on legal immigration is a good thing. Secure the border and take a step back to examine the rationale of allowing immigration in the first place.

Even a country as big as this has limited resources. Can we handle 250 million immigrants from India and China over the next ten years? Will these people have the same beliefs and worldview that contribute to a healthy, functioning republic? Believe it or not, many people in the world don't think secular democracy and hyper-individualism is a good way of life. Should we let those people into our society? Remember the Paris riots and the Theo Van Gogh murder. How will our environment and national infrastructure expand to meet these new demands? More taxes to widen the roads? Also, why are we bringing in immigrants when we have places like Michigan, where thousands of legal Americans lose their jobs to the third world every year?

Check the video - your intuition is correct.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4094926727128068265&q=roy+beck&total=114&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

The immigration laws were re-written in 1965 specifically to undermine and destroy this country.

[AlexMerced]

Hmmm, bombing other countries isn't part of being an "isolationist" - whatever that means.

I think anyone who wants this flood of immigration should practice what they preach. Remove the door from your home - take it right off the hinges. Funny how these open border-types seem to be "isolationists" when it comes to their own personal lives.

This country is becoming balkanized and no country will survive that.

it's neo-islolationist, being hostile towards other countries and avoiding friendships.

Closing the borders completely would kill all competition in the workforce and lower productivity


Bottom line: Only be Abolishing the Welfare state can fix the economic ramifications of runaway immigration

[AlexMerced]

Exactly. And I've used this on another subject in this board - what would the GLOBALISTS do? Shouldn't the fact those who want to destroy this country are ALL big advocates of massive immigration give one pause? What are their motives.

Club Sierra sold out to such a globalist. Though the connection between immigration and the degradation of our ecology (THINK about that - what is fueling the flight to the suburbs? THINK about how much that adds to the miles driven every DAY.) is clear, they were told by the globalist that he would stop giving them MONEY if they EVER said anything bad about immigration!

Globalists want to give illegals tax money, if you abolish the welfare state, illegals can't take tax money, only work. Without minimum wage laws, who you think they are going to choose an illegal immigrant, or an american.

Abolish the welfare state, the incentive to immigrate illegal is gone


the only reason it enefits them to do it illegally is cause of wage competition, be rid of that and boom

[SamLowrey]

it's neo-islolationist, being hostile towards other countries and avoiding friendships.

Whatever happened to that quip that nations don't have friends - only interests. Seems to be trotted out all the time when one of our "allies" like Israel stabs us in the back again.



Closing the borders completely would kill all competition in the workforce and lower productivity

If by "competition" you mean a "race to the bottom" then I would agree because that is what is happening. Every time someone like you says this I can back you in the corner by asking if you don't think it would lower the quality of life if EVERY Third Worlder were to move to the US. You know it would.



Bottom line: Only be Abolishing the Welfare state can fix the economic ramifications of runaway immigration

Right, because the Welfare State artificially lowers the number of "unemployed" we have. So, your solution is to allow swarms of people to come here, legally, and then claim welfare? I don't see that as a solution. :p Just close the border and you have prevented the boat from getting swamped.

[SamLowrey]

Globalists want to give illegals tax money, if you abolish the welfare state, illegals can't take tax money, only work.


Keep the illegals out, then they aren't eligible for tax money, either. It is a lot easier than removing the welfare state.



Without minimum wage laws, who you think they are going to choose an illegal immigrant, or an american.

Why don't you look up what they were paying those ILLEGALS at the Swift Meat packing plant? Remember the incident where AMERICAN lined up for those jobs vacated by the illegals?

I remember a Californian "businesswoman" interviewed on a radio show who was advocating Amnesty who said she couldn't find Americans to work landscaping jobs for [I think it was] $15 an hour or something. We called her bluff - she was FLOODED with applications from Americans.

Might want to check your facts.

Yes, there is more overhead in doing things LEGALLY, just as you can buy a tv that has been stolen cheaper than retail. Being ILLEGAL should clue you in on that. I guess you want to get rid of the income tax, too? So does everyone - so does Ron Paul. But until that time we don't allow barbarians to rampage across the US, ok?



