Tancredo Raises Fear Factor

[TeenageRepublican]

Tancredo raises fear factor
Expert says terrorism images are so blatant commercial won't work


By M.E. Sprengelmeyer, Rocky Mountain News
November 13, 2007
<!-- /byline -->DES MOINES, Iowa - Rep. Tom Tancredo is taking the fear factor to an explosive new level in the Republican presidential contest.
On Monday he unveiled a new television ad that shows a hooded man slip into a peaceful shopping mall, set down a black backpack - not far from where children are playing - and then, boom!
Interspersed with images of a bloody body and the destruction of recent terrorist attacks in London, Spain and Russia, it argues that this could be "the price we pay for spineless politicians who refuse to defend our border against those who come to kill."
But one Iowa political analyst called it such a "brute" appeal for fear that it's not likely to help Tancredo's long-shot campaign here in the nation's first presidential caucus state.
Neither will the ad prompt any other candidates to respond, as Tancredo told reporters Monday was his real goal, the analyst said.
"This is just blatant, raw fear images, and they've never worked in the United States, period," said Bruce Gronbeck, a communications professor from the University of Iowa who teaches a course on politics in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
The ad, available at teamtancredo.org, opens with Tancredo giving a new twist to the disclaimer required by federal elections laws: "I'm Tom Tancredo, and I approve this message because someone needs to say it."
At a press conference in Des Moines, Tancredo told local reporters that he wanted to expand the immigration debate beyond the anti-amnesty appeal that other presidential candidates have adopted with their rhetoric, if not "with their hearts."
He cited law enforcement and unclassified intelligence reports suggesting that there was a rising possibility that radical Islamic terrorists might launch a series of smaller-scale attacks within the United States. "People are here today who are planning and plotting to kill us," Tancredo said in the press conference, which was replayed online at RadioIowa.com. "Are we willing to do something about it - to go after the people who are here?"

Read the rest here:
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/elections/article/0,2808,DRMN_24736_5746104,00.html

My thoughts:
This ad is true. I believe Tancredo and Thompson should run together. Tancredo did a great job in Colorado before that Liberal Bill Ritter got in to power. I can't believe liberals are throwing a hissy fit over this ad! I will find the video version of this ad so you can see it.
I warn you though, it's disturbing.

[Lazarus]

I saw that commercial and there was nothing brutal about it... It was simple truth... Why is it perfectly allowable for the MSM to show such images daily but unethical for a candidate to remind us of the threat that is a major political issue today?

Or would the Left just prefer we not talk about it - Ignore it and it will go away...

[TeenageRepublican]

http://850koa.com/pages/gunnybob.html

That's probably the best link I can post at the moment. Parental Controls blocks YouTube and other stuff, which pisses me off, badly.

[ThomasMore]

Good on Tancredo.

He knows he is not going to win, and he is driving this point home hard, and clearly. People can listen, or not.

[TeenageRepublican]

Good on Tancredo.

He knows he is not going to win, and he is driving this point home hard, and clearly. People can listen, or not.

Good point. Tancredo, unlike Ron Paul, knows he's not going to win. I think he's sort of saying "If I'm going to loose, I'm going to loose with a bang." Ron Paul thinks he's going to win.

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=4 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD height=4></TD></TR><TR><TD id=sec4>GUNNYISM OF THE DAY


"Why do so many liberals hate Tom Tancredo's honesty?"
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
That's a good question, Gunny, perhaps liberals hate hearing the truth. Conservatives are the only ones telling the truth, liberals are the ones who are dancing around saying "Terrorists are good people". It's time to face the truth, no matter how harsh it is. I've faced the truth when Bush started to go downhill.
Anyone who thinks that terrorists won't go through our borders might as well think that the tooth fairy is real.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/rBK7bWh1m04&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/rBK7bWh1m04&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[DesertFox]

I just decided to vote for Tancredo.

[TeenageRepublican]

I just decided to vote for Tancredo.

Tancredo, Thompson, and Huckabee are the ones I want see on the ballot. They are true republicans. I support them all. Anyone who is a true republican deserves my support.

[Rhino]

I just decided to vote for Tancredo.Even though he wants to surrender Iraq?

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Even though he wants to surrender Iraq?

He does? Where do you get this from? I'm just curious.

I found this on his official site, but it doesn't elaborate:


http://teamtancredo.org/stands/
America's noble sacrifice has purchased Iraqis a precious opportunity for democratic change; it is now up to them to ensure success. Setting the President's November benchmark for shifting control as an actual timetable for disengagement will let regional powers and Iraqi factions cooperate to forge a new balance of power.

[TeenageRepublican]

Congress cannot decide how to fight war; only fund or defund. (Sep 2007)
Promote dissenters in Iran; but take action if needed. (Sep 2007)
Iraq is a battlefield in war with radical Islam. (Sep 2007)
We are in a war with radical Islam; Iraq is one battle. (Aug 2007)
Stop restricting army with rules of engagement. (Aug 2007)
If Islamic terrorists threaten nukes, we nuke Mecca & Medina. (Aug 2007)
Opposed the troop surge, but supports the troops. (May 2007)
Muslims attack us because it's a dictate of their religion. (May 2007)
Convert from constabulary force to supporting force. (May 2007)
Ok to attack Iran if they develop nukes & threaten Israel. (May 2007)
Surge opposed by all commanders; we're leaving soon. (Mar 2007)
Begin withdrawal from Iraq, to focus on radical Islam. (Mar 2007)
Voted NO on redeploying US troops out of Iraq starting in 90 days. (May 2007)
Voted YES on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on approving removal of Saddam & valiant service of US troops. (Mar 2004)
Voted YES on authorizing military force in Iraq. (Oct 2002)
Voted YES on disallowing the invasion of Kosovo. (May 1999)
Solidarity with Israel in its fight against terrorism. (Apr 2002)
http://www.ontheissues.org/Tom_Tancredo.htm#War_+_Peace

Are you sure you aren't thinking of someone else, Rhino?

