Tancredo on Hannity

[Lancelot Jones]

"You mentioned him being convicted of manslaughter. And I stand by what I said: that was venomous."

If tomorrow, Muslim terrorists in Saudi Arabia, driven by the news that Americans are talking about nuking Mecca, kidnap and/or murder American citizens there in retaliation for the fact that the Great Satan is threatening to destroy their Holy site, Tancredo should be arrested and held responsible for their fate.

What Tancredo said, in light of his position as a member of the United States government, charged with the safety and security of our citizens, was irresponsible, and dangerous.

Beauseant!

[Lancelot Jones]

"I'm glad Winston Churchill didn't listen to that kind of logic."

Do you have any respect at all for our Constitution?

Discuss the business of America in the context of American laws.

Beauseant!

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

CHECKMATE:

"Tancredo should be arrested and held responsible for their fate."

Yep. Sheer venom. And like I posted before, by your logic, President Bush should be held responsible for the violence of illegal aliens, such as MS-13 members. I don't believe in that kind of logic however. Bush should not be arrested. But either you think Bush should be arrested, or your outrage is selective. He is, after all, failing in his Oath of Offfice. That even has more standing than someone exercizing free speech.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

"Do you have any respect at all for our Constitution? Discuss the business of America in the context of American laws."

I hold contempt for the Baby Killing Law, such as when it infringes Free Speech.

[azhenfud]

"If tomorrow, Muslim terrorists in Saudi Arabia, driven by the news that Americans are talking about nuking Mecca, kidnap and/or murder American citizens there in retaliation for the fact that the Great Satan is threatening to destroy their Holy site, Tancredo should be arrested and held responsible for their fate."

I would wager a donut you couldn't see how your statement could encourage that end either if radical islamites read it and figured doing as you suggest were possibly a way to retaliate against Tancredo. That said, I think, instead of a "Yeah", Tom should have answered by saying, "We'll take nothing off the table in response to a WMD attack."

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

"Discuss the business of America in the context of American laws."

I'm wrong to bring up Winston Churchill? Are you saying that Churchill, if he were running for office in the US, should have been thrown in prison? Or is it 'un-American' of me to mention the name of Churchill when I discuss US politics?

You have a fine mind. But something is clouding you.

[reelfoot]

I heard Tancredo on Savage last night and thought he was excellent. Very calm, reasonable, and logical in his statements despite having to endure the howls of leftwing politicians and media (and not a few "conservatives"). I haven't voted for a Republican for president for a few election cycles now, but would readily vote for and contribute to a Tancredo run.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

The left has been trying to squeeze all fire out of the GOP. They've been very effective at it, manipulating republicans into attacking anyone with any animation. The same thing happened to Alan Keyes back in 2000.

I don't know Tancredo well. But he's a great starting point. We need someone outside the 'fuddydud loop' that's been choking life out of conservatism.

[FreeAtlanta]

Surely, you all have heard of the "Nation of Islam" I know that is usually used with black Muslims in America, but generally, Islam considers itself an empire or nation with Mecca being it's capital.

As for billions being against us? If the root and supposedly invincible city of Mecca were to be destroyed, that might take a lot of fervor out of a religion that preaches that the city is invincible and Allah would protect it.

[Marysecretary]

Agreed! Between the prophecies I've been reading about bombs going of simultaneously (in 30 cities) and the article I read yesterday on FR about 40-70 bombs set to go off simultaneously, we need to have our sites set on their holy (unholy) places for sure. Good for Tancredo. Poo on the bashers and their PC crapola.

[highball]

We need to be winning hearts and minds

Durbin? Is that you?

The phrase actually came from Donald Rumsfeld. Kindly forward all complaints to him.

[Marysecretary]

I love the R word. Rove must REsign; Rumsfeld must REsign, Tancredo must REsign. Lott must REsign.I can think of several dummycrats who should have resigned for things they've done (Baghdad Jim comes to mind) that were dangerous to our nation or became useful idiots in the war against terror. Cheez.