Abolish the welfare state, the incentive to immigrate illegal is gone


And abolish the Income Tax, Social Security, etc....

Oh, but we will ALSO have to abolish the American dream, as most see it. You, know, like having a house, running water, things like that. Because these Third Worlders will always be able to come in and live 30 to a house and undercut your salary......

So, you see, the globalist elites love immigration - best way to destroy those pesky middle class Americans who are always carping on about "rights" and the "Constitution." Better to replace them with some illiterate Third Worlders who won't complain as long as they have enough money for today to buy Ding-Dongs and Pepsis at the 7-11 and some cheap booze and a 12-year old to rape (of course, 12 year olds are "legal" in glorious Mexico.) No matter, the globalists who actually own the companies are living in the Swiss Alps - they want that labor CHEAP and that is all that matters!

[split_lipz]

Tancredo is too extreme on immigration. I think he'd be good as head of ICE, but not as a head of state.

[SamLowrey]

Tancredo is too extreme on immigration. I think he'd be good as head of ICE, but not as a head of state.

Bush is too extreme on immigration - he didn't do anything after we were literally attacked on our own soil by immigrants!

The fact he didn't close the border on 9/12 reveals he is a traitor IMO.

[AlexMerced]

on the extreme other end, if all immigrants were legal, they'd have abide by minimum wage laws, again, there'd be no reason to hire them.

i agree with Ron Paul with ron paul and most economists when they say this is problem cause of the welfare state

[Knightskye]

Tancredo is too extreme on immigration. I think he'd be good as head of ICE, but not as a head of state.

Head o' lettuce? :D He has some good jokes; maybe he could go on the road with Michael Richards.

[Danny Molina]

Tancredo's name is unamerican.

[xao]

[QUOTE=Knightskye;562094]http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2007/12/07/politics/horserace/entry3590234.shtml QUOTE]

At least someone has a backbone and isn't pandering to the special interests of pro laraza Univision. Though I can see why Ron wouldn't mind some extra votes, but I truthfully don't think he'll fool the laraza racists.

This is a quote from another member who put this thing into the proper context.
His handle is rg...?? something(sorry forgot the rest)

"There shouldn't be a debate in spanish to begin with. It is a debate for the "Illegal vote" Which any illegal person in the country with a drivers license can vote. I do not see any debates being conducted in German, French, Italian, Sweedish, Arabic, etc, etc. Illegal immigration isn't about race, nationality,or color. It doesn't matter if the illegal is red, yellow, black or brown. Its about the law and allowing to many people into our country with no allegience to america without time to assimialte createing a foreign country within our own. This is being done on purpose to make the NAU transitition easier."

Now a dose of reality for the neo-liberal Ron Paul supporters. He's pretty strict on the illegals issue.

rons grade b+
http://grades.betterimmigration.com/testgrades.php3?District=TX&VIPID=787

As you can see, only tancredo and hunter have higher grades but they are utterly clueless on

other very important issues and sub tier in polling and funding.
http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/539/clipboarddk1.jpg



http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/3991/immigrationvotingreportnn6.jpg
http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/539/clipboarddk1.jpg

Ron with a B grade here
http://www.vdare.com/burns/070813_pi.htm

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/border-security-and-immigration-reform/

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul269.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul314.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7U4RgUh5G38

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwZsBiZYocg

[xao]

I'm sorry but I think Tancredo is a racist F***.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/12/08/tom-tancredo-boycotts-univisionspanish-debate-attacks-their-entire-viewership/

That's because you're a laraza F***
Your actions earlier proved that. That's all you laraza nuts do is call anyone who is against illegal immigration a "racist".

You continually spew the marxist constructs and words like "racist". You probably have no idea where the word even came from. It was created by the bolsheviks in Russia when they took russia by force. Anyone who tried to stop there REAL terror was called a "Racist", anti-semtie, etc.

You know when you have to call people "names", you've lost your argument. Illegal immigration is crippling this country. It's been crippling California, where I am from, badly.

[xao]

Do those countries pander to Americans that have invaded their countries illegally? Bet not.

Nope, in fact you can't even get into most of them and stay, if you want to. Mexico has one of the harshest immigration policies in the world.

