Tom Tancredo
During a recent republican debate he was bashed by other republican nominees regarding these comments. Who is this guy speaking for? Clearly not the American people, clearly not for me and clearly not for the people of Colorado. Why is this guy running for President and it makes me wonder why is he even opening his mouth. Do us all a favor Tom, shut up and exit the stage. Your comments are old and tired and they can cause us all harm if you dont shut up.
This letter has not been edited.
Tom Tancredo for President!!
Posted by on August 21, 2007 02:19 PMTancredo for PRESIDENT
I like the things he says. I like the fact that he stands up for AMERICAN CITIZENS.
Funny how EVERY DAY we read/hear in the news what a "peaceful" religion Isalm is,
bombing after bombing, EVERY DAY!
What a joke.
I wish the U.S. would start bombing Islamic Mosques and holy sites. They are allowed to bomb us .I think it's about time to let them know what it is like to be afraid of someone.
Tancredo is the only one with the balls to stand up to these idiots and stop treating them like little fragile children that might get their feelings hurt if we say something they don't like.
GO TANCREDO!
Posted by Can I get an AMEN! on August 21, 2007 02:38 PMAlbert Encinias of Denver is bowing to demands made by the “peaceful” people of Islam. He and others think that we have to use political correctness when dealing with radical Muslims. He and others believe that we must treat them with delicate dexterity, as if they are made of nitro glycerin.
Mr. Encinias leaves out a couple of important facts: 1) For years before Tom Tancredo said anything about bombing Mecca, etc. suspicious people have been photographing various areas of Denver and the surrounding area; 2) Mr. Tancredo simply said that IF WE WERE ATTACKED by radical Muslims with a NUCLEAR DEVICE that a response MIGHT be to bomb Mecca.
Mr. Encinias should learn the truth or at least consider it before he makes a decision to call someone an idiot. I suppose in his mind we should never say anything threatening to the Islamofacist. We should all roll over like submissive dogs with our tails between our legs.
Albert Encinias is a prime example of why terrorism works on the hearts and minds of the weak.
Posted by on August 21, 2007 02:49 PMMr. Encinias -
Are you by any chance of Hispanic/Mexican descent?
The MAJORITY of anti-Tancredo people are.
The terrorists have been planning our end LONG before Tancredo came into the picture!
All he is saying is that we SHOULD threaten to take down their holy places if they don't stop committing their crimes against the world (the world that doesn't believe what they do). What he is trying to get across is that NOTHING is stopping them now, so maybe we will have to get much tougher in fighting these idiots.
What did they do to us? They crashed into the Pentagon, were on their way to the White House and tried to ruin the financial core of our country. Those are places that are sacred to people in this country and it didn't stop THEM. We are in CONSTANT threat from these terrorists and we are sick of it!!
Would you rather invite them over for cookies and milk and TALK about how to end this horrible mess? What are you thinking?? We are dealing with TERRORISTS!
What would you like us to do, wait around for them to attack us AGAIN like they have done many, many times (not only 9/11 but our embassies, USS Cole etc. over decades) or should we be on the defense against these maniacs? Don't you have the brains to know that whatever Tom Tancredo said, or anyone else for that matter, doesn't make ANY DIFFERENCE to these madmen.
They are hell bent on destroying us and we better get tough, SOON.
Tom Tancredo is working hard to protect the LEGAL citizens of this country. I have a feeling that your letter doesn't really express the true reason for your dislike of Tom.
He is fighting for us and you,and people like you, just don't get it or don't want to.
Posted by c on August 21, 2007 02:56 PMTancredo is a rednecked, fundamentalist Christian, Repub, die hard Bush supporter who wants to limit a woman's right to do with her own body what she chooses. His chief interest is in dictating people's morals and private lives in service to his pretend "God."
He'd be a great prison warden for the Christian Police States of Amerikkka, nuking the rest of the world and lining up all the Jews, gays, feminazis, liberals, Mexicans, gooks, etc. against a wall.
The snarling, cynical, feral, dimwitted, rabid people that call themselves "conservative" love Tancredo, and if he gets to be President, those who don't love him will go directly to the firing squad.
Repuglican Fundamentalists worship Jihadists and Bin Laden, and want to be just like him - what else is their imaginary "Hell" but a terrorist tactic?
Posted by Rocky on August 21, 2007 03:05 PMSome highlights from the "discussion" thus far:
Can I get an Amen: "They are allowed to bomb us." Really? That's allowed? Because I thought that was something that we tried to put a stop to. If doing something will get you killed or land you in a torture facility, I wouldn't say that's "allowed." Or should we start running our country according to the moral code of murderers and terrorists?
Ricky Billy Bob Jim Jimmy Lee: "Funny how EVERY DAY we read/hear in the news what a "peaceful" religion Isalm is." Really? Where do you read about that every day? It certainly isn't in the Rocky even once a month, let alone every day. Also, writing in ALL CAPS makes you sound DUMBER not SMARTER.
Mountain Cat: "For years before Tom Tancredo said anything about bombing Mecca, etc. suspicious people have been photographing various areas of Denver and the surrounding area." Do you count anybody not white as "suspicious?" Do you have any basis for this at all? Or is this just some "fact" that felt good to say so you said it? I especially love that you follow it up with, "Mr. Encinias should learn the truth." Do you realize that line makes your post a joke that only an idiot would take seriously?
And as for my dear friend at 2:49, terrorism works because when simple people are scared by a vague threat, they are willing to completely cast aside any semblance of their own decency. If some whackjobs someplace are thinking about blowing us up and that thought alone makes you rescind over 200 years of American history and values, then it is you who the terrorists seek to influence. If you were truly strong, you would value your own morals enough that you wouldn't consider bombing innocent civilians for an offense they did not commit. In short, the terrorists want to turn you into a terrorist too. Why let them?
C:
I don't think Mr. Encinias' ethnicity should be challenged, only his misguided perception of what Tancredo said should be called into question.
Tancredo simply offered the reality of possible reciprocal bombing IF we were bombed first. It's the same strategy utilized by Republicans and Democrats alike during the cold war -- deterrence. Why give the enemy impunity for their threats and actions based on perceived political correctness or faux diplomacy?
Many Americans of proud Hispanic background are not in favor of illegal immigration and not anti-Tancredo because of his immigration stand; I'm one of them. Perhaps Mr. Encinias is just concerned about what he misread as a direct threat to bomb Muslim targets without provocation.
Posted by carl on August 21, 2007 03:10 PMRocky: you need to get a life, dude. You sound like a rabid dog ready to bite Mother Teressa. Are you intentionally trying to sound as whacked-out and crazy as An American, but from the left? You're doing a great job of it. A Cobra couldn't spit out as much venom as you sprayed this blog with.
Posted by on August 21, 2007 03:15 PMTancredo is irrelevant. Outside of Colorado no one has really even heard of him. Couldn't be elected dog catcher let alone President. Avoided Vietnam due to a mental illness and has never recovered.
Posted by on August 21, 2007 03:17 PMTancredo for Grand Dragon
Posted by on August 21, 2007 03:24 PManon at 2:56:
I am the whitest man on earth but I am not a racist pig like Tom Tancredo who ally's himself with people who 2 generations ago would have been lynching him for having a name that ends in a vowel.
Posted by Edmond on August 21, 2007 03:48 PMUmmm...blaming all Muslims for the acts of their violent fringe element is about as rational as blaming all Christians for the acts of Tim McVeigh.
FWIW...I'm so white I glow in the dark. This isn't a racial issue.
Assuming that all members of a specific religion believe the same thing is pretty nutty.
Posted by Tim on August 21, 2007 03:48 PM3:17 & 3:24 - dynamic thought, carefully explained logic behind those compelling arguments. It's easy to talk, but had to explain. Cheap shots standing alone are the least to be considered in a discussion.
Posted by on August 21, 2007 03:49 PM03:24 PM...... That is most real (and funny) post of the day!
Posted by J-Mac on August 21, 2007 03:56 PMTom Tancretin hides his Totalitarian agenda behind the smokescreen of "Immigration."
Thanks Grog, nice, clear, reasoned analysis. Rocky, you're wound a little too tight, but your points are well taken, and at least you can spell.
Instead of bombing Mecca, which would unleash worldwide chaos, we should put a stop to Islamic Jihad by stopping the river of money we send them hourly.
Every dime's worth of gasoline you put into your gashogs strenghtens them and the BushCrooks - find an alternative!
Posted by Serge on August 21, 2007 03:57 PMRegarding the "Bomb Mecca" comment by Tancredo, I heard a good analogy:
It would be like the British telling the Catholic terrorists in Ireland that if they didn't shape up they would bomb the Vatican..
Posted by Charles B on August 21, 2007 04:11 PMJ-Mac - you would appreciate that statement. You and 40acres are 2 of the biggest racists who frequent this blog. Enjoy
Posted by on August 21, 2007 05:08 PMTancredo is a typical "Jesus-loving" single issue whack job who tries to disguise his hatred for non-white people through the smokescreen of "immigration." Typical evangelical. Who would Jesus bomb, Tom?
Posted by drew on August 21, 2007 05:09 PMCharles-
A more realistic analogy would be the concept of "Mutually Assured Destruction", that was observed by all sides during the Cold War and respected for obvious reasons.
I believe Tancredo's hypothetical "Nuke Mecca" statement may have merit and deserves further exploration. Radical Islam may think twice.
You inform them, very clearly , that any nuclear strike in the U.S. will result in a retaliatory nuclear strike with their precious "Black Rock" at ground zero.
You threaten them where it will hurt the most.
That is what they are doing to us.
Get Real:
You say you have a better analogy (which you don't) but fail to tell me why mine is incorrect. Can I conclude that you think it is apt?
My analogy trumps yours because the comparative power of the "enemy" is similar, and the "solution" proposed is equally misguided (as much as I despise Catholicism).
The power of radical Islam to do us harm is simply not comparable to the destructive potential of the Soviets during the Cold War.
Posted by Charles B on August 21, 2007 06:47 PMCharles-
If Christianity were pushing a "convert or we will kill you" mentality I would consider the Vatican as a possible target if I knew it might be effective.
And you grossly underestimate the power of radical Islam.
Their threat is every bit as valid as the Soviet,due to how they wage war.
You don't realize it , but your refusal to believe ,and downplaying the terrorist threat ,
is proof in its self.
A question for all of you "glass parking lot" crusaders--how exactly do you plan on getting the oil from underneath Mecca (and anywhere nearby) when it is a nuclear wasteland?
Posted by Riddle Me This on August 21, 2007 07:32 PMThe inner workings of a radical right-wing mind...
Exclusive: Conquering the Drawbacks of Democracy
Philip Atkinson
Author: Philip Atkinson
Source: The Family Security Foundation, Inc.
Date: August 3, 2007
While democratic government is better than dictatorships and theocracies, it has its pitfalls. FSM Contributing Editor Philip Atkinson describes some of the difficulties facing President Bush today.
Conquering the Drawbacks of Democracy
By Philip Atkinson
President George W. Bush is the 43rd President of the United States. He was sworn in for a second term on January 20, 2005 after being chosen by the majority of citizens in America to be president.
Yet in 2007 he is generally despised, with many citizens of Western civilization expressing contempt for his person and his policies, sentiments which now abound on the Internet. This rage at President Bush is an inevitable result of the system of government demanded by the people, which is Democracy.
The inadequacy of Democracy, rule by the majority, is undeniable – for it demands adopting ideas because they are popular, rather than because they are wise. This means that any man chosen to act as an agent of the people is placed in an invidious position: if he commits folly because it is popular, then he will be held responsible for the inevitable result. If he refuses to commit folly, then he will be detested by most citizens because he is frustrating their demands.
When faced with the possible threat that the Iraqis might be amassing terrible weapons that could be used to slay millions of citizens of Western Civilization, President Bush took the only action prudence demanded and the electorate allowed: he conquered Iraq with an army.
This dangerous and expensive act did destroy the Iraqi regime, but left an American army without any clear purpose in a hostile country and subject to attack. If the Army merely returns to its home, then the threat it ended would simply return.