[Rhino]

He does? Where do you get this from? I'm just curious.

I found this on his official site, but it doesn't elaborate:


http://teamtancredo.org/stands/
America's noble sacrifice has purchased Iraqis a precious opportunity for democratic change; it is now up to them to ensure success. Setting the President's November benchmark for shifting control as an actual timetable for disengagement will let regional powers and Iraqi factions cooperate to forge a new balance of power.Setting the President's November benchmark for shifting control as an actual timetable for disengagementSounds like a deadline to me.

[TeenageRepublican]

At least he's not entirely against the war, like that turd Ron Paul.

[Rhino]

Tancredo isn't very bad at all. He doesn't stand a chance though.

[jayson]

Since you all seem to insist on bringing up Ron Paul to bash him at every opportunity, did you all realize that Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo are good friends both in Congress and out of it? They also routinely work together for legislation.

As for Tancredo... the guy has a lot of the issues dead on in my book. The only thing I don't agree with (and this is major) is the threat to nuke Mecca and Medina in the event of another terrorist attack. That's just insanity.

[garlicguy]

He'd make a great Vice-President on the Ron Paul ticket.

[Jack_Savage]

He'd make a great Vice-President on the Ron Paul ticket.


Well of course a coward would love to sit next to Tancredo. Problem is, What would Tancredo do with all of Ron Pauls toy-boys slobbering all over the campaign trail.

[TeenageRepublican]

Since you all seem to insist on bringing up Ron Paul to bash him at every opportunity, did you all realize that Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo are good friends both in Congress and out of it? They also routinely work together for legislation.

As for Tancredo... the guy has a lot of the issues dead on in my book. The only thing I don't agree with (and this is major) is the threat to nuke Mecca and Medina in the event of another terrorist attack. That's just insanity.

I'm friends with liberals, that doesn't mean I should run with them for president. Ron Paul is conservative on a lot of issues, but his stand on the death sentence and the war is what I don't get. Tom and Ron may agree on a lot of issues, but I don't think that they should run together.

[garlicguy]

Well of course a coward would love to sit next to Tancredo. Problem is, What would Tancredo do with all of his toy-boys slobbering all over the campaign trail.


Wow! You really ARE a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat, aren't you?:biggrin::biggrin::biggrin:

(Please notice the thinly-veiled reference to sheep(le). Har, har, har.)

[Rhino]

Since you all seem to insist on bringing up Ron Paul to bash him at every opportunity....http://freeconservatives.com/smilies/doggie.gif

You might want to search some of the older posts. Paul was hardly ever mentioned here until you guys (his supporters) insisted on bringing him up at every opportunity. If you'd stop bringing him up, he'd go right back to hardly ever being mentioned again. Then we could all be happy. :D

[Rhino]

He'd make a great Vice-President on the Ron Paul ticket.Ticket to where?

[garlicguy]

Ticket to where?

:biggrin::biggrin: Good one!

[Rhino]

I found a running mate for Paul. Cynthia McKinney.

http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?t=52714

[garlicguy]

http://freeconservatives.com/smilies/doggie.gif

You might want to search some of the older posts. Paul was hardly ever mentioned here until you guys (his supporters) insisted on bringing him up at every opportunity. If you'd stop bringing him up, he'd go right back to hardly ever being mentioned again. Then we could all be happy. :D

This is Shocking!! It implies that D4R, Luc, and Lubbock are seceret Ron Paul Supporters! (Since they're the ones who innocently started the four threads bearing his name. MadBomber, Jayson and I merely responded. :biggrin:)

Truth is...

[Rhino]

And how many other threads did you bring him up in? Those threads were in response to posts of Paul supporters that have increased dramatically recently. As I said, he was not a major topic here until his supporters started bring him up all the time. If you don't like the responses, stop bringing him up. These threads would die off again if you did, though the jokes might continue for a while, since he has been brought to the forefront so much.

All four of those threads were started within the last three weeks. How many other threads with his name were started in the entire past year? Nine, an average of less than one per month, or one half post per three week period. What has changed to make that happen? His supporters started posting repeatedly about him. That was a really nice attempt to try to switch the blame. But, as usual, you're wrong.

[garlicguy]

And how many other threads did you bring him up in? I dunno? I'm guessing two or three.


Those threads were in response to posts of Paul supporters that have increased dramatically recently. As I said, he was not a major topic here until his supporters started bring him up all the time. Just for informational purposes, I didn't sign on at FC to bring up any particular candidate's name, etc. Similar to what jayson has said of his own position, I reveiwed discussions here and elsewhere on the 'net before deciding which candidate to support. I was initially very taken by FDT and Huck before learning of other information.

If you don't like the responses, stop bringing him up. These threads would die off again if you did, though the jokes might continue for a while, since he has been brought to the forefront so much. Rhino, what follows is not aimed your way, nor towards all of the regulars that post at FC. There's a good bunch of reasonable, respectful and thoughtful persons here. Many of the administrative types seem to fit that mold, as do many of those who've been around for a while. But as in most settings in life, it is always the few who lack reasonable self control and refuse to accept responsibility who spoil it for the rest.

