Tom Tancredo No Longer Supports Rand

[anaconda]

You'd be a fool to. That'd be like having a family member fall victim to gun violence and deciding on that basis to support gun control.

http://www.volokh.com/2009/12/01/against-nationalism/

For many, the danger of lynching far exceeded the danger of nationalism. If I am an Eskimo it is logical to fear polar bears more than cheetahs. And has nothing to do with banning weapons across demographics. Fear of racism does not logically imply an endorsement of nationalism, as both are bad and may or may not be related. To say one is "worse" than the other is a normative statement that would be entirely dependent on a set of Ceteris paribus assumptions and relative value judgements.

 

[Carson]

 

[Origanalist]

Originally Posted by Origanalist

I'm not for a increase in the warfare-welfare state in any circumstance.

This seems like an absurd statement. You're saying you'd prefer the status quo to a state that spent 1/4 as much on warfare and 1.01x as much on welfare? Or 1/4 as much on welfare and 1.01x as much on warfare?

"I'm not for _____ in any circumstances" is virtually always going to be a stupid thing to say, regardless of what you fill in the blank with. Now, you're welcome to write dumb stuff all you like, but don't cry "troll" when someone calls you on it.

You didn't "call" me on anything, you're just being a dipshit. And the examples you gave are a decrease in the warfare-welfare state, so obviously I would support the reduction and look for more.

 

[AuH20]

Tom Tancedo is 100% correct in his assessment. Nevertheless, I stand with Rand Paul despite this error on his part.

 

[AuH20]

People like Tancredo, that don't understand liberty, get very confused when a liberty proposal appears "left-wing." Immigrants are good for our country. Welfare for immigrants is not. Immigrant labor helps grow the economy, rather than "steal jobs." Recent attempts to label Rand a "moderate" are because they don't understand what a real conservative actually looks like. Reminds me of when Dick Morris called Ron Paul "the most left-wing radical to run for President in the last 50 years.."

There is nothing conservative about catering to the demands of race based special interest groups and ignoring the law as well as the current immigration system set in place. Nothing whatsoever.

 

[spladle]

For many, the danger of lynching far exceeded the danger of nationalism. If I am an Eskimo it is logical to fear polar bears more than cheetahs. And has nothing to do with banning weapons across demographics. Fear of racism does not logically imply an endorsement of nationalism, as both are bad and may or may not be related. To say one is "worse" than the other is a normative statement that would be entirely dependent on a set of Ceteris paribus assumptions and relative value judgements.

Everything in this post is true. The sort of assumptions and value judgments one would need to make in order to think that racism was worse than nationalism, though, are so wildly outside the mainstream that I'm fairly certain no reasonable person could credibly argue for that proposition without being thought a monster or a fool.

 

[spladle]

You didn't "call" me on anything, you're just being a dipshit. And the examples you gave are a decrease in the warfare-welfare state, so obviously I would support the reduction and look for more.

Rousing rhetoric to the contrary notwithstanding, the warfare state and the welfare state are not intrinsically linked and are in fact often engaged in a zero-sum competition for resources - that is, an increase in one requires a decrease in the other and vice versa.

Leaving that aside, though, you appear to have sacralized this issue (shrinking the warfare/welfare state) to an untenable degree. You should recognize that and stop it. Growth in the welfare state, while prima facie undesirable, is (or should be) easily justifiable under certain conditions. If growth in the welfare state is a necessary result of diminished immigration restrictions (a claim that I dispute but will accept for the sake of argument), then we should welcome that growth with open arms. Agreed?

 

[spladle]

There is nothing conservative about catering to the demands of race based special interest groups and ignoring the law as well as the current Jim Crow system set in place. Nothing whatsoever.

Yeah, fuck those darkies, amirite? Those lawbreaking n*ggers should go sit at the back of the bus and stay in their shitty schools like the law SAYS they should. Damned uppity race based special interest groups demanding equality before the law . . . it's almost as bad as when that filthy race based special interest group (the Republican Party) made us stop treating blacks like property!