The wisest course would have been for President Bush to use his nuclear weapons to slaughter Iraqis until they complied with his demands, or until they were all dead. Then there would be little risk or expense and no American army would be left exposed. But if he did this, his cowardly electorate would have instantly ended his term of office, if not his freedom or his life.
The simple truth that modern weapons now mean a nation must practice genocide or commit suicide. Israel provides the perfect example. If the Israelis do not raze Iran, the Iranians will fulfill their boast and wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Yet Israel is not popular, and so is denied permission to defend itself. In the same vein, President Bush cannot do what is necessary for the survival of Americans. He cannot use the nation's powerful weapons. All he can do is try and discover a result that will be popular with Americans.
As there appears to be no sensible result of the invasion of Iraq that will be popular with his countrymen other than retreat, President Bush is reviled; he has become another victim of Democracy.
By elevating popular fancy over truth, Democracy is clearly an enemy of not just truth, but duty and justice, which makes it the worst form of government. President Bush must overcome not just the situation in Iraq, but democratic government.
However, President Bush has a valuable historical example that he could choose to follow.
When the ancient Roman general Julius Caesar was struggling to conquer ancient Gaul, he not only had to defeat the Gauls, but he also had to defeat his political enemies in Rome who would destroy him the moment his tenure as consul (president) ended.
Caesar pacified Gaul by mass slaughter; he then used his successful army to crush all political opposition at home and establish himself as permanent ruler of ancient Rome. This brilliant action not only ended the personal threat to Caesar, but ended the civil chaos that was threatening anarchy in ancient Rome – thus marking the start of the ancient Roman Empire that gave peace and prosperity to the known world.
If President Bush copied Julius Caesar by ordering his army to empty Iraq of Arabs and repopulate the country with Americans, he would achieve immediate results: popularity with his military; enrichment of America by converting an Arabian Iraq into an American Iraq (therefore turning it from a liability to an asset); and boost American prestiege while terrifying American enemies.
He could then follow Caesar's example and use his newfound popularity with the military to wield military power to become the first permanent president of America, and end the civil chaos caused by the continually squabbling Congress and the out-of-control Supreme Court.
President Bush can fail in his duty to himself, his country, and his God, by becoming “ex-president” Bush or he can become “President-for-Life” Bush: the conqueror of Iraq, who brings sense to the Congress and sanity to the Supreme Court. Then who would be able to stop Bush from emulating Augustus Caesar and becoming ruler of the world? For only an America united under one ruler has the power to save humanity from the threat of a new Dark Age wrought by terrorists armed with nuclear weapons.
Posted by on August 21, 2007 07:48 PM“The power of radical Islam to do us harm is simply not comparable to the destructive potential of the Soviets during the Cold War.” –now, that’s about the dumbest statement I’ve seen in a long time.
I have no love for the Russians, but:
That may be that the Russians had and still have a nuclear arsenal, but their willingness to use it in the Cold War was near 0. They knew that it would be suicide, on both sides, a price nobody was willing to pay.
And that is the weapon of choice (suicide) of the Radical Islamists. That makes them far more dangerous than the Russians ever was. And that’s why we don’t have the Twin Towers anymore and the Russians had nothing to do with it.
Get Real made this assertion without providing any evidence or even a coherent argument:
"...you grossly underestimate the power of radical Islam. Their threat is every bit as valid as the Soviet,due to how they wage war."
Actually, Get Real, you grossly over-estimate their power which plays into their strategy perfectly. Think of them as a small furry animal that when confronted with a more fearsome predator puffs out it's fur to make it look scarier than it is.
It works in the animal kingdome and it's worked on you.
"You don't realize it , but your refusal to believe ,and downplaying the terrorist threat , is proof in its self."
Could you expand on this or is it just some mysterious theory that you pulled from the air? Proof of what exactly?
Posted by Charles B on August 21, 2007 08:00 PMHmm, once that small furry animal grows up, with a nuclear weapon in hand, and “puffs out it’s fur” with it, it’s not gonna look so cute and harmless anymore.
Posted by Uno on August 21, 2007 08:08 PMUno, re: Soviet threat vs. Islam.
I might have the willingness to spin straw into gold, but that doesn't give me the ability to do so.
How many people have suicide bombers killed vs. the Soviets at the height of their imperialism?
Minimizing the number of people who have the will to do us harm is imperative, in concert with keeping destructive weapons out of the hands of those who possess this will.
Anybody who claims I don't acknowledge the threat of terrorism is off base. I merely think we should keep the threat in perspective and disagree strongly with the methods we are currently employing to deal with it.
Posted by Charles B on August 21, 2007 08:21 PMGet Real, You're right on.
Charles, Pull your head out.
Posted by c on August 21, 2007 08:22 PM7:48, that is some scary stuff. Probably exactly what little Uno and his co-horts like Get Real want...
Posted by O.M.G. on August 21, 2007 08:22 PMCharles-
I thought the statement was pretty self explanatory but, just for you-
It is proof in it self because a threat not realized is ultimately more of a threat.
My point was guys like you that don't believe the severity of the threat ,and downplay it by discouraging things like secure borders, needed modifications for terrorist information gathering, and the idea of victory in general,are helping our enemy.
Smuggled nuclear devices will soon be a reality and the effects of just one going off in a major city would be devastating as not only loss of human life but our economy as well.
Hell, if they get one in why not set off two or three and threaten there will be more if Sharia law is not implemented?
What do you do then Charles?
Harmless enemy my ass.
Posted by Get Real on August 21, 2007 08:24 PMUno said:
"Hmm, once that small furry animal grows up, with a nuclear weapon in hand, and “puffs out it’s fur” with it, it’s not gonna look so cute and harmless anymore."
So now you're afraid of small furry animals getting nuclear weapons? And by the way, Uno, that small furry animal is grown up.
Posted by Charles B on August 21, 2007 08:24 PMUno:
Another thing regarding your downplaying of the Soviet threat (which you must not have lived under):
Are you discounting the sacrifice of 40,000 plus of our young men and women on the alter of the domino theory?
Posted by Charles B on August 21, 2007 08:28 PMThe threat of mutual destruction worked well as a deterrent with the Soviet Empire as neither population could realize an advantage by killing their own population as a result of initiating an attack. Will it, however, work with a factional "empire" like the Muslim extremists, or jihadist, who embrace the concept of dying for the glory of Allah?