I don't mind the responses so much as the lack of respect for dissenting opinions. It seems more childish than adult to resort to name calling and such when folks get frustrated. And people on both sides of an issue are guilty of such behavior. I'm thinkin' we could all do better, if we tried.

All four of those threads were started within the last three weeks. How many other threads with his name were started in the entire past year? Nine, an average of less than one per month, or one half post per three week period. What has changed to make that happen? His supporters started posting repeatedly about him. Uhm... I'm not sure I get your point. Few knew who the guy was until quite recently. I certainly include myself in that crowd. By the way, I am and have always been politically conservative, and, if anything, have become more so in recent years. The outpouring of groundless accusations on FC against supporters of a particular Long-Shot REPUBLICAN Presidential Candidate from Texas (doesn't anyone here remember a similar long shot candidate from California back in 1980?) makes FC look pretty much like a place for rabid nut-jobs. I'm a member of that party and disdain the weakening of it during my lifetime, especially in recent years, (post Reagan). So being labeled as a liberal, American-hater by those who know nothing of me, my life, my military service, etc. is not only counter-productive, it is beyond sublime, and not befitting true conservatives nor true Christians of any ilk. (Some here might label the above as whining. It is properly called an admonition, Christ did the same with the Pharisees of His day. So if He's a whiner in your book, I'll not mind being called the same. Try the shoe on. If it fits, own it or at least own the cowardice not to...)

As an aside, my candidate of choice was one of only 4 Congressmen to vote for Reagan as the Rep. party candidate at that time, and President Reagan had some great things to say about him before, during and after his Presidency. But again, don't take my word for it.


That was a really nice attempt to try to switch the blame.

Thank you. Your's was no slouch effort, either.:evilgrin:

But, as usual, you're wrong.As you say. But you can hardly blame a guy for trying. :D

By the way, kindly note that I did not once mention the name that some here find so odious.

[DesertFox]

Originally Posted by DesertFox
I just decided to vote for Tancredo.

Originally posted by Rhino
Even though he wants to surrender Iraq?

Didn't know that. Back to Sammy Davis Jr for me. :D

[Rhino]

We knew who Paul was. He wasn't discussed much since this is a conservative site and he is far from being a conservative. That's also the reason for some of the responses you receive. Just because Paul supporters tout him as a conservative does not make him so, and extremely few conservatives consider him to be one. As such, it would be unreasonable to go to a conservative web site, tout Paul as a conservative without expecting negative responses and then attempt to lecture conservatives that they aren't really conservatives, when it is actually the Paul supporters that are out of touch with mainstream conservative principles. One may argue those principles all day, but it's extremely obvious that the overwhelming majority of conservatives do not consider Paul's positions to be in concert with theirs. The only thing I would find at all unusual here is that a Paul supporter would attempt such a lecture, and actually not expect derision in response. That's ridiculous. If you simply wish to express support for Paul feel free. But if you want to lecture conservatives that they should be doing the same, then expect nasty responses. It is properly called an admonition. If that's a problem for you, then maybe you should post in a Ron Paul forum somewhere.

[garlicguy]

We knew who Paul was. He wasn't discussed much since this is a conservative site and he is far from being a conservative. That's also the reason for some of the responses you receive. Just because Paul supporters tout him as a conservative does not make him so, and extremely few conservatives consider him to be one. As such, it would be unreasonable to go to a conservative web site, tout Paul as a conservative without expecting negative responses and then attempt to lecture conservatives that they aren't really conservatives, when it actually the Paul supporters that are out of touch with mainstream conservative principles. One may argue those principles all day, but it's extremely obvious that the overwhelming majority of conservatives do not consider Paul's positions to be in concert with theirs. The only thing I would find at all unusual here is that a paul supporter would attempt such a lecture, and actually not expect derision in response. That's ridiculous. If you simply wish to express support for Paul feel free. but if you want to lecture conservatives that they should be doing the same, then expect nasty responses. It is properly called an admonition. If that's a problem for you, then maybe you should post in a Ron Paul forum somewhere.

Sorry. I didn't mean to lecture.

The reason I asked for the definition of Conservative was to avoid causing or continuing some of the arguments unnecessarily (or endlessly). Your definition, which I readily accept, said nothing of the war issue. The major points you offered are ones that we agree upon.

As for an overwhelming majority of Conservatives not considering Ron Paul's position to be in concert with theirs, I think you are probably correct in that statement at this point in time. But I do wonder if many in that majority have done justice to the process of discerning that position rather than relying upon commentators, pundits and MSM sources. We all know that many of all such sources have agendas of their own.

That you and your site, Rhino, support Fred Thompson is a laudible thing. It speaks well of you personally that you take a firm stand once you decided upon your candidate. I was not a fan of Ron Paul when I came here, and Senator Thompson was my own personal favorite at that time (before he announced). It would not be the worst thing for this nation for him to be nominated AND elected. I just do not think that will happen.

Neither Guiliani nor Romney appear able to make a move without their handlers pulling the strings, and that is precisely how 'W' (whom I voted for twice) has become such a puppet. Or so I am convinced. Ron Paul does not appear to me to be for sale, and is a staunch supporter of Pro-life and Pro USA! He is not Pro Government from what I see, and I find that comforting.

With apologies if the above is over-long.

[Rhino]

It wasn't directed at you personally, GG. It's a conglomeration of many posts. I haven't really kept up much with who individually said what. I'm not trying to make individual accusations. I'm not even saying that it's necessarily intentional. I'm just noting that it occurs, and that there are expected reactions.