[xao]

Can you back that up? Because I haven't seen it. And I sure don't want to stop legal immigration.

Most Americans would probably like a moratorium on immigration altogether. We know that they want illegal immigration stopped(around 85% of americans do).
So I wouldn't be surprised at all if over 70% of americans wanted Legal immigration stopped. Why? Because we have so many people that have flooded the country, it will take some time for the country to heel from that massive population dump.

[xao]

Hmmm, bombing other countries isn't part of being an "isolationist" - whatever that means.

I think anyone who wants this flood of immigration should practice what they preach. Remove the door from your home - take it right off the hinges. Funny how these open border-types seem to be "isolationists" when it comes to their own personal lives.

This country is becoming balkanized and no country will survive that.

Bravo

[xao]

I am a firm believer that we need to halt all immigration and focus on improving the lives of people who already live here.


Awesome

[literatim]

on the extreme other end, if all immigrants were legal, they'd have abide by minimum wage laws, again, there'd be no reason to hire them.

i agree with Ron Paul with ron paul and most economists when they say this is problem cause of the welfare state

Many of the jobs they take generally paid more than minimum wage before businesses started hiring illegals.

[xao]

Tancredo's comment here sounds like common sense to me. I doubt anything can rip a country apart more quickly than groups/factions/regions separated by language. I know George Washington did not trust Dutch settlers who refused to speak English. That is good enough for me.

With the borders as wide open as they are right now and America's current situation in the world pecking order, I agree that we need a moratorium on all immigration for the present. Secure the border and take a step back to examine the rationale of allowing immigration in the first place.

Even a country as big as this has limited resources. Can we handle 250 million immigrants from India and China over the next ten years? Will these people have the same beliefs and worldview that contribute to a healthy, functioning republic? Believe it or not, many people in the world don't think secular democracy and hyper-individualism is a good way of life. Should we let those people into our society? Will they be loyal to America or to their native countries? Remember the Paris riots, Wen Ho Lee, and the Theo Van Gogh murder. How will our environment and national infrastructure expand to meet these new demands? More taxes to widen the roads? Also, why are we bringing in immigrants when we have places like Michigan, where thousands of legal Americans lose their jobs to the third world every year?

So true.

In fact PAT BUCHANAN has stated in his book and on Tv that we need a moratorium on all immigration into this country until we can get back on track.

And Pat is essentially the quintessential Real Republican. A Paleo-Conservative Republican, like Ron. Like the founders.

[xao]

Here's the kicker, WE DON'T EVEN NEED ILLEGALS OR ANY IMMIGRANTS TO PICK THE LETTUCE IN THE FIELDS.

Cases in point.....


Colorado Farmers Turn to Low-Level Prisoners to Do Work of Illegal Immigrants!
www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,289270,00.html
We DON'T need any more mexicans to pick our crops! We have majorly overcrowded jails in this country. EASILLY MORE THAN ENOUGH in each state to do the job! Let's do what Colorado and Washington does.


FOXNews.com - Colorado Farmers Turn to Prisoners to Do Work of Illegal Immigrants! Since Colorado adopted tough new laws to crack down on illegal immigrants, farmers have ...
www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,289270,00.html

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:vDgc6A5QTpAJ:www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,289270,00.html+prisoners+do+illegals+work&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

FOXNEWS.COM HOME > U.S.

Colorado Farmers Turn to Prisoners to Do Work of Illegal Immigrants Friday, July 13, 2007

AVONDALE, Colo. — For generations, farmers in southern Colorado have depended on immigrant labor to work their fields.

But the new immigration laws in Colorado are some of the toughest in the nation, and now illegal immigrants are hesitant to come to the Centennial State.

Farmers say only half the normal number of migrant workers appeared this year, going instead to states like New Mexico and Arizona, where the laws are not so strict.

But the soil in Colorado still has to be tilled, and the seeds have to be planted, and somebody has to be in the fields to harvest the crops so that the onions, peppers and melons don't rot in the ground.

So the state came up with a plan to replace the illegal immigrants with workers from a different kind of home: inmates from colorado's overcrowded prison system.

"It's not a cure for our immigration problem, but it's something that we can turn to and maybe get us through these times until legislation gets these laws in order…." Said Joe Pisciotta, an onion farmer who now has women from a local prison working in his fields.

(Story continues below)


"I've got to get my crops out. That's my livelihood and I've got to think about that first."

At first the farmers were concerned that the prisoners wouldn't work as hard as the illegal immigrants they are replacing. They also had concerns about having the prisoners around their families.

But only low-risk prisoners are allowed to work in the fields; sex offenders and inmates sentenced to life without parole are not permitted to participate in the program. And the prisoners are constantly supervised by a prison guard.

The farmers pay the Department of Corrections $9.60 per hour per inmate, most of which goes toward paying for the guards, transportation and lunch. The inmates themselves earn $4 a day, which is nearly seven times the 60 cents a day they can earn in prison. And the money they earn will be waiting for them once they've finished serving their sentences.

The work proved so hard, many of the women dropped out quickly. But most of those who have toughed it out say it's well worth it.

"It's one of the hardest things I've ever had to do in my life, said Kaedra, a drug offender who is working in Pisciotta's onion field.

"One of the cabbage fields … they were just little tiny plants and now they're big huge cabbage, and now we're getting ready to harvest them. And...we're actually pretty excited about it...and I wasn't expecting to feel that way."

As for the pay, Kaedra said: "I make $4 a day. For us, that's a lot."

Though some farmers were skeptical at first that the inmates could do the work, everyone now seems to be satisfied with the program. Twice the number of farms have asked the prison to provide workers this fall for the harvest.

FOX News' Carol McKinley contributed to this report.
----------------------------------------------------------

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:OZiGiIO_r1EJ:www.immigrationwatchdo g.com/%3Fp%3D3197+prisoners+do+illegals+work&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us


http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:DbxQslIgJpsJ:www.topix.com/forum/denver/T2SADLN42IVQS2QE9/p2+prisoners+do+illegals+work&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=us


http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:4pKdeLhsfXMJ:www.topix.com/forum/city/bakersfield-ca/T0ITE6C2V1SJ3BC7T/p2+prisoners+do+illegals+work&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us


Not All Illegal Aliens Come Here To Work
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:N5v3ouZ6P1sJ:www.rense.com/general60/ill.htm+prisoners+do+illegals+work&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl=us

[literatim]

Globalists want to give illegals tax money, if you abolish the welfare state, illegals can't take tax money, only work. Without minimum wage laws, who you think they are going to choose an illegal immigrant, or an american.

Why exactly do you think they want to give illegals money?

Money is a lure, nothing more. They are trying to systematically destroy our national identity through massive immigration of strangers so as they can easily divide our country. If they eliminate the middle class, they destroy the country.


Abolish the welfare state, the incentive to immigrate illegal is gone

Our wealth alone is an incentive. They are paid nothing in Mexico compared to here, even with low wages. It also doesn't address the issue about how there is also a vibe through a portion of the Mexican populace that believe south western United States is rightfully theirs.

[AlexMerced]

Why exactly do you think they want to give illegals money?

Money is a lure, nothing more. They are trying to systematically destroy our national identity through massive immigration of strangers so as they can easily divide our country. If they eliminate the middle class, they destroy the country.



Our wealth alone is an incentive. They are paid nothing in Mexico compared to here, even with low wages. It also doesn't address the issue about how there is also a vibe through a portion of the Mexican populace that believe south western United States is rightfully theirs.


1) I'm for securing ourbordrs and keeping illegals out, I'm for a national language, and I'm against international treatiest, I'm pro US-identity

2) Yes, even low wages are good for them, I know that, I'm saying if you have Americans who will work for the wages, there is no incentive for employers to hire illegals. In a free market the price of good and inflation would be in control that this is possible without lowering the standard of living. I mean, from the economics classes and books I've read, this very much the case.

Should we have open border, no, at least not till Mexicos standard of life improves, which will happen, Mexicos economy IS growing. Both economies would grow faster with TRUE free trade, not a free trade agreement, true free trade.