 

[Origanalist]

Rousing rhetoric to the contrary notwithstanding, the warfare state and the welfare state are not intrinsically linked and are in fact often engaged in a zero-sum competition for resources - that is, an increase in one requires a decrease in the other and vice versa.

Leaving that aside, though, you appear to have sacralized this issue (shrinking the warfare/welfare state) to an untenable degree. You should recognize that and stop it. Growth in the welfare state, while prima facie undesirable, is (or should be) easily justifiable under certain conditions. If growth in the welfare state is a necessary result of diminished immigration restrictions (a claim that I dispute but will accept for the sake of argument), then we should welcome that growth with open arms. Agreed?

Lol, no.

 

[acptulsa]

Yeah, fuck those darkies, amirite? Those lawbreaking n*ggers should go sit at the back of the bus and stay in their shitty schools like the law SAYS they should. Damned uppity race based special interest groups demanding equality before the law . . . it's almost as bad as when that filthy race based special interest group (the Republican Party) made us stop treating blacks like property!

Amusing bit of trolling you're doing here. But you're full of shit. And it's about time someone said so.

Is nationalism worse than racism? Maybe. Arguably it has resulted in more deaths over history. That said, there have been wars fought over legitimate grievances, and which had nothing to do with race at all. Two wars with Germany had nothing to do with discrimination; the U.S. was chock-a-bloc with people of German descent the whole time. So, we had nationalism that was anything but racist, in response to nationalism that had a huge racist component, and perhaps the most noble thing accomplished by our nationalism was to stop their racist genocide. So, maybe nationalism is not worse than racism. Certainly it has been longer since nationalism was used as an excuse for either slavery or genocide than racism.

Now, am I outside the mainstream with this? Am I a monster or a fool?

As for what your baiting in this post signifies, other than the fact that both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party have historically been on both the right and the wrong side of the racism issue, I'm sure I don't know. But I'm not impressed by it either way.

 

[Origanalist]

Amusing bit of trolling you're doing here. But you're full of shit. And it's about time someone said so.

Is nationalism worse than racism? Maybe. Arguably it has resulted in more deaths over history. That said, there have been wars fought over legitimate grievances, and which had nothing to do with race at all. Two wars with Germany had nothing to do with discrimination; the U.S. was chock-a-bloc with people of German descent the whole time. So, we had nationalism that was anything but racist, in response to nationalism that had a huge racist component, and perhaps the most noble thing accomplished by our nationalism was to stop their racist genocide. So, maybe nationalism is not worse than racism. Certainly it has been longer since nationalism was used as an excuse for either slavery or genocide than racism.

Now, am I outside the mainstream with this? Am I a monster or a fool?

As for what your baiting in this post signifies, other than the fact that both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party have historically been on both the right and the wrong side of the racism issue, I'm sure I don't know. But I'm not impressed by it either way.

Beat you to it. (in so many words.....)

 

[misean]

Here's Barry Goldwater's response to all the "conservative" asshats like Tom Tancredo:

His words of 1978 make absolute sense in 2008:

"Don’t offer amnesty to those already here illegally. Sanctions against employers who hire illegal immigrants are unfair; it is the government’s responsibility to determine who is here legally.

Start a guest worker program to “channel the flow” of illegal immigrants through a legal mechanism.

And establish a clear immigration policy that is actually enforced."

http://tucsoncitizen.com/morgue/2008/06/05/87274-kimble-immigration-what-would-barry-do/

I wonder who Barry Goldwater sounds like?

 

[acptulsa]

His words of 1978 make absolute sense in 2008:

"Don’t offer amnesty to those already here illegally. Sanctions against employers who hire illegal immigrants are unfair; it is the government’s responsibility to determine who is here legally.

Start a guest worker program to “channel the flow” of illegal immigrants through a legal mechanism.