[CzechPrince]

http://teamtancredo.org/stands/
America's noble sacrifice has purchased Iraqis a precious opportunity for democratic change; it is now up to them to ensure success. Setting the President's November benchmark for shifting control as an actual timetable for disengagement will let regional powers and Iraqi factions cooperate to forge a new balance of power.


This is exactly what I've been saying now for months.

[Jack_Savage]

I found a running mate for Paul. Cynthia McKinney.

http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?t=52714


That would be good. He would get what he deserves. She would squinch his face up even more. Prune him.

[garlicguy]

It wasn't directed at you personally, GG. It's a conglomeration of many posts. I haven't really kept up much with who individually said what. I'm not trying to make individual accusations. I'm not even saying that it's necessarily intentional. I'm just noting that it occurs, and that there are expected reactions.

Okay. Got it.

[TeenageRepublican]

We knew who Paul was. He wasn't discussed much since this is a conservative site and he is far from being a conservative. That's also the reason for some of the responses you receive. Just because Paul supporters tout him as a conservative does not make him so, and extremely few conservatives consider him to be one.
...If you simply wish to express support for Paul feel free. But if you want to lecture conservatives that they should be doing the same, then expect nasty responses. It is properly called an admonition. If that's a problem for you, then maybe you should post in a Ron Paul forum somewhere.

Exactly my thoughts. I don't even think Ron Paul was talked about as frequently as he is now on FreeConservatives. I want to talk about other things. There are threads about Ron Paul that just won't die, it's insane.

[Elgalad]

I often listen to NPR on the way to work ~ and yes, their unmentionables are already in twisted knots over that maniacal warmonger Tancredo, and his latest commercial. :evilgrin:

I've admired Tanc's stand on immigration for months now and if I wasn't supporting teh Fred, he'd be my guy. It's incredibly embarassing that this late in the game, on the virtual eve of the primaries themselves, no other candidate of either party has honestly treated this issue with even a fraction of the weight that it deserves.

He's got my vote for Veep.


-Elgalad

[CONSERVATIVE HERO]

"This is just blatant, raw fear images, and they've never worked in the United States, period," said Bruce Gronbeck, a communications professor from the University of Iowa who teaches a course on politics in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
Are the images of planes slamming into The Trade Centers "blatant" enough you witless jerkoff? The left is telling us we're all going to die in ten years because the sky is falling, and that's not fear-mongering, but stating cold hard facts about illegal immigration is?

Mr. Tancredo is guilty of nothing but telling the absolute truth (which the commie left will do anything to stifle as usual). His comments buttress my own research when I read and consolidated facts from many articles years ago.

In a 9 month period they stopped about 3,000 people at the northern border. In that same time period they stopped over 800,000 crossing the southern border. That's just the one's they caught (which admitedly is only about 20% or 1 out of 5). Of those, thousands were non-hispanics (including Chinese, North Koreans, etc.), and thousands still from terror-sponsering nations (but seeing how hezbollah has opened up shop in South America (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?t=47318), we can't even trust "hispanic" illegals as "safe" any longer).

Illegals leave tons of trash strewn across the landscape, but the environmentalists say nothing. Animals eat the drugs and trash they leave behind and become sick or die, yet the animal rights activists are silent. They piss and shight in the rio grande to such an extent it's rife with bacteria and basically polluted, yet the environmentalists speak not.

There was a woman who walked across the southern border on foot and tried to board a plane to New York in Houston. The only reason they stopped her was because she was barefoot, still having the mud on her feet, and missing pages from her passport. She had 10,000 dollars in cash on her. She was found to have connections to al queda.

God bless Tom Tancredo, because someone does need to say this, especially someone who can get the message out (beyond the grassroots movement) like himself. It's something I've been saying for years (along with many others). Any terrorist and their grandmother could literally freely walk across our borders and drop a dirty nuke in virtually any major city they pleased.

The God-damned left can go to hell. F*cking pinko scum.

[Beowulf]

Since you all seem to insist on bringing up Ron Paul to bash him at every opportunity, did you all realize that Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo are good friends both in Congress and out of it? They also routinely work together for legislation.

Well, it's quite evident which of the two has entered the early stages of senility. I just can't take Ron Paul seriously.

As for Tancredo... the guy has a lot of the issues dead on in my book. The only thing I don't agree with (and this is major) is the threat to nuke Mecca and Medina in the event of another terrorist attack. That's just insanity.
And why not? These are the very people who want you, me, and every member of your family dead because we are all Americans. Kill them before they kill us!

[jayson]

And why not? These are the very people who want you, me, and every member of your family dead because we are all Americans. Kill them before they kill us!

In this case, I think a picture is worth a thousand words:

http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/7318/1190791653952xc5.jpg


If you think we are in a "holy war" now... just wait until we turn Mecca into a glass parking lot. You want the blood lust of 1,500,000,000 very angry, religiously motivated human beings? I don't. We have stepped on far too many toes in the Middle East as it is, but threatening to nuke Mecca! Please!

Even if it's only a threat that Tancredo is making, that is a HUGE trump card to hold, and not in a good way. If we did carry out the attack after another terrorist event, the aforementioned would occur. If we didn't? I could just see every despot and dictator in the world harping on America, the paper tiger who talks big and walks very very little.