You'll never be able to stop illegal immigration with a double fence, but you can quelch if you can makesure businesses can be competitive without them. Sure they may have been able to pay more than minimum wage before immigration became a problem. I assure you though, protectionist policies with either:

a) make those jobs go over seas

b) drive those places out of business or drive prices exhorbitantly, which ruin the economy anyways


Austrian Economics, we need to let the economy hit equilibirum, or we'll see negative effects and continue shooting our selves int he foot.

[Starks]

I don't object to the so-called "guest worker" propositions. If it proves itself as an effective stop-gap for documenting illegal immigrants, then kudos to us.

[jmdrake]

This is really overblown. The debate isn't actually going to be "in Spanish". That would be a problem for all of the candidates that don't speak Spanish. Instead it will be translated into Spanish. But who in their right mind thinks that hasn't been done in all of the other debates? The free market dictates that if someone wants a Spanish language channel they can have one. And yes, Tancredo can make the free market decision not to attend. But if he doesn't want to attend a debate that's going to be translated into another language...then he can't attend any debates. It's just cheap symbolism.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[jmdrake]

I don't object to the so-called "guest worker" propositions. If it proves itself as an effective stop-gap for documenting illegal immigrants, then kudos to us.

Illegal immigrants aren't the problem. Open borders are. Don't forget that Ramos and Campeon aren't in prison for shooting an illegal immigrant. They're in prison for shooting a drug lord who was likely armed. (Oh sure, he SAYS he wasn't armed. Who sneaks thousands of dollars worth of drugs across the border unarmed?)

The plan is a "path for citizenship" and "open borders" with "inland ports". It's all about the NAU.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[Mesogen]

I know George Washington did not trust Dutch settlers who refused to speak English. That is good enough for me.

You really want to look up to a slimeball elitist scumbag like George "Town Destroyer" Washington?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_Destroyer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sullivan_Expedition

Orders of George Washington to General John Sullivan, at Head-Quarters May 31, 1779
The Expedition you are appointed to command is to be directed against the hostile tribes of the Six Nations of Indians, with their associates and adherents. The immediate objects are the total destruction and devastation of their settlements, and the capture of as many prisoners of every age and sex as possible. It will be essential to ruin their crops now in the ground and prevent their planting more.
I would recommend, that some post in the center of the Indian Country, should be occupied with all expedition, with a sufficient quantity of provisions whence parties should be detached to lay waste all the settlements around, with instructions to do it in the most effectual manner, that the country may not be merely overrun, but destroyed.
But you will not by any means listen to any overture of peace before the total ruinment of their settlements is effected. Our future security will be in their inability to injure us and in the terror with which the severity of the chastisement they receive will inspire them.

Can we say "pre-emptive genocide"? "Shock and Awe"?

All that talk sounds like a neocon to me.

And Washington, along with most other Americans of the time were all for heading west. Indians in the way? If they can't be bought they will be killed.

http://www.teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=359


At first view, it may seem a little extraneous, when I am called upon to give an opinion upon the terms of a Peace proper to be made with the Indians, that I should go into the formation of New States; but the Settlemt. of the Western Country and making a Peace with the Indians are so analogous that there can be no definition of the one without involving considerations of the other. For I repeat it, again, and I am clear in my opinion, that policy and economy point very strongly to the expediency of being upon good terms with the Indians, and the propriety of purchasing their Lands in preference to attempting to drive them by force of arms out of their Country; which as we have already experienced is like driving the Wild Beasts of the Forest which will return as soon as the pursuit is at an end and fall perhaps on those that are left there; when the gradual extension of our Settlements will as certainly cause the Savage as the Wolf to retire; both being beasts of prey tho’ they differ in shape. In a word there is nothing to be obtained by an Indian War but the Soil they live on and this can be had by purchase at less expense, and without that bloodshed, and those distresses which helpless Women and Children are made partakers of in all kinds of disputes with them.

Catch that? Expanding the American Republic/Empire westward was going to happen one way or the other. If the Indians won't sell, they'll die, since they are nothing more than beasts of the forest, of course.

