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

[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]

I used to like Tancredo

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.