[The_Elucidator]

We knew who Paul was. He wasn't discussed much since this is a conservative site and he is far from being a conservative. That's also the reason for some of the responses you receive. Just because Paul supporters tout him as a conservative does not make him so, and extremely few conservatives consider him to be one. As such, it would be unreasonable to go to a conservative web site, tout Paul as a conservative without expecting negative responses and then attempt to lecture conservatives that they aren't really conservatives, when it is actually the Paul supporters that are out of touch with mainstream conservative principles. One may argue those principles all day, but it's extremely obvious that the overwhelming majority of conservatives do not consider Paul's positions to be in concert with theirs. The only thing I would find at all unusual here is that a Paul supporter would attempt such a lecture, and actually not expect derision in response. That's ridiculous. If you simply wish to express support for Paul feel free. But if you want to lecture conservatives that they should be doing the same, then expect nasty responses. It is properly called an admonition. If that's a problem for you, then maybe you should post in a Ron Paul forum somewhere.

Very eloquently stated O wise one... :thumb:

[CONSERVATIVE HERO]

If you think we are in a "holy war" now... just wait until we turn Mecca into a glass parking lot. You want the blood lust of 1,500,000,000 very angry, religiously motivated human beings? I don't. We have stepped on far too many toes in the Middle East as it is, but threatening to nuke Mecca! Please!
Wtf? Did I click a link to DU's website?

Oh, wait, it's just another leftist troll masquerading as a conservative.

Newsflash sparky. They declared war on us, and they did it centuries ago, and have sustained their campaign against us (in one form or another) ever since. Whether we nuke mecca or not, they're still gonna try to kill us and take our sh*t, as they have for hundreds of years.

Your post is permeated with the stench of leftist cowardice. Here you are before us all, lubing your a-hole up and bending over as far as possible, hoping to build up good dhimmi points with the enemy. You know what? Their goal is still conquest! (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?t=52621) Despite your appeals to peace.

Judging from your comments today, it's pretty safe to say you'll be found cowering under the nearest big rock in 2050, wearing a burka with the rest of the "liberals."

I'm seriously sick of this sh*t. We have the most lethal fighting force on the face of the planet... and you assbags are groveling on your knees before goat-humping savages. Our military made an absolute mockery of islam's warriors! We went onto their turf and owned it within mere weeks, despite people like yourself saying it could never be done, daily citing Russia's failure in Afghanistan, and embellishing the deadliness of the iraqi elite republican guard. :rolleyes:

All islam has is threats, and those threats would be nothing if not, again, for people like you, weakening our defenses by declaring it racism, racial profiling, religious intolerance, and doing everything in your power to surrender in the hopes it will secure peace (when you're actually facilitating their infiltration and ultimate conquest instead).

Seriously, STFU! Just move there already and accept your dhimmitude with the rest of the invertebrates. Why postpone it? They are coming here regardless of how much you ideologically felate them (if anything, you're rolling out the red carpet for your future masters, with opinions that basically translate to islam as "we surrender").

I gotta run and make an errand. I'll try to swing by the store and pick you up a pair of F*CKING BALLS mate!

Screw mohammad! Piss be upon him!!

ISLAM BETTER REALIZE WHO THEY'RE MESSING WITH! (http://youtube.com/watch?v=FJXW7mWPmkc)

Because the policy of marxism in the west has not yet made sodomite cowards of us all!

(P.S. Props to MrSnuggleBunny, a great poster from a site I once frequented.)

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

<< whipsering >> Psst, CH. The second link requires a youtube loggin because of content, you may want to modify your post to say that, :thumb:

[The_Elucidator]

Wtf? Did I click a link to DU's website?

Oh, wait, it's just another leftist troll masquerading as a conservative.

Newsflash sparky. They declared war on us, and they did it centuries ago, and have sustained their campaign against us (in one form or another) ever since. Whether we nuke mecca or not, they're still gonna try to kill us and take our sh*t, as they have for hundreds of years.

Your post is permeated with the stench of leftist cowardice. Here you are before us all, lubing your a-hole up and bending over as far as possible, hoping to build up good dhimmi points with the enemy. You know what? Their goal is still conquest! (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?t=52621) Despite your appeals to peace.

Judging from your comments today, it's pretty safe to say you'll be found cowering under the nearest big rock in 2050, wearing a burka with the rest of the "liberals."

I'm seriously sick of this sh*t. We have the most lethal fighting force on the face of the planet... and you assbags are groveling on your knees before goat-humping savages. Our military made an absolute mockery of islam's warriors! We went onto their turf and owned it within mere weeks, despite people like yourself saying it could never be done, daily citing Russia's failure in Afghanistan, and embellishing the deadliness of the iraqi elite republican guard. :rolleyes:

All islam has is threats, and those threats would be nothing if not, again, for people like you, weakening our defenses by declaring it racism, racial profiling, religious intolerance, and doing everything in your power to surrender in the hopes it will secure peace (when you're actually facilitating their infiltration and ultimate conquest instead).

Seriously, STFU! Just move there already and accept your dhimmitude with the rest of the invertebrates. Why postpone it? They are coming here regardless of how much you ideologically felate them (if anything, you're rolling out the red carpet for your future masters, with opinions that basically translate to islam as "we surrender").

I gotta run and make an errand. I'll try to swing by the store and pick you up a pair of F*CKING BALLS mate!

Screw mohammad! Piss be upon him!!

ISLAM BETTER REALIZE WHO THEY'RE MESSING WITH! (http://youtube.com/watch?v=FJXW7mWPmkc)

Because the policy of marxism in the west has not yet made sodomite cowards of us all!

(P.S. Props to MrSnuggleBunny, a great poster from a site I once frequented.)

Spot on there CH.

Over the last few days I have been able to put these Ron Paul supporters into about 4 categories, some of them in multiple categories.