His words of 1978 would make more sense today if only we weren't trashing our own economy and exporting our own jobs. Awfully effective way for them to set us at each other's throats, isn't it..?

 

[misean]

His words of 1978 would make more sense today if only we weren't trashing our own economy and exporting our own jobs. Awfully effective way for them to set us at each other's throats, isn't it..?

What do you mean exporting our own jobs? It's pretty basic comparative advantage. If China makes soccer balls more cheaply than in the US, it is best for them to make soccer balls. We buy their soccer balls with dollars and they in turn buy things like wheat with their dollars that the US has a comparative advantage in. Everyone wins.

There is never a shortage of jobs, only a shortage of productivity brought on by government interference in the market. Immigrants don't trash the economy.

 

[acptulsa]

What do you mean exporting our own jobs? It's pretty basic comparative advantage. If China makes soccer balls more cheaply than in the US, it is best for them to make soccer balls. We buy their soccer balls with dollars and they in turn buy things like wheat with their dollars that the US has a comparative advantage in. Everyone wins.

There is never a shortage of jobs, only a shortage of productivity brought on by government interference in the market. Immigrants don't trash the economy.

'There is never a shortage of jobs, only a shortage of productivity brought on by government interference in the market.' If you knew what I meant by 'exporting our own jobs,' why did you ask? If the government didn't make domestic manufacturing all but impossible, we wouldn't have any trouble at all turning a profit making our own soccer balls. Especially since we wouldn't have to ship them halfway around the world to ourselves.

 

[Shane Harris]

Am I strange that I don't care about this debate at all?

This is how I feel. Never have. Feels like such a distraction.

 

[misean]

'There is never a shortage of jobs, only a shortage of productivity brought on by government interference in the market.' If you knew what I meant by 'exporting our own jobs,' why did you ask? If the government didn't make domestic manufacturing all but impossible, we wouldn't have any trouble at all turning a profit making our own soccer balls. Especially since we wouldn't have to ship them halfway around the world to ourselves.

I'm not sure you are getting the reason for free trade.

If soccer balls are made more cheaply overseas than in the US then why should we make them here. Labor is cheaper there. There is no inherent advantage to making things in the United States.

If a made in China soccer ball costs $10 and a made in the USA soccer ball cost $20, it's better to have it made in China. China will use their dollars to buy US goods that will employ people. As a consumer I can now buy a soccer ball and I can buy something else like a hat. My standard of living is higher. I have a soccer ball and a hat. It's win-win

 

[spladle]

Lol, no.

Why not? Because black and brown people don't deserve the same human rights as white people?

 

[spladle]

Amusing bit of trolling you're doing here. But you're full of shit. And it's about time someone said so.

Is nationalism worse than racism? Maybe. Arguably it has resulted in more deaths over history. That said, there have been wars fought over legitimate grievances, and which had nothing to do with race at all. Two wars with Germany had nothing to do with discrimination; the U.S. was chock-a-bloc with people of German descent the whole time. So, we had nationalism that was anything but racist, in response to nationalism that had a huge racist component, and perhaps the most noble thing accomplished by our nationalism was to stop their racist genocide. So, maybe nationalism is not worse than racism. Certainly it has been longer since nationalism was used as an excuse for either slavery or genocide than racism.

Now, am I outside the mainstream with this? Am I a monster or a fool?

You do sound a bit foolish, yes. I support "discrimination" btw.

As for what your baiting in this post signifies, other than the fact that both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party have historically been on both the right and the wrong side of the racism issue, I'm sure I don't know. But I'm not impressed by it either way.

Actually, I can't think of a time when the Republican Party was on the wrong side of a race issue. Can you?

 

[erowe1]

You do sound a bit foolish, yes. I support "discrimination" btw.

Guess it depends what you count as a race issue.

The 14th Amendment was from Republicans. And the CRA had more GOP than Dem support in Congress.