Lunatic Fringe
Tags: tom tancredo, immigration, bush, conspiracy theories
Tom Tancredo is a barking moonbat. Lyndon Larouche, indeed. A windmill-chaser. “Serenaded” (heh) by Hot Air.
I’ll take that South Park snark and raise ‘em one. Tom Tancredo, you’re not just lunatic fringe, you are the Dumbass Chicken Lollipop of the Day.
I have zero patience or tolerance for paranoid nutcases and y’all know where I stand anyway, so that’s all I’ve got to say about that.
F.E.T.E.
Joseph says:
Beth, you’re in denial….Wake up and smell the superhighway and superport.
Beth says:
Joseph, denial is not my M.O. Seriously.
MikeT says:
Beth, I have not read Tancredo’s article, but I agree with him in principle that Bush’s people are working toward a North American Union. If you want a well-reasoned look at this, read this post at my blog. I think that there is a lot of evidence in Tancredo’s favor, not the least of which is that the system is following the European Union model.
Immigration aside, I know nothing about Tancredo, but on this issue, he’s no moonbat. And as I have said before, if you call yourself a “security hawk” and don’t support serious controls on immigration, you have shot your credentials in the head.
Jake Jacobsen says:
I see name calling and not much else, do you have a reason you disagree Beth?
Beth says:
Jake, I just don’t have much to say about paranoid shi’ite like that except to call it like I see it. But basically, Captain Ed, See Dubya (Junkyard Blog), and the others pretty much covered it. No need for me to repeat it.
MikeT, who said I don’t support controls on illegal immigration? I absolutely do. I just don’t support such serious departures from reality as is/was exhibited by Tancredo. Also, I believe a lot of people are being unrealistic about what is actually feasible as far as illegal immigration is concerned (i.e. deport ‘em all). Not to mention asinine, in many cases (i.e. Tancredo’s). People like him do more harm to the debate/the cause than good, as See Dubya said. Who needs open-borders types when you have people like Tancredo discrediting all the arguments made by people who aren’t farkin’ nuts or racist mouth-breathers with their “wetback” euphemisms? (Don’t say nobody’s saying that shi’ite, ’cause I’ve seen it countless times.)
MikeT says:
Beth,
1) Bush revealed that he has no intention of dealing with this by simultaneously pushing for amnesty and attacking the minutemen movement. Do you think they’re evil racists? Bush has openly called them vigilantes, and the only thing I think that has kept him back on that has been not wanting to overstep his acceptable boundaries with his base.
2) Illegal immigration is not hard to solve. Simply going after employers on a regular basis would cause a tidal of wave of emigration from the United States by illegal immigrants. When employers are faced with the very real threat of prosecution, the jobs will start to dry up. You don’t need to use police state tactics. I’d also suggest allowing the state governments to impose heavy penalties on the property rights of illegal immigrants.
3) I just read his article, and really don’t see much that can be called moonbatish about it. It may seem a little radical to you, but there are other efforts that dovetail quite nicely with the immigration issue to create a credible basis for believing that unionization is in progress.
Jake Jacobsen says:
With all due respect Beth here’s my problem. I’ve read every blog post you’ve referenced and several more all quite critical of Mr. Tancredo. Not one advances beyond the level of fourth grade name calling without providing any evidence or anything other than Tom’s a poopie-head.
With the sole exception of Mr. Hawkins older piece which still manages quite a bit of ad hominum invective and a far too trusting attitude toward those with a possible cui bono motive.
If that’s how you do business, K, pardon me if I’m unimpressed.
I’ve been watching the SPP stuff for about 14 months now. I’m not certain Mr. Tancredo’s correct in his assessment, I’m also not sure he’s wrong.
Do you have anything to base your assertion on other than it’s “paranoid shi’ite?” Or is that how you discharge your duties as a citizen journalist?
Or is there some part of this administrations sad record on border security that puts this idea beyond the pale?
And Beth? It wouldn’t hurt if you actually knew what Mr. Tancredo’s position vis-a-vis deportation and illegal immigration actually was. Your description doesn’t sound anything like what I’ve read which is, simply put, consistent enforcement coupled with denial of gub’mint cheese. Which part of that is crazy?
Look, this is what I cover, I don’t expect everybody to be up on it, but then again, it’s your country, maybe you should know this stuff before you opine?
All the best,
Jake
Beth says:
Obviously “due respect” means “no respect” in your book. All I see from YOU is a bunch of attacks. Did you even read what you just wrote?
Maybe you should know what YOU are talking about before you farking opine here. I’m not gonna re-hash the entire goddamned immigration issue in comments, or even in one post. Nor do I give a rat’s behind if you have been banging away on your keyboard about it for 14 YEARS; it doesn’t make you The Authority™. It simply means you care about the issue more than most people do. And frankly, I’ve seen enough from the hardcore/VDARE types to make an educated guess as to where you stand on it, and I’m betting you’re trotting all over the blogosphere sticking up for your boy Tancredo. Well, good for you. Just don’t expect everyone to agree with you. I’m not an extremist, and I will say that he is. Consistent enforcement and denial of “gub’mint cheese” is putting it rather simply, wouldn’t you say?
No, you just don’t like what you read because they don’t agree with you. Criticize Tancredo? OMG, that means they think he’s a poopie-head! Obviously they just don’t know The Truth and The Facts, right? (eyeroll)
And seriously, THIS administration? How about every previous administration as well? Or are you just one of those knee-jerk Bush-bashers who has no knowledge of history that precedes January 2001?
I’ve said it a farking million times. Bush-deranged wingnuts are worse than Bush-deranged leftards any day. I expect better from “our side.” Go hang out with the fanboys at Polipundit and other loony fever swamps like VDARE. I’m not going to sit here and be dictated to by someone a) with a blog I don’t read, b) who doesn’t come here except to tell me I’m uninformed because I don’t write about illegal immigration for 14 months (or care to), c) who doesn’t impress ME, and most of all, d) is gullible and paranoid enough to believe in “gub’mint” conspiracies.
With all DUE respect, of course. :roll:
Jake Jacobsen says:
Fair enough