1. Anarchists

2. Anti-War hates America libs

3. Nazi's

4. Sick and tired of the spineless, nutless GOP and the overreaching 'Rats and is looking for some sort of alternative.

Out of these I have been able to catalog all three of our RP supporters here on the board.

Madbomber - 1,2,3

Jayson - 2

Garlic Guy - To which I have come to realize isn't really too bad a guy. I throw him into number 4.

----------

But back to CH's post. To answer your question about clicking on the DU website; my guess is that you would probable find Mb and jayson over there under some handle like screwthetroops or bushthechimp or some stupid crap like that.

What jayson fails to understand is that while Islam is said to be somewhere between 1.2 - 1.9 Billion strong, they are not going to stop until it is 6,6 Billion strong! If they have to kill a few million infidels to reach that goal, then so be it.

They are cowards and the stench of cowardice permeates each and every one of their threads. I also believe them to be libs masquerading as "conservatives" in order to troll this forum and try to cast doubt among conservative voters.

While I believe that gg is sincere, confused but sincere, I do not believe that Madbomber and jayson are sincere!!

[jayson]

Oh, wait, it's just another leftist troll masquerading as a conservative.

Nope. I'm masquerading as no one but my traditional conservative self.

Newsflash sparky. They declared war on us, and they did it centuries ago, and have sustained their campaign against us (in one form or another) ever since. Whether we nuke mecca or not, they're still gonna try to kill us and take our sh*t, as they have for hundreds of years.

A small radical contingent of the Muslim population is levying this "jihad" against us. They are the enemies, not the other 99% of them. You say we should nuke Mecca. Real smart. Assuming they somehow acquired nuclear explosives, what do you think our response would be to Syria nuking Jerusalem or Bethlehem? You're damn right we would be wanting to see heads roll, and in the thousands.

I can't think of any better way to radicalize a quarter of the world's population. Even if a fraction of those acted on their hatred, you would find nearly all of them would silently support and condone the radicals' actions.


I will leave you with this thought: You, rightfully and justly, condemn Ahmadinejad for his rants where he asserted that he would "wipe Israel off the map", yet you support and rally behind someone who says that we should nuke Mecca, Medina, and other holy sites of the Muslim religion? That's blatant, and very dangerous, hypocrisy.

[jayson]

Jayson - 2

It's precisely because I love America that I am so vocal about these issues. And how many times do I have to tell you? I'm not a liberal, I'm a traditional conservative. Just because I disagree with you, doesn't mean that I'm automatically a frothing-at-the-mouth hate-America Soros funded Air America fanboy liberal. Things just aren't that simple and life isn't so black and white.

To answer your question about clicking on the DU website; my guess is that you would probable find Mb and jayson over there under some handle like screwthetroops or bushthechimp or some stupid crap like that.

I don't know why I laughed at this... but I did. Probably it was the image of Bush acting like a chimp. But that's not really far off from reality anyway.

I also believe them to be libs masquerading as "conservatives" in order to troll this forum and try to cast doubt among conservative voters.

If those were really my plans, I wouldn't be attempting to cast doubt on the 30 or so active members here. That would be a waste of my time. No... I'm simply here to speak my piece and see the differences between how I used to think and how I now think.

While I believe that gg is sincere, confused but sincere, I do not believe that Madbomber and jayson are sincere!!

It's America... you are welcome to disbelieve whatever you would like to despite the fact that the truth is exactly the opposite of what you are suggesting.

[TeenageRepublican]

That's it, I'm calling Hillary, Ron, and Obama "Those I don't speak of" from now on.
I'm that tired of talking about them. Those who want to use my term, be my guest. ;)

[garlicguy]

It's America... you are welcome to disbelieve whatever you would like

Yup. For the moment, anyway...

:rush1:

[Timberwolf]

Nope. I'm masquerading as no one but my traditional conservative self.
Coulda fooled me...in fact, you did so magnificently.

A small radical contingent of the Muslim population is levying this "jihad" against us. They are the enemies, not the other 99% of them.
If you believe this, you have no clue what their "holy" book says. I'll let you in on a little secret, the 1% are the distraction...it's the other 99% who scare the hell outta me. Think about it.

You say we should nuke Mecca. Real smart. Assuming they somehow acquired nuclear explosives, what do you think our response would be to Syria nuking Jerusalem or Bethlehem? You're damn right we would be wanting to see heads roll, and in the thousands.
Not that you were referring to me (I know you weren't), but when I refer to "nuking" Tehran or Damascus, I mean it in the figurative sense as in "opening a big ol' can of whoopass on them". They've made their intentions quite clear...not sure I want to allow them to develop the ability to follow through on their promises (as they aren't threats).


Now then, let me ask YOU a question:"Do you believe for one nanosecond Iran or Syria will hesitate to nuke Jerusalem or a major US city IF they acquire nukes?"
It's a simple yes or no question.

I can't think of any better way to radicalize a quarter of the world's population. Even if a fraction of those acted on their hatred, you would find nearly all of them would silently support and condone the radicals' actions.



The qur'an dictates you and I MUST:A) Die,
ii) Convert to islame, or
3) Pay an oppressive tax for the "luxury" of living

Seems to me they are already kinda "radical".

I will leave you with this thought: You, rightfully and justly, condemn Ahmadinejad for his rants where he asserted that he would "wipe Israel off the map", yet you support and rally behind someone who says that we should nuke Mecca, Medina, and other holy sites of the Muslim religion? That's blatant, and very dangerous, hypocrisy.
Actually it's called "cutting him off at the knees" and doing so before he can make good on his promises.