Will the threat of removing the Muslim religious shrine be an actual threat they would succumb to in deterring an attack on the infidels for the glory of Islam and Allah?
It didn't stop sectarian militants in Iraq from attacking mosques of other sects in the early stages of the Iraqi war.
Posted by Trinity on August 21, 2007 08:32 PMc-
Spasiba!
Posted by Get Real on August 21, 2007 08:33 PMRight, Charles, but your way of “Minimizing the number of people who have the will to do us harm” in the 90’s obviously didn’t work, and escalated into 9/11, and that’s why we fight them in Iraq and Afghanistan now. Draw them into Iraq and fighting them there is a lot smarter that to have to fight them here.
Posted by Uno on August 21, 2007 08:36 PMGet Real likes to make things up:
"My point was guys like you that don't believe the severity of the threat ,and downplay it by discouraging things like secure borders..."
Name an instance when I downplayed the need for secure borders.... You can't, because I haven't.
"...needed modifications for terrorist information gathering..."
Something that can be done just as effectively with safeguards for our civil liberties still in place (read: the 4th amendment to the Constitution).
"...and the idea of victory in general,are helping our enemy.
Once again I challenge you to offer evidence that I downplayed the "idea of victory" or in any way "helped the enemy".
You can't, because your only recourse in this argument is to make stuff up.
"It is proof in it self because a threat not realized is ultimately more of a threat."
What have I said that indicates I don't "realize" the threat of terrorism? And by the way, you need to add a word or two to the above sentence for it to even make sense.
Posted by Charles B on August 21, 2007 08:42 PMTrinity-
That is the question,
So why not explore every possible scenario of discouraging our enemy and defending ourselves?
If we determine it wouldn't be a big deal to them, we cross it off the list and move on.
Feigned outrage by some is more a transparent slam on Tancredo than anything else.
Posted by Get Real on August 21, 2007 08:46 PMAddendum:
Ultimately, the only way to assure that the will to kill in the name of religion is neutralized is to undermine religion itself.
There would be no suicide bombers if it weren't for the fallacious idea of the "afterlife", and that is a concept embraced by more than one religion..
Posted by Charles B on August 21, 2007 08:50 PMCharles B, right now you remind me of that furry little animal you mentioned earlier, puffing up.
Posted by Uno on August 21, 2007 08:51 PMExcept most Christians don’t rush to meet their maker…
Posted by on August 21, 2007 08:55 PM"Except most Christians don’t rush to meet their maker… "
Really? Seems an awful lot of them are doing everything they can to bring about the "rapture".
Posted by on August 21, 2007 09:02 PMHmmmm.......We started with Tom Tancredo and ended up in Baghdad.I wonder if those folks who are starting with Hugo Chavez,Osama,and Adme-what's-his-name will end up in Denver.Or are they already here?
Posted by Jimminy on August 21, 2007 09:04 PMCharles B
Although the thought or belief in an afterlife may be ludicrous to you based on your intellectual evaluation, not even a majority in this world agree with you. They may disagree among themselves about how to get there and who will be in control, etc., but the Kirkigardian leap of faith is alive and well in this world in many forms and cultures. Don't discount it.
And while you may feel a certain superiority in that you overcame embracing what you see as a myth, scoffing at the beliefs of others can oft-times result in more anger and resolve by those people to seek retribution in the defense of their belief structure.
Telling a jihadist that his entire belief structure is a myth would be the equivalent of striking Patrick Henry across the face with a glove and challenging him to a duel of honor -- someone will most likely die as a result.
Why throw gas on the fire when you can keep the can -- your disbelief -- out of harm's way?
Posted by Trinity on August 21, 2007 09:09 PMCharles-
Jesus pal,
this shouldn't be so hard.
You ask @8:42 "What have I said that indicates I don't "realize" the threat of terrorism?:
You said@6:47
"The power of radical Islam to do us harm is simply not comparable to the destructive potential of the Soviets during the Cold War".
I replied @7:25,
"And you grossly underestimate the power of radical Islam.Their threat is every bit as valid as the Soviet,due to how they wage war.You don't realize it , but your refusal to believe ,and downplaying the terrorist threat ,
is proof in its self".
Then explain to you further in my 8:22 post with the smuggled nuke scenario.
Oh, and for your information;
You have personally identified yourself as a proud "progressive" and "liberal" on other threads.
Are you suggesting that progressives are behind efforts to build the border wall, accept reasonable infringements on personal privacy, and offer support for our troops and the war effort?
You may want to take a closer look at this whole "Progressive Movement" thing you're caught up in.
Posted by Get Real on August 21, 2007 09:18 PMTrinity, you took the words out of my ….keyboard.
I’m not sure what the radical Islamists hate more, Christians, or those who denounce any God. I think it’s safe to say, you are on their shitlist too Charles.
Charles B, I will pray for your soul, young man. Reading your thoughts and opinions assure me that I have a lifetime advocation ahead. It's one that I will embrace and faithfully fulfill in seeking salvation for your soul in the ever after. The first efforts will be to help you overcome that dreadful bitterness that clouds your heart.
Posted by on August 21, 2007 11:01 PMAnyone notice that regardless of the maximum number of angels that can dance on the point of a pin,as has been so exhaustively discussed here,whenever we as Americans decide we've had enough BS from the Islamics,or the illegals,or any one of a dozen other nations and groups who like to make trouble while the eagle is away,a tough-talking voice arises to make the point clear to those who need to hear it.And whaddya know-gas goes down.
Posted by Jimminy on August 21, 2007 11:16 PMTrinity
Wise words for those of differing --or rejecting thereof -- religions to pay heed to. More people have killed in the name of, or died in defense of, religion than any other cause of strife between mankind.
We'll miss your contributions. Good fortune to you if I miss you before you leave.
Carl L.
Posted by carl on August 22, 2007 12:11 AMI disagree with Tancredo on almost everything he says (in fact, about the only area where I can find any common ground with him is the illegal immigration issue). This was classis Tancredo 'stir up the crowds' - and I find it interesting that he didn't throw in Jerusalem, since it is the 3rd holy site for members of Islam (although it is holy also to Jews & Christians, and in a non-Arab state).
For those of you who insist on believing that Islam is not a religion of peace, I suggest you real the Koran (I am slogging thru it myself now (the Bible is an easier read - with the exception of Numbers - aka the 'begats' the Bible is basically a collection of stories, while the Koran seems to be more a collection of rules). I have yet to come across ANY of the things that the radical members of Islam (aka jihadists) believe in - proactive murder of non-believers, women covered from head to toe, etc. I have found places where self defense is advocated (guess what - Jesus said "turn the other cheek" - but he didn't say that you had to let somebody slap you more than twice). In fact, what I have read so far seems to indicate that while members of Islam believe that Moses & Jesus and their followers were/are misguided, members of Islam should respect them. Christianity is not the only religion which has a "golden rule" - so does Islam. Assuming all members of Islam are aligned with the terrorists is the same as assuming all members of Christianity are aligned with the folks who believe that murdering an obstetrician who perform abortions (besides providing other care for women, including helping resolve infertility issues) is acceptable.
Bombing Islam's holy is guaranteed to do one thing - recruit more folks to the fanatic side. If Tancredo wants to suggest bombing someplace, how about Saudi Arabia, home of 15 of the 19 9/11 terrorists, Osama bin Laden and many of his key followers, and Wahhabism (which funds much right-wing Islamic terrorist actvity) - wait - they have oil that they are selling the US & it's allies, so we can't do that.
Posted by Mary on August 22, 2007 05:23 AMI love it when white folks fight! We are here we have stolen your country. Your politicians care more about us than you! I get free everything Section 8, food stamps, my kids go to school and they get to try to teach them english - if they feel like learing it. All that we speak at home is Spanish, cartoons and stuffz in Spanish. It's like living in Mexico but with free stuff and medical benefits. It really is the HOME of the FREE! Free stuff for me and my family hahahahahahaha Gringos It's nice to erode a country from the insdie out DIVIDE and CONQURE! Adios
Posted by LaRzzza on August 22, 2007 06:37 AMTrinity:
"Telling a jihadist that his entire belief structure is a myth would be the equivalent of striking Patrick Henry across the face with a glove and challenging him to a duel of honor -- someone will most likely die as a result."
With all due respect, isn't that letting the jihadists set the agenda?
I don't seek to force my beliefs on anyone, but as I noted above, to lead by example.
The rabid responses to my theory are in lieu of having a cogent argument against it. After all, how can anyone who is an adult argue that ghosts and magic do exist? Ultimately they boil it down to: Lot's of people believe it, therefore there must be some truth to it, or we must respect it.
Lot's of people once believed in Zeus too.
Posted by Charles B on August 22, 2007 06:58 AMGet Real:
It seems you can't get your head around the concept that I can realize the threat of terrorism, without inflating the threat like you do.
I have never said "there is no threat". I have merely said "we should minimize the threat using different means than we are currently employing".
But I realize that doesn't fit into your "cut and run" caricature of anyone apposed to Bush's policies.
Whatever...
Posted by Charles B on August 22, 2007 07:07 AMTom Tancredo for president ????????????
Senator Tom Tancredo never will be president of this country, because he doesn't address health-care, education, creation of jobs, he talks only about building a Wall on the border of Mexico if he becomes president . Others candidates are talking about their agendas, about social security, education, unemployment, health-care. how to end the war in Iraq,
When you see Tancredo in the news, is because he said something irrational like " we should nuke Mecca " or " Miami is like a third world country " and he held up a shirt emblazoned with the words " America is full." I don't like his racist comments, he personifies the politics of hate and divisiveness. I wonder how many people are going to vote for him ? He makes me ashamed to be a Coloradan. Tancredo is the no-chance candidate.
Tom Tancredo for president ????????????
Senator Tom Tancredo never will be president of this country, because he doesn't address health-care, education, creation of jobs, he talks only about building a Wall on the border of Mexico if he becomes president . Others candidates are talking about their agendas, about social security, education, unemployment, health-care. how to end the war in Iraq,
When you see Tancredo in the news, is because he said something irrational like " we should nuke Mecca " or " Miami is like a third world country " and he held up a shirt emblazoned with the words " America is full." I don't like his racist comments, he personifies the politics of hate and divisiveness. I wonder how many people are going to vote for him ? He makes me ashamed to be a Coloradan. Tancredo is the no-chance candidate.
Tom Tancredo for president ????????????
Senator Tom Tancredo never will be president of this country, because he doesn't address health-care, education, creation of jobs, he talks only about building a Wall on the border of Mexico if he becomes president . Others candidates are talking about their agendas, about social security, education, unemployment, health-care. how to end the war in Iraq,
When you see Tancredo in the news, is because he said something irrational like " we should nuke Mecca " or " Miami is like a third world country " and he held up a shirt emblazoned with the words " America is full." I don't like his racist comments, he personifies the politics of hate and divisiveness. I wonder how many people are going to vote for him ? He makes me ashamed to be a Coloradan. Tancredo is the no-chance candidate.
Tom Tancredo for president ????????????
Senator Tom Tancredo never will be president of this country, because he doesn't address health-care, education, creation of jobs, he talks only about building a Wall on the border of Mexico if he becomes president . Others candidates are talking about their agendas, about social security, education, unemployment, health-care. how to end the war in Iraq,
When you see Tancredo in the news, is because he said something irrational like " we should nuke Mecca " or " Miami is like a third world country " and he held up a shirt emblazoned with the words " America is full." I don't like his racist comments, he personifies the politics of hate and divisiveness. I wonder how many people are going to vote for him ? He makes me ashamed to be a Coloradan. Tancredo is the no-chance candidate.
Tom Tancredo for president ????????????
Senator Tom Tancredo never will be president of this country, because he doesn't address health-care, education, creation of jobs, he talks only about building a Wall on the border of Mexico if he becomes president . Others candidates are talking about their agendas, about social security, education, unemployment, health-care. how to end the war in Iraq,
When you see Tancredo in the news, is because he said something irrational like " we should nuke Mecca " or " Miami is like a third world country " and he held up a shirt emblazoned with the words " America is full." I don't like his racist comments, he personifies the politics of hate and divisiveness. I wonder how many people are going to vote for him ? He makes me ashamed to be a Coloradan. Tancredo is the no-chance candidate.
Tom Tancredo for president ????????????
Senator Tom Tancredo never will be president of this country, because he doesn't address health-care, education, creation of jobs, he talks only about building a Wall on the border of Mexico if he becomes president . Others candidates are talking about their agendas, about social security, education, unemployment, health-care. how to end the war in Iraq,
When you see Tancredo in the news, is because he said something irrational like " we should nuke Mecca " or " Miami is like a third world country " and he held up a shirt emblazoned with the words " America is full." I don't like his racist comments, he personifies the politics of hate and divisiveness. I wonder how many people are going to vote for him ? He makes me ashamed to be a Coloradan. Tancredo is the no-chance candidate.
Mr Encinias, if you liked 9/11, you will love whats planned for Denver.
Rocky, you are a complete fool. Grow a brain dude. And stop reading your latest info from NAMBLA. LaRzzza, way to stir the pot buddy.
I would bet that somewhere within the plans of the powers that be, the idea of getting the folks here in the USA to start fighting in the streets over trivial things, so the powers that be can enact martial law, is progressing along nicely. These forums display the start of it all. All of us on this forum feel that we know the facts. We don't. We know the tiny morsels of truth we are allowed to know. But the real truth is something that is being used to divide and conquer this nation, to eliminate the Constitutional rule of law, and replace it with a totalitarian rule of the unelected. The pattern has been visible for almost 40 years, and has been in play for almost 100 years. Tom Tancredo is simply exposing 1 piece of this agenda. Wise up and question what we are told. The NAU via the SPP are being advanced right now, as we speak, by Bush and the globalist cronies in Montebello, Canada. This is totally UnConstitutional. The National Education Association is in this plan full tilt. Just read up on their latest meeting and endorsements.
The IRS and the FED are 2 very important pieces of this plan. Progressive taxation is right out of the socialist design. The elimination of our moral heritage and the vision of the founding fathers is being eliminated as much as possible. Telling our troops they must obey the UN, and telling our sailors their job is to protect international commerce, not protect the USA is all part of this plan. Whether your are a conservative or liberal, you should be concerned with this, much more than any single candidate's statements. I only hope that all Americans wake up and realize that all the diversions we partake in, are simply distracting us from what is being done to us covertly. Our future is at stake right now. Shrug off the dividers and strive for the survival of this nation. If not, it will be our own funerals.
Hey Albert...go home...become a "wet-front"!
Posted by Buff Driver on August 22, 2007 09:25 AMdionysus
I bet at least that Tancredo is self confident to only have to post the same message once. Are you in such a rush to get your vital analysis across that you can't wait for the software to work? Hit the Post button once, moron,and wait...
Posted by on August 22, 2007 10:03 AMA growing number of Americans are finally being heard. Not a majority, because the majority is still too busy finding every way, but the way, we all know we eventually will be forced to go.
That way is quarter will be given for quarter shown. Nothing more, nothing less.
To many, Tancredo has acted, what the political and diplomatic “sophisticates” call “like a buffoon”. He says outlandish things like, and I paraphrase, “….if terrorists strike us with a nuclear weapon we hold the option to bomb their holy sites.”
He did not say we would do this without an attack using a nuclear weapon on us occurring first. All of the vocal critics seem to forget that.
Here is what I have heard so far as to why this Tancredo statement is so outlandish and dangerous.
1. Why punish all 1.5 billion Muslims for the actions of a few? The Muslim world population has shown itself to either be a terrorist population or the "moderate" population hides, clothes, and feeds those that are terrorists. One thing they haven't done is root out the extremists in their midst and given them some good old fashion Muslim justice.
Now we have laws that say, if one is sitting in a car as part of a group that is robbing a store and if a person of the group that is in the store kills someone, the person sitting in the car can be charged with murder just as if they pulled the trigger. Yet we don't want to apply this to those that harbor those that kill us and are just "sitting" in the car feeling safe. I find the exclusion of Muslims from this justice to be more dangerous thinking than anything Tancredo has said.
2.That action will only incite revenge that could last for centuries. (Like we did with the Japanese? This shows empty logic and tragic cowardice like the Jews being led off to the oven camps thinking they were just being taken prisoners. They didn't want to anger the Nazi's so they "went along".
Revenge is always the choice of those that feel the need for it as we will when possibly 150,000 to 1 million Americans are killed by a dirty bomb.
“If they want to throw Tehran and its people to the will of Allah, bomb us, go ahead.” That to me is what a President should be saying. Why not? What advantage do we possibly gain by saying we won't?
3.One thing that helps unite “moderate” Muslims with the “extremist” Muslim is the perception that America is a “bully” that has exploited the Middle East for its own gain.(As in appeasing their demands for 60 years?) ( As in tithing to Allah to the tune of $72 for a barrel of oil?)(As if praying five times a day for the death and destruction of all infidels isn’t enough to unite them?)
_____________________________________________
THE STATE DEPARTMENT GETS INTO THE RUCKUS:
The state department has reacted of course. Even the so called conservative talk radio pundits are back peddling fast. The conservatives don’t want to be marginalized by such talk if they defend it; but many, behind the scenes are thinking, “Why take anything off the table as a response to a nuclear attack?
To not offend those who are already passive protagonists, if not active protagonists, for our demise?
Every blog, every post in forums or other types of sites that attack Tancredo for saying that he doesn’t take anything off the table, is encouraging our enemies to think that they can attack us with nuclear weapons and we would never retaliate back by bombing Mecca or Medina.
In other words we are saying to the world, “See, look how civilized we are, how understanding we are. After all we don’t want to step down to their level."
I can hear it, I can see it now in the editorials, and I can “feel” it coming.
To me this is buffoonery. To me this is the type of mis-calculation that will cost millions of American lives in the future. To me, we won with Russia because we DIDN’T take anything off the table. Here we have an enemy more evil that Russia ever was, within the width of a hair of being able to go nuclear and we are busy assuring our enemies of what we WON’T DO….
