Tea Party Fireworks: Speaker Rips McCain, Obama, 'Cult of Multiculturalism' (Tancredo slams McCain)

ABC News ^ | 2010-02-04

[JApost]

No he didn't. Tancredo endorsed and supported mitt romney and still does, because he's hoping to get on the romney payroll. Tancredo has been all over radio trashing Palin on behalf of his sugar daddy romney from October 2008 forward. F*** tancredo.

[hocndoc]

Remember the run on banks about Sept. 15, 2008, money market freeze, and the closed door Congressional briefing.

(Remember, too, that the “main stream” media sort of missed the story about the freeze and run, preferring to play politics.)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2354820/posts

http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/article/63515/Americans%27-Money-Safer-Today-as-Govt.-Guarantees-Money-Market-Funds?tickers=BAC,F,MS,mer,leh,wm,wb

http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2008/09/fdic-and-bank-run-scare.html

[hocndoc]

I meant to ping y’all to my post 122

[servantboy777]

>>Man oh man, I'm getting so freakin cynical about out government.
Read a few quotes by the Founding Fathers & you will learn that that's the way it should be.<<

Yep!

[reasonisfaith]

But when you combine your Palin flips with this Tancredo comment, it makes you look pretty bad.

What you’re doing in this attack on Tancredo is to completely ignore the principle (his points on the cult of multiculturalism) while attacking the person.

Straight from Alinsky. You wouldn’t hide from that if it were your general motive, would you?

[Perdogg]

http://blogs.rockymountainnews.com/sprengelmeyer/archives/2008/04/tancredos_borderline_support_f.html

[Perdogg]

“Tancredo said he’s not endorsing McCain, just “supporting” his general election candidacy.

And what’s the difference? “The distinction is that one implies a little more enthusiasm,” Tancredo said.”

[politicket]

What you’re doing in this attack on Tancredo is to completely ignore the principle (his points on the cult of multiculturalism) while attacking the person.

If you learned how to read then you would have discovered that I know Tom, and have known him for many years.

I still like him, but would not support him for any further public office.

Straight from Alinsky. You wouldn’t hide from that if it were your general motive, would you?

All I can say to this is that you're a moron.

[Bainbridge]

Here is my original post.
It certainly does “mention”
John McCain. You are really
touchy about Palin : She is
just a human being; be careful
not to become like the Obama Nuts.

[reasonisfaith]

No, Alinsky is a moron because he advocated a moronic agenda. He was a leftist. The ideology which denies rational thought.

As for this thread—when a conservative like Tancredo speaks against rinos, other conservatives take note and support him. Fakers try to distract.

[politicket]

The ideology which denies rational thought.

Do you know Tom personally? I do. He helped start the homeschool movement here in Colorado. He's been a friend for many, many years.

However, he has gradually changed over the years in his political efforts. The culmination was his support of Bush's $700 billion TARP (a.k.a stimulus) bailout bill.

You like to talk about "rational" thought alot, which is probably where you get your reasonisfaith username.

Ayn Rand is not God. Rationalism is for fools. You prove my point.

[reasonisfaith]

Rational thought in general, not any specific kind as attributed to Rand or anyone else.

God gave us reason. Through reason we conduct our lives, every one of us, since the very beginning.

I was merely pointing out the fact that leftists have chosen to deny themselves access to the substance of logic itself, while fraudulently hijacking its form.

[NonLinear]

It all comes down to the Federal government needing to create as much new debt as possible to keep our entire economic system from entering a very major depression.

Do you realize how much internal contradiction is contained in that statement?

[NonLinear]

Of course, reasonisfaith conveniently forgot to leave that little tidbit of information out - since they have their own petty little axe to grind.

You could actually post the remark(s) mentioned. As far as I have seen, you both have left that little tidbit of information out...if it exists.

[politicket]

Do you realize how much internal contradiction is contained in that statement?

What part don't you understand?

The international banks have frozen credit.

Credit is the same as money (with regards to the M1 money supply).

Less credit means less M1 money in our economy.

Less M1 money creates enormous deflationary pressure.

The Federal government is trying to get people to take on new debt through by using incentive programs (cash for clunkers, first-time homebuyers, etc).

The Federal government just announced a $3.8 trillion dollar budget proposal.

All of the Federal government spending, and the spending they're trying to entice the citizenry into, is for the sole purpose of trying to counteract the international bank caused credit destruction.

If the Federal government stops creating vast amounts of new debt then our econoomy will immediately spiral into a major depression.

There was nothing contradictory about my original statement.

[politicket]

You could actually post the remark(s) mentioned. As far as I have seen, you both have left that little tidbit of information out...if it exists.

Here are the remarks:

That's true...I did write that.

And???

I was wrong in doing so. Yes, of all the Presidential candidates in the running, all of the men were doing what was right in their own eyes. However, there were righteous Christian men that could have run - and should have, instead of having a woman fight their battles for them.

The Bible teaches that the Palin's have some family issues that need to be worked on instead of putting any focus on politics right now.

This is not an attack on Sarah Palin. It's a challenge to Christian men.

[chuckles]

I feel your pain. When I daydream about being king, I always am stumped when I get to Social Security and Medicare. They have been broken since they were conceived because as you well know, NO Socialist program has ever worked and will never work. How to fix them? We are an amalgamation of Capitalism and Socialism. When the progressives got Social Security and later, Medicare installed into the fabric of the Republic, our fate was sealed. Now, what politician, D or R, could be elected on the promise of eliminating either program? Just imagine if National Healthcare gets started with the other two programs. Forget your health, or death squads, it's all about power and money. They will run their elections over who will add this or that treatment onto next year's Health Budget and of course each health worker will be a government employee and end up in a union. The Dems would have tens of thousands, if not millions of solid voters that know the Dems will be the ones to give raises and benefits. We would guarantee another 50 years of Dem rule if they get Gubmint Health Care. The rest of us would be stuck with stratospheric budget shortfalls and people dying on gurneys in hallways.

How do you explain to someone that Social Security guarantee's you about a 1%-2% return on your money? (Actually, the Congress could vote to cut your bennies if they wanted to). How do you count on that for retirement? Even before Obama, Medicare was some $800 billion in deficit every year.

It might help you in the classroom to get the students to read and discuss the Constitution, then take several programs and spending programs and ask them to give chapter and verse in the Constitution that allows the Feds to do that with our money. You may have to slap them down on "General Welfare" or the "Commerce clause" because the Dems have used those as catch all phrases for decades. If you could just get a few to discover the government has been ignoring their oaths for years, we may turn out some real citizens instead of Bolsheviks.

[NonLinear]

If the Federal government stops creating vast amounts of new debt then our econoomy will immediately spiral into a major depression.

Keynes at his worst. It is the Federal government creating vast amounts of debt that stifles the economy. Government debt removes money from the private sector. The private sector earns money, but the government takes money.

That is why your statement is inconsistent.

[politicket]

Keynes at his worst. It is the Federal government creating vast amounts of debt that stifles the economy.

It's only Keynesian if you believe that this solution will work.

It won't. It only makes our economic problems much worse.

Our Marxist government does believe it will work - or rather, they are deathly afraid of the citizen response when everybody truly figures out the charade that our government has been playing for decades.

We need to stop having our money based on debt. This means getting rid of the Fed and having the US Treasury issue our currency (if we desire to have a national currency).

[Toddsterpatriot]

We need to stop having our money based on debt. This means getting rid of the Fed and having the US Treasury issue our currency

If the Treasury issued our money, new money would still be created whenever someone takes out a loan.