Let me put it to you this way. You have a neighbor (muzzies) who keeps threatening to kill you and your family (US & Israel). The police (the UN) won't/can't get involved because your neighbor hasn't made any direct "physical moves" (direct attack by Iran) against you. You come home one day to find your beloved pet drawn and quartered and only circumstantial evidence your neighbor did it (9/11, USS Cole, Khobar Towers, insurgency perpetuated by Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad, etc...all done by peripheral groups, not Iran directly), but due to his behavior and certain things he says/does, you KNOW he's responsible...what are you gonna do? You gonna go get in his face and let him know he's a dead man if he doesn't drop it? Or are you gonna depend on the police to "protect" you?

[jayson]

"Do you believe for one nanosecond Iran or Syria will hesitate to nuke Jerusalem or a major US city IF they acquire nukes?" It's a simple yes or no question.

I do not think Iran or Syria would use nuclear bombs, or supply nuclear materials to terrorist groups, no. Speaking strictly about Iran at the moment, the Ayatollahs are the ones pulling the strings. Ayatollah Khomeini does not want to lose power and end up like Saddam. The stupidest thing he could do is use a nuke, or provide materials to a terrorist group, because if something did happen and a nuclear bomb was detonated on US soil, he better be damn well ready for the Iranian government and military to be dissolved while he swings from the gallows.

If he authorized the use against Israel? Well, that would be even stupider. The Israelis have 200-300 nuclear bombs, and many of those can be launched from out at sea submarines. Israel could be a smoldering ash tray and the Iranians could still be nuked. So when Ahmadinejad touts familiar "We will bury you!" rhetoric, it can't be believed. They know well and good Israel has the ability to launch nukes from sea, and they better be damn well prepared for becoming a glass parking lot.


The qur'an dictates you and I MUST: Die

True. But the Bible also states that we should kill all non-believers (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 KJV), but we don't act on those commands. I'm not a Bible scholar, nor do I pretend to be, but that previous passage spells pretty clearly our orders to carry out against secularists. I'm willing to bet that many Muslims, especially in more secular countries like Turkey, are just like Christians in that they see the Quran as a way to better their life, not to be followed word for word.

You gonna go get in his face and let him know he's a dead man if he doesn't drop it? Or are you gonna depend on the police to "protect" you?

I'll let him know that he won't live to regret any further actions against my home and family, yes... But I'm not going to set the entire block on fire.

[Timberwolf]

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Timberwolf http://www.freeconservatives.com/images/patriot/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?p=604427#post604427)
"Do you believe for one nanosecond Iran or Syria will hesitate to nuke Jerusalem or a major US city IF they acquire nukes?" It's a simple yes or no question.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
I do not think Iran or Syria would use nuclear bombs, or supply nuclear materials to terrorist groups, no. Speaking strictly about Iran at the moment, the Ayatollahs are the ones pulling the strings. Ayatollah Khomeini does not want to lose power and end up like Saddam. The stupidest thing he could do is use a nuke, or provide materials to a terrorist group, because if something did happen and a nuclear bomb was detonated on US soil, he better be damn well ready for the Iranian government and military to be dissolved while he swings from the gallows.
You don't understand the terrorist mindset...that is a very dangerous thing. They want us dead. Once they have the means, we are.

If he authorized the use against Israel? Well, that would be even stupider. The Israelis have 200-300 nuclear bombs, and many of those can be launched from out at sea submarines. Israel could be a smoldering ash tray and the Iranians could still be nuked. So when Ahmadinejad touts familiar "We will bury you!" rhetoric, it can't be believed. They know well and good Israel has the ability to launch nukes from sea, and they better be damn well prepared for becoming a glass parking lot.
What is it about "lunatic" do you NOT understand? Imonajihad thinks allah will protect the muzzies against Israel and "the Great Satan". He doesn't believe WE can prevail against islame. Get a farkin' clue, chuckles. :rolleyes:

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Timberwolf http://www.freeconservatives.com/images/patriot/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?p=604427#post604427)
The qur'an dictates you and I MUST: Die
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
True. But the Bible also states that we should kill all non-believers (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 KJV), but we don't act on those commands. I'm not a Bible scholar, nor do I pretend to be,
DUH!
but that previous passage spells pretty clearly our orders to carry out against secularists.
NO. That passage is for the Hebrews driving out those who occupy the lands God was GIVING THEM, back in the day. The Pentateuch is a HISTORY LESSON. Now, if that passage were from Daniel, Isaiah, Ezekiel, or one of the other Prophets, you might have a point.
I'm willing to bet that many Muslims, especially in more secular countries like Turkey, are just like Christians in that they see the Quran as a way to better their life, not to be followed word for word.
That is a dangerously ignorant worldview you've got there...READ the New Testament and READ the qur'an...get back to me afterwards.

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Timberwolf http://www.freeconservatives.com/images/patriot/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?p=604427#post604427)
You gonna go get in his face and let him know he's a dead man if he doesn't drop it? Or are you gonna depend on the police to "protect" you?
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
I'll let him know that he won't live to regret any further actions against my home and family, yes... But I'm not going to set the entire block on fire.
He IS the entire block!! That's the point. Good grief.

[jayson]

That is a dangerously ignorant worldview you've got there...READ the New Testament and READ the qur'an...get back to me afterwards.

My broader point was that there were many things in the Old Testament that we disregard now for any number of reasons, but the biggest one being a change of times. We may not like homosexuality, and many on these boards may not tolerate it, but we don't go around stoning homosexuals to death.

