Tancredo talk too offensive? Too bad.

World Net Daily ^ | July 23, 2005 | Radio Interview/Campbell

[RightWhale]

What did he say that annoyed you?

Nothing.

[montag813]

I have tried the radio station route before. Usually shows are preempted by hockey,baseball, football. I think the main reason I used talkradionetwork is because some of the radio station streams I found were blocked when I was in Iraq. but I am home now so I dont need to worry with it. Any know a good station I can record Neal bortz?

those stations I listed are talk only and are never interrupted by sports. Don't pay them for nothing.

[RAY]

As Hugh Hewitt points out: notice that absolutely nobody in political life is coming to Tancredo's defense? That's an excellent indication that you said something really stupid. Nobody is offended by the idea. It's stupid and counterproductive. That's all.

Not, but your reaction is stupid. If the Islamic AHs don't clean up their act, then pushed far enough, we will! You can damn bet on it!

[RAY]

Another attack against the U.S. will end this debate, CAIR will lose any credibility it may have now and Tancredo won't have to defend his remarks anymore.

Right!

[Das Outsider]

OK, then. Good answer. I was afraid your solution was going to involve "dialogue" at first. ;)

No need to use the high-yield nukes unless we absolutely have to. Wouldn't the same scenario work if you replaced 250 kiloton nukes with MOABs or the like?

[Das Outsider]

The media wont report the story...

All right...I'll modify it. NYC is at the top of the list of targets and there's no getting around that.

[FierceDraka]

We will need at least 24 hours to drop millions of pounds of raw bacon on those cities before nuking, to ensure none of them ever get their 72 virgins.

And once the bombs fry the bacon, we can all heve BLT's! LOL

[RobFromGa]

My problem with the Tancredo comments is that his utterance put a totally hypotethical situation out in the open for discussion by the left wing anti-War kooks and allows them to frame the debate.

If we were to be hit by a nuclear bomb in this country, I would expect swift and massive retaliation, and 99% of the population would want more. But a hypothetical bomb lacks the effect of the real thing.

So, by having throwing this in the public debate, requiring politicians to defend and retreat from his remarks he emboldens the terrorists to think we are a bunch of wimps. We would be better to have them think we will respond forcefully ala after 9-11.

I hope this makes sense, it does to me anyway.

[arnoldpalmerfan]

What are the public comments by the Republican leadership in the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives about Cong. Tancredo's remarks?

[arnoldpalmerfan]

What did he say?