We look stupid to others. We look stupid to our enemies and we play into the U.N. socialist anti American propaganda machine.
People that claim to be patriotic Americans blah blah, are even saying that Tancredo’s off handed statement, “ I got the State Department to condemn me, I must be doing something right” was (horror of horrors) against the United States foreign policy and Tancredo shouldn’t do that.
Now mind you, I heard this from the same people that have consistently condemned Bush’s foreign policy (State Department) for 6 years. Now they defend it? Boy, these same rabid critics of Bush, our State Department, and Rice sure do back up fast when anything that might p*ss off the Muslims is brought up.
Isn’t it the left that says they want to change direction?
As far as the Middle East is concerned, Tancredo is the only one that has offered that change. I'll say it again because it needs repeating evidently, "We’ve been appeasing the Middle East for 60 years and where are we?”
Isn’t it about time to let them know that we will do whatever it takes?
Emphasize the word “whatever” when reading the last sentence, and you might get my drift, brothers and sisters.
I, for one, take nothing off the table to retaliate against an attack on our free people.
I have a funny feeling Teddy, F.D.R. and Truman would concur.
May God Bless,
Father O'Malley
dionysus,
Tom Tancredo is a rather insignificant Congressional Representative from a backward and benighted little District in Cowlorado. You dignify him far above his stature - not to mention far and away above his qualifications, or capabilities - by calling him a Senator.
The real problem is, simply, he is such a perfect example of the Republican Party's whole mind-set, he COULD wind up as President of the United States. After all, Dubya the Dimwit got there!
Posted by Old Grouch on August 22, 2007 10:33 AMAnd now comes Father O'Malley to present the Roman Religion's point of view:
Weren't the Crusades just wonderful! All those True Believers, responding to the cry of "God wills it"!
On to the re-establishment of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem!
(Oooops! That would mean having to deal with the Israelis. But then again we have the wonderful example of St. Pius Pacelli to guide us there; and we can use Ab Graib for another Auschwitz anyway.)
Rescue the world from the Infidel!
And, if we couldn't hold on to it last time, well now that's changed. Instead of swords and battle axes, we'll nuke 'em! And that'll show who is stronger, and more beloved of God!
Thank you, so much, dear Father. And I am certain that the late Cardinal Archbishop of Koln, who gave the special Pontifical Blessing from the Vatican on Krystalnacht thanks you as well.
Posted by Old Grouch on August 22, 2007 10:47 AMCharles B
Your analogy about Catholic Irish terrorists is inane. Show me the Irish rterrorists who hate Britain for religous reasons. Introduce me to an IRA member who is shooting tommies so he can go to heavan. Or one that might be bothered by the destruction of St. Peter's. Does the Vatican support the IRA? The Irish struggle is Political, the religious aspect is coincidental. For centuries there have been catholic and protestant Irish nationalists.
Some moran used an america/moscow analogy last week.
AF
The suicide bombings we hear about EVERY DAY are pretty wonderful, as well, eh, OG?
Emagine if the next terrorist attack on our soil
is found to have sneaked over one of our un-protected borders. That knee jerk reaction
will find all the bleeding-hearts wishing they'd
have gone along with some of Tancredo's
ideas about controlling our borders. You'll see a knee jerk like the (non)Patriot Act,
only the fence will get built, very quickly, and there'll probably be regular military patrolling
no matter who whines and bawls about it.
AF that was a good analogy. If a bunch of Catholics go nutty and dirty bomb say, Denver, does our country then bomb the Vatican?
I have noticed that Father usually clatters around in the blogs mixed nuts can and usually won`t answer a post from a woman.
This guy we should listen to? Long winded and pontificating and saying nothing but "don`t take any;options off the table" Hell with that we could drop anthrax on Mecca.
Remember that radiation will spread to Israel and no more Christmas jaunts for Christians if they then "glow in the dark".
Posted by Sharon B. on August 22, 2007 11:51 AM"AF that was a good analogy. If a bunch of Catholics go nutty and dirty bomb say, Denver, does our country then bomb the Vatican?"
It's a silly and childish analogy. There is a huge difference between a "bunch of Catholics" and millions of violent Muslims scattered across the world. We are not fighting the Muslim equivalent of Ireland. We are fighting against the suffocating and far-reaching tentacles of a quickly growing Islamic culture. Our own political sensitivities are our worst enemy in meeting the Islamic threat.
Posted by John II on August 22, 2007 12:05 PM...pontificating....
Isn't that what's happening when the pope takes a dump?
Posted by on August 22, 2007 12:09 PM"May God Bless," but I'd rather he kiss my ass first, kill a goat, after he brushes and flosses his cannibal teeth. Were it not for feeling the moderator's wrath I'd articulate my rehearsed words towards Father (pedophile) OMalley's bastard Jew from "the loins of David" sadistic 2nd Coming mass murderer with his holy genocide crap when he will drop-kick six billion people because they are not Catholic into a lake of fire another idiotic concept like his purgatory.
Deicide Corner: “For more than three thousand years men have quarreled concerning the formulas of their faith. The earth has been drenched with blood shed in this cause, the face of day darkened with the blackness of the crimes perpetrated in its name. There have been no dirtier wars than religious wars, no bitterer hates than religious hates, no fiendish cruelty like religious cruelty; no baser baseness than religious baseness. It has destroyed the peace of families, turned the father against the son, the brother against the brother. And for what? Are we any nearer to unanimity? On the contrary, diversity within the churches and without has never been so widespread as at present. Sects and factions are multiplying on every hand, and every new schism is but the parent of a dozen others.”
-- Felix Adler
11:18 AM anonymous,
Gee, have you told that to the Reverend Ian Paisley yet? Or to the boys in the IRA who bombed - just like those terrible Iraqis - the Mountbatten family some time back?
Ah! Yes! Political, indeed. Especially where the religion is the ONLY politics either side quarrels over.
12:09 PM anonymous,
That one of the best yet!
John 2,
Not quite. Islam may be a "suffocating" culture; but it comes no where near to being the "threat" that Romanism provides in the Western Hemisphere, where it (Romanism) is by far the more "quickly growing . . . 'culture'" among the indigenous population.