It's that whole Fundamentalist, anti-Fundamentalist argument. Saudi Arabia I would be more worried about than Iran, which is actually a fairly liberal country. Only since Ahmadinejad got "elected" have they seriously started cracking down on social liberties. College students hate the man and women, knowing what life is like from outside the Burqa, are not pleased about going back under one.

He IS the entire block!! That's the point. Good grief.

I don't understand your metaphor then. Judging from statistics if he were a radical Muslim, the block would technically have to contain 440 other residents to his one... assuming the "block" is just a metaphor for the world. So torching the whole block would kill and/or piss off 440 other citizens.

[TeenageRepublican]

The qur'an dictates you and I MUST:
A) Die,

ii) Convert to islame, or

3) Pay an oppressive tax for the "luxury" of living
Seems to me they are already kinda "radical".


I'm not debating you on this because I agree. But that oppresive tax thing was brand new to me. Do you have a verse or something for the qur'an? I would try to find it myself, but I don't have a spare copy of the qur'an in my house.:biggrin:

[Timberwolf]

Dhimmitude (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=dhimmitude&spell=1)

Take yer pick...

[Timberwolf]

Jayson, you come off as completely ignorant of things Biblical...as for the "pissing off the 440", THEY ARE ALREADY POd" and have wanted us dead since before Israel came into its modern incarnation in 1948. YOU are Israel, HE is the muzzies.

Map of the Middle East (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.baghdadmuseum.org/maps/me2003.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.baghdadmuseum.org/maps/map_middle_east_l.htm&h=2685&w=2973&sz=1014&tbnid=swgM-Yw51SLn6M:&tbnh=135&tbnw=150&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmap%2Bof%2Bthe%2Bmiddle%2Beast%26um%3 D1&start=3&sa=X&oi=images&ct=image&cd=3)

Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Kuwait, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Sudan, Ethiopia, Somalia, Djibouti, Azerbijian, Turkmenistan, UAE, Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, Pakistan, and Afghanistan comprise the muzzie world...now then, compare that to Israel and know that they ALL want Israel to "disappear".

Pretty big farkin' neighborhood...why do they even BOTHER with Israel? Don't bother to cite Jerusalem being one of their "holy cities" because that is a steaming pile of clinton. There IS NO reason to mess with Israel...none...unless you cite BIBLICAL reasons.

If you do so, you must come to the conclusion they are still POd about God making His covenant with ISAAC instead of Ishmael. There is no other reason.

[Maggie_T]

Back to the original issue of this thread :rolleyes: Tancredo's ad cleverly didn't even show the perp as an Arab. He covers himself all the time. He could be a white Timothy McVey for all that's shown to us.

Funny how the Drive-By Media immediately thought it necessary to defend the terrorist, though. :question:

[TeenageRepublican]

Back to the original issue of this thread :rolleyes: Tancredo's ad cleverly didn't even show the perp as an Arab. He covers himself all the time. He could be a white Timothy McVey for all that's shown to us.

Funny how the Drive-By Media immediately thought it necessary to defend the terrorist, though. :question:

I didn't notice that. He was wearing a hood the whole time. I didn't notice that. Good catch.
The Drive-By-Media wants us all to think that terrorists are generally good people, when the truth comes out, they panic and blame it on Bush. For once, part of this is Bush's fault. If he kept the borders closed and shipped off the illegals, this issue wouldn't even be discussed.

[CONSERVATIVE HERO]

I'm not debating you on this because I agree. But that oppresive tax thing was brand new to me. Do you have a verse or something for the qur'an? I would try to find it myself, but I don't have a spare copy of the qur'an in my house.:biggrin:
The dhimmitude is basically slavery. Your clueless (or lying) muslims today will try and blow sunshine up your ars, portraying dhimmitude as a blessing, even as preferable to that of your average muslim's status under sharia law. In reality though the dhimmi were(/are) treated horribly. They were viewed/treated as sub-human and it was nothing unusual for dhimmi to be publically humiliated or even brutalized (via being beaten for inability to pay their dhimmi tax for example). The dhimmi were prevented from teaching their own faith to any extent, even to their own children (they must be raised in islam), and prevented from building new churches (or even repairing old ones). The oppressive taxes and rules were meant to be so overwhelming, they compelled conversion to escape both the taxes and the social nightmare of living as a non-muslim in muslim lands, with the ultimate goal of such policies being the eventual eradication of non-muslim faiths from the lands and peoples muslims invaded and subjugated.

In some instances, dhimmi were actually prevented from converting, as a means of extortion. This would force them to pay the dhimmi tax for life.

To help place it into perspective just look at how they treat their own women (who are muslims). Now imagine how a dhimmi would be treated.

I didn't notice that. He was wearing a hood the whole time. I didn't notice that. Good catch. The Drive-By-Media wants us all to think that terrorists are generally good people, when the truth comes out, they panic and blame it on Bush. For once, part of this is Bush's fault. If he kept the borders closed and shipped off the illegals, this issue wouldn't even be discussed.
I believe the point he was making is that even though the left tells us that it's wrong to sterotype arabs or muslims as terrorists, they know they're full of crap, as they do it themselves. They tell us to pretend to not know things we all know to be true, to pretend that our threat from terrorism is not almost exclusively arab/islamic, yet inadvertantly acknowledge they know it to be truth themselves by jumping to their defense as the result of an add in which they've not even been specifically referenced.

[d'urville]

This was the only Tancredo thread I could find - his latest ad:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJNHIUrKqR8

"Consequences".....