[moglesb1]

This is really overblown. The debate isn't actually going to be "in Spanish". That would be a problem for all of the candidates that don't speak Spanish. Instead it will be translated into Spanish. But who in their right mind thinks that hasn't been done in all of the other debates? The free market dictates that if someone wants a Spanish language channel they can have one. And yes, Tancredo can make the free market decision not to attend. But if he doesn't want to attend a debate that's going to be translated into another language...then he can't attend any debates. It's just cheap symbolism.

Regards,

John M. Drake

Awesome point to strike down Tancredo ... he is just trying to pull some votes i think ... and who was on "out in the open" on cnn tonight ... Mr Tancredo talking about why he wasn't at the debate ... total politics ... Dr. Paul just likes getting up there and spreading The Message to the American people ... no matter the means

[AlexMerced]

I don't object to the so-called "guest worker" propositions. If it proves itself as an effective stop-gap for documenting illegal immigrants, then kudos to us.

I do object to guest worker programs...cause then what's the point of having legal/ilegal disticintion if you have guest workers. Guest Worker problems are just efforts to distract people to economic intervention by our government.

Tancredo does pander, I mean remember his answer about his faith in the CNN debate, I don't doubt he's a man of faith. His response though came off very fake, and then his pot shot at RP. He may be strong on immigration but he's a panderer of the worst kind.

[Bradley in DC]

but the more he talks the more he makes himself irrelevant. Of course, this wasn't quite as stupid as his bombing Mecca comment.

[Knightskye]

That's because you're a laraza F***
Your actions earlier proved that. That's all you laraza nuts do is call anyone who is against illegal immigration a "racist".

You continually spew the marxist constructs and words like "racist". You probably have no idea where the word even came from. It was created by the bolsheviks in Russia when they took russia by force. Anyone who tried to stop there REAL terror was called a "Racist", anti-semtie, etc.

You know when you have to call people "names", you've lost your argument. Illegal immigration is crippling this country. It's been crippling California, where I am from, badly.

Like Ron Paul, I might have to assign a reading list for you, Xao. Not 'Blowback' or 'Dying to Win', but the Ron Paul Forums Forum Guidelines - specifically this part:


Insulting or personally attacking other users is not allowed by any member. There is very little tolerance for violations, particular for new members. Reason: Insults lead to relational which often result in disruption, which dilute the resources of members and the intent of the forum.

Also, you posted four or five times in a row, which isn't appreciated on most of the forums I've posted on, so I'm assuming this one is no different.

[AlexMerced]

but the more he talks the more he makes himself irrelevant. Of course, this wasn't quite as stupid as his bombing Mecca comment.

agreed, that was the moment I decided I don't like Tancredo

[noztnac]

Tancredo is un-american.

[apropos]

You really want to look up to a slimeball elitist scumbag like George "Town Destroyer" Washington?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_Destroyer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sullivan_Expedition


Can we say "pre-emptive genocide"? "Shock and Awe"?

All that talk sounds like a neocon to me.

And Washington, along with most other Americans of the time were all for heading west. Indians in the way? If they can't be bought they will be killed.

http://www.teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=359

Catch that? Expanding the American Republic/Empire westward was going to happen one way or the other. If the Indians won't sell, they'll die, since they are nothing more than beasts of the forest, of course.


Sophistry. If you read your own article, you will see that George Washington was given the nickname by the Half-King (who was Washington's ally at the time) and named so because of the action great-grandfather. Sins of the father, anyone? Those sins apparently did not stop the Iroquois fighting side by side with Washington during that time.

As for the Sullivan Expedition, what happened to the Iroquois in your example is an example of 'blowback'. After the Revolution, many ambassadors and Christians that lived among the tribes lamented how the Indians sided with the English during the American Revolution. That is what happens when you fight for the losing side in a war.

Members of the Iroquois and others joined forces with the English (against the pleas and wishes of the colonial leaders). When the England lost and left America, the Indians found themselves without any sympathy in the colonies. It is interesting that you attempt to pick George Washington as your example of Indian persecution, because books that interviews the Iroquois and others (Ex: Our Life Among the Iroquois, by Caswell, circa 1850) speak of how kind George Washington was toward the Indians and the Iroquois.

The historical reality just doesn't support your argument, not to mention that 'scumbag Washington' was an integral part of gaining our independence. And you are the one who are calling them 'beasts of the forest' here.