Your grandchildren, if you have any, are in far more danger from the local Roman witch doctor - and the Roman sexual psychosis of celibacy - than from any sword waving hordes on flying carpets looking to chop off you heads - in the REAL WORLD, that is. Of course, what might go on up there where you and JJ are Whizing is another story. One which I am certain we'll hear as we go along.
Posted by Old Grouch on August 22, 2007 03:09 PM"Islam may be a "suffocating" culture; but it comes no where near to being the "threat" that Romanism provides in the Western Hemisphere, where it (Romanism) is by far the more "quickly growing . . . 'culture'" among the indigenous population."
Do you really believe that, Old Grouch? Romanism (Catholicism) is worse than Islam? Have you lost your mind, old man?
By the way, Old Grouch, remind me again, because I often forget, you're a Christian, correct? Would you care to tell us what brand of Christianity you belong to? Is there a specific name for it?
Posted by John II on August 22, 2007 03:20 PMCharles- 7:07
Whatever indeed.
Posted by Get Real on August 22, 2007 06:17 PMJohn 2,
You were speaking of the "suffocating and far reaching tentacles of a growing Islamic culture." And you called it a 'threat".
By way of answer, I pointed out that Romanism is equally suffocating and far reaching, and remarked that today it is - for the Western Hemispheres, and its indigenous peoples - a greater "threat" than something located across two oceans.
One "worse" than the other? Not said. An example of potential "suffocation" - in an extended and analogous use of the word - from both sides is all there is. Choose which you prefer for yourself.
The designation, Christian, is sufficient unto itself.
Posted by Old Grouch on August 22, 2007 07:19 PM"One 'worse' than the other? Not said."- OG at 7:19 P.M.
Really?
"Not quite. Islam may be a "suffocating" culture; but it comes no where near to being the "threat" that Romanism provides in the Western Hemisphere."- OG at 3:09 P.M.
"Your grandchildren, if you have any, are in far more danger from the local Roman witch doctor - and the Roman sexual psychosis of celibacy - than from any sword waving hordes on flying carpets looking to chop off you heads - in the REAL WORLD, that is."- OG at 3:09 P.M.
You don't consider "a greater threat" to be worse?
Mike,
Not necessarily, no. The degree - "greater" or "lesser" - of threat does not equate with the contents of the threat. Also, the word, threat, was in quotation marks, indicating that it was not being used in a literal sense.
John 2's posting spoke of our "fighting the Islamic threat." This statement was made in context of the culture being a "suffocating" one. I countered with posting in which I gave example of another culture as being equally "suffocating", and also a "threat".
In sum, I was indicating that both ideas were from the realm of hyperbole. Unfortunately, I forgot that John 2 lacks the ability to distinguish between hyoperbole and what he presents as being "the way things are".
My error. However, I'm not really in the habit of marking something as others might - for instance KW, who does indicate "sarcasm" when he uses it.
In this case, John 2's "Islamic threat" is viewed as, and contrasted with, another hyperbolic expression. Neither is of any greater or lesser importance.
Or as Shakespeare might have once remarked, "much ado about nothing". Which about sums up Tom Tancredo as well.
But, the forum is fun.
Posted by Old Grouch on August 22, 2007 08:47 PMOG,
The degree of the threat does not equate with the contents of the threat?
What is a threat if not the content?
Tom Tanctado was an idiot years ago and still got elected to the House. What does that say about the people who live in his district?
Posted by on August 22, 2007 11:38 PMAlbert Encinas,
Is that all you got ???
You fight like a ...Girl!!!
Tom Tancredo gets my vote..!!!!
Posted by fourth gen spaniard! on August 22, 2007 11:59 PMThank you Tom Tancredo for all you do.
Posted by on August 23, 2007 07:21 AMMike,
Is that a rhetorical question?
In context. Someone is pointing a loaded weapon at you, and demanding your money.
Content of the threat: Serious physical damage to you, or even your loss of life, if you don't comply with the demand.
Some one telephones the police department, and says that there is an explosive device in a building across town from where you work.
Content of the threat: Serious damage to property, and possible human damage and loss of life as well.
Degree of threat # 1: Highest possible to you, because of immediate potential.
Degree of threat #2: LOW insofar as you be concerned. You're not in the building, and it is a goodly distance away.
All it takes is application of one's ability to distinguish, which differentiates those who, like Chicken Little, run around crying: "The Sky is Falling!", every time a sudden rain drop happens to land on their heads, from those who look at a weather report, and take an umbrella along when they go out.
Posted by Old Grouch on August 23, 2007 09:00 AMOG,
Threat #1 is less severe than threat #2, based on the content of the threat.
Scenario #1 puts me in danger; #2 puts many in danger. The risk to me is low, but the overall risk is much greater than scenario #1.
I understand perspective, but I try to look at situations objectively; and the risk of terrorism and mass killings in the name of Islam is a greater threat than "the local Roman witch doctor - and the Roman sexual psychosis of celibacy..."
But, that's just my subjective opinion.
Posted by Mike on August 23, 2007 09:45 AMTancredo for President.
Posted by Ben on August 23, 2007 12:26 PMMile,
I can't, of course, dispute a subjective opinion.
However, you do, I think, see my point, which was, simply, that "degree" of a threat is not absolutely synonymous with, nor equal to, "content" of the threat itself. Which was all I attempted to illustrate.
Posted by Old Grouch on August 23, 2007 02:41 PMOG,
I think we have different definitions of 'degree'.
Your example seems to refer to imminence and whether, or not, the threat was directed at me, personally.
I look at potential damage. The threat of a nuclear bomb being detonated in New York is a greater threat than someone pointing a gun at me, even though I would survive the nuclear bomb in New York.
To me, the content IS the degree; unless, you have two threats with the same content; one being close and imminent; the other being far off in location and implementation.
Posted by Mike on August 23, 2007 03:35 PMAnd I thought the people in California were a bit off - from what I've seen posted, I can see why Colorado has some of the stupidest, pro-illegal elected officials in office. What a bunch of arrogant, fruitcake freaks.
And yes, I do support Tom Tancredo. He’s the only one who has been consistent in his fight for America and the American worker.
Posted by on August 25, 2007 04:49 AM