[Marysecretary]

Look, zarf. We're talking about them nuking us first. Get it? This would only come as a repercussion of 30 or more bombs going off in our nation's largest cities.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

First off, I want to say that nuking Mecca AFTER being nuked would be a good start. It would set a course of complete confrontation, a diplomatic move that says, "You can't intimidate us." But nuking Mecca must be followed up immediately with the eradication of multiple Islmo-facist countries, due to the Islamic culture.

"...that might take a lot of fervor out of a religion that preaches that the city is invincible and Allah would protect it..."

Well, historically speaking, maybe you have a point. We can look to Japan, which submitted after being nuked. However, Japan is not the same culture as Islam, which is feudalistic. A feudal society. The word, 'feudal' is key to understanding their culture. Just think, 'feud'. A stubborn, vengeful determination would set in. Feuds are common in Islmo-facist nations.

Just look at Ireland, who's war with England originated in feudal times. Or consider the Hundred Year War between England and France. Look at the stubborn resolve of the Palestineans. Defeat does not deter them. Vengeance spurs them.

The reason why feudal cultures are that way is because central leadership is weak. Feudal societies are always split, with competing war lords. Bold, ruthless leaders more easilly get center stage. Cautious leaders tend to fade in influence.

Therefore, Mecca alone would not be enough, IMHO, unless historic examples to the contrary can be shown regarding Islam.

Hesitation would give terrorist leaders a chance to jetset all over the world. We would need to wipe out planes, airports, communications, sources of revenue [such as using the Navy to control all trade via the Persian Gulf], and lives.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Free speech is a two edged sword. Saying that someone else's words should hypothetically result in being arrested, that's a fast way to self-destruct.

[William Terrell]

So, I don't believe that if a nuclear weapon is ever set off in the continental United States, it will be one that represents Islam.

This explanation may fly if you were referring to Christians or most other religions whose holy books discuss the philosophy of living in peaceful terms. But, Islam discusses the philosophy of living in terms of dying, and killing infidels, leading to world domination through force of arms and violence.

A religion's holy book is central to that religion. Those who do not follow its precepts are not of that religion, which, in the case of Muslims, means they are infidels. The penalty for conversion to any other religion for Muslims means death.

There "terrorists" represent Islam at its core. Any interpretation of violent passages in the Koran must be in line with the example of the Prophet.

Certainly not do what they want us to do, and what any Muslim terrorist who sets off a nuclear device on US soil wants us to do is to nuke Mecca. . .

If Mecca were destroyed, certain passages in the Koran would be proven wrong. The Koran provides no authority for praying toward where Mecca was. It would eventually cause the collapse of Islam. Since the "terrorists" are Muslim this notion is absurd.

We drop the nuke, and miraculously, the moon rock survives...we are defeated by our own actions.

Do you think the power of Allah will protect the "moon rock" from a nuclear weapon delivered precisely on target?

[Stellar Dendrite]

" I just did a search on bayourod and it still brings up his posting history."

No you didnt.


http://www.freerepublic.com/~bayourod/in-forum
"This account has been banned or suspended."

[Stellar Dendrite]

"Tancredo should be arrested" --lancelot jones

Add Lancelot Jones to the quisling list!

[Stellar Dendrite]

if an attack occurs and it can be stated for sure that the terrorist came across the border.....the republican party will pay, dearly. especially george bush. his base has been screaming for controlling the borders/immigration but he doesn't listen, in fact he calls those who want to uphold laws that he wont "vigilantes".

i want to see a true conservative party emerge, unlike the GOP which is full of RINOs.

[Lancelot Jones]

Logic?

Your posts, and Tancredo's words, have no connection with logic.

President Bush is not goading illegal aliens into committing acts of violence, Tancredo words could very possibly goad terrorists into committing acts of violence against Americans.

Your deluded "logic" is most often seen in the lefts' anti-Second Amendment diatribes that place blame those who of us who support our Constitutional RTKBA with the actions of criminals who commit gun-related violence.

By his irresponsible words and actions, Rep. Tancredo has demonstrated beyond the shadow of a doubt that he lacks the temperament, intelligence, and instinct to hold any position above that which he now holds.

We did not hold a national discussion on invading Normandy, we did not hold a national debate on dropping bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We did not hold those national debate because those leaders were far more responsible than Tom Tancredo.

Beauseant!