Conservative Heritage Times

What? Here is the roll call.

Sort of vindicates us Paul supporters, doesn’t it?

| | | | | |

10 Comments »

10 Responses to “Tancredo Voted for the Bailout?”

1. Patroon on 29 Sep 2008 at 8:39 pm #

   Indeed, Tancredo is a tool. I’m glad he’s removing himself to oblivion.

   Still though, had Tancredo not such an ego trip, that was extra 2,000 votes or least a 1,000 RP could have picked up before the Iowa Straw Poll and would have propoelled him into third place and made him a legitimate candidate that fall of 2007. Instead he was the egg that wouldn’t hatch.

   Thanks for nothing Tom you stupid jerk.

2. Weaver on 29 Sep 2008 at 9:05 pm #

   Hunter voted “No” at least…

3. RedPhillips on 29 Sep 2008 at 9:46 pm #

   No one had to look to know how Paul voted.

4. ERIC on 29 Sep 2008 at 10:09 pm #

   Tancredo submitted anti-amnesty/anti-illegal immigration legislation into the bill and therefor voted for the bill.
   Another words he figured the bill would pass with or without his vote and he tried strengthening immigration CONTROL in the process.

5. ERIC on 29 Sep 2008 at 10:12 pm #

   http://www.numbersusa.com/content/news/september-24-2008/rep-tancredo-demands-safeguards-any-econ.html

6. fellist on 30 Sep 2008 at 1:06 am #

   I lost all respect for Tancredo as a man when he started talking about nuking Mecca. His being right on immigration, rather than defining him, is the anomaly. He’s wrong on almost everything else.

7. Weaver on 30 Sep 2008 at 3:59 am #

   Fellist,

   To his defense, his nuke Mecca idea was portrayed badly. I don’t approve of it, but it wasn’t as crazy as it first appeared.

   You’ve heard of the Cold War Mutually Assured Destruction that kept America and Russia from firing on each other? Tancredo’s plan was to develop a MAD that would prevent a terrorist from nuking us. The original MAD would nuke what’s important to an attacking state, and Tancredo’s MAD would nuke what’s important to an attacking terrorist. Theoretically, this would prevent attack.

   One of the problems with the plan is… were an enemy of, say, Iran to detonate a nuke in, say, Chicago, after planting evidence making the detonation appear Iranian, then America might nuke Iran in retaliation.

   Considering America’s tendency to overreact and the reality that no one wants to be blamed for setting off a nuke, this could put America in danger.

   —

   I dunno if Tancredo was attempting to appeal to his base or if he was truly a believer in said policy. It’s probably the most damaging suggestion he had early on in his campaign.

8. fellist on 30 Sep 2008 at 7:24 am #

   Weaver, do you doubt the ease with which he’d be manipulated in those circumstances? I’d rather have a guy there who wasn’t already sold on the need to destroy the “enemy”.

   Also consider the logic of his and your MAD from the pov of the Islamic world. Iran and the Arabs MUST aim to go nuclear if Americans are willing to nuke them when “someone” acts against the US. Yet when they pursue nuclear capability, they are threatened with nuclear attack!

9. roho on 30 Sep 2008 at 11:24 am #

   This concept of keeping soveriegn nations from ever having nukes is naive. (Hows that working with Pakistan?) About like keeping the American Indians from having guns?………And then once they have nukes, will we hold them to the same “Inspection Standards” as Israel?

   Terrorism is a result of poor immigration standards and a failed foreign policy. (We already have Mexican Nationals terrorizing America with drunk driving.)

   The real issue is “Can MAD work between Israel and Islam”?………and if not, stay a safe distance away.

10. Weaver on 01 Oct 2008 at 7:17 am #

    Fellist,

    Weaver, do you doubt the ease with which he’d be manipulated in those circumstances? I’d rather have a guy there who wasn’t already sold on the need to destroy the “enemy”.

    Yea, considering the number of foreigners and general diversity within America, it’d be a ticking bomb waiting to go off.

    Israel attacked the USS Liberty in the past trying to get us into war. It or another country could very well attempt the same in the future.

    America is lucky to have formed in an area without necessary war. It’s a shame she’s been to weak to resist joining in the Hell of others’ wars…

    Also consider the logic of his and your MAD from the pov of the Islamic world. Iran and the Arabs MUST aim to go nuclear if Americans are willing to nuke them when “someone” acts against the US. Yet when they pursue nuclear capability, they are threatened with nuclear attack!

    Yea, that’s similar to a very common argument made :p Iran didn’t want nukes until America bullied Iraq.

    —

    I tell you, it’s pure insanity how much some conservatives fear foreigners. I mean I fear foreigners – I want them out. But… I don’t trust the federal government as they do – they seem to believe 1. the federal government as it exists can be used for good (it’s all but evil as is) 2. the federal government is competent as is (it’s not…). This in addition to the negative effects serving in the military would have on the American citizenry (encouraging amalgamation, centralisation, loyalty to and trust of the state, higher taxes, immigration from state invaded by America, and mass propaganda while in service – essentially the America and South of old would nearly or fully disappear.)

    To put it bluntly: the federal government of the American empire today has interests nearly opposite those of the American people. As such, domestic affairs are presently far more important than any threat a foreign state could ever present. First Americans need to get their own house in order, then they can debate over whether world domination is a good or bad thing… (I’m inclined towards it being a bad thing of course, but I’m open to the minute possibility of intervention being necessary, again assuming domestic affairs are in order and America’s likely never will be…)

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply