I guess I am too happy to spend my time frothing at the mouth like a rabid dog over things that don’t enrage me.

Before all the illegal immigration people get worked up, I could be talking about global warming, animal rights activists, or any other group of people that is so obsessed with an issue that they denigrate anyone who dares not to be obsessed with it as well.

The Canadian border is where terrorists are sneaking in…Buffalo anyone?

Mexico gets the attention…I wonder why?

Tancredoism anyone?

The 2% who backed him think the 98% who didn’t are crackpots…sounds like Ron Paul syndrome to me.

Respectfully,

eric aka the Tygrrrr Express

Your analysis is so out there I can only say did you miss your medication today?

Tom Tancredo is a great American and was one of the only conservatives that was running for President.

Tancredo never connected the dots as to why illegal immigration was a national security threat.

That comment is so insane all I can say is do you live on this planet?

I live in Southern California and have watched it turn into a third world country shit hole because of illegal immigration.

Where have you been hiding out?

Sadly, we will have to vote for the lesser of two evils again this election now that Tom Tancredo has dropped out.

Virtually every Tancredo supporter is on this message board. Outside of this message board, he is an asterisk. 98% of republicans liked somebody better than him.

In the same way global warming activists cannot understand why others do not share their passion, Tancredo never tried to expand his message beyond those that do not live and breathe the illegal immigration issue.

The Mexicans did not cause 9/11. Tancredo never connected the dots as to why illegal immigration was a national security threat.

He is gone, and will be as memorable as Morrie Taylor, Patricia Schroeder, and every other gadfly that confused loud support from few with popular support from many.

eric aka the Tygrrrr Express

meatpieandtatters said:

Push aside all the rhetorical whirl, shelve the starched shirts, listening to all these blowhard dolts makes my head hurt.

I like Ron Paul, he’s fairly easy to know.

Yeah, just ask Don Black.

Taylork #27: Ground floor of $20 oil

The President, not to be confused with Geena Davis, has proclaimed ethanol to be one of the king pins of American’s energy strategy. This is nothing but sand where Bush can put his head. Not too long ago Penn and Teller featured a hungry world on their cable T.V. show. We can only feed two thirds of the world while one third starves. So is using our valuable agriculture to grow gas using this resource to it’s highest purpose. I think not: that’s 69 million acres or 4.5 corn fields the size of Texas. Can you see how Bush’s guest worker program might fit in here.

One thing we do have a hell of a lot, and not eatable, is coal. The U.S. has more coal than any other country in the world. It’s a resource used in a process called Fisher-Tropfsch and produces gasoline or jet fuel (synthesize the “coal gas”/methane into liquid hydrocarbon fuels). The forward looking governor of Montana, Brian Schweitzer, thinks his state could environmentally safe produce total United States gasoline needs for the next forty years (proof not all our elected official are bought and paid for).

If we were to construct fifteen Fisher-Tropfsch fuel refineries 1,built on strategically located previously closed military bases, we could provide free medical, payed up social security retirement, and a free college education for those who so merit from the profits rendered by our National Energy Foundation. Screw capitalism and big oil, and provide the research and development revenues for the second silver bullet, $30 per barrel shale oil. That’s 1.3 trillion barrels of shale oil or about three times Saudi’s reserves2.

The Fisher-Tropfsch projects will cost in the thirty billion dollar range (Oh, wow! That’s six and a half months cost of the war in Iraq). And who has that kind of money other than big oil, whom I would never again put in a position of trust, is us, the people (the first law of the free market is not supply and demand but charge what the market will bear and that is as close to market price as you’ll ever get). So let’s not get screwed as is the tradition by capitalist. Let’s screw the capitalist, do this ourselves and out-source the corporations. The historic captains of capitalism knew to first gain an unfair advantage and then make that unfair advantage the law. Why do we not see big oil clambering to develop Fisher-Tropfsch fuel refineries. Because they have an unfair advantage and they have made it the law. You don’t believe that, try building a refinery in your back yard. You might think it belongs to a Kennedy.

(Reuters, Tehran, 8/28/06) “Iran has shrugged off the threat of sanctions, (because of continuing uranium enrichment) saying such a move would propel already high oil prices higher still, hurting economies in industrialized countries more than Iran”. What will it take for this do nothing Senate and block head President to act on the Fisher-Tropfsch Silver Bullet Solution (there is some hope for the House but it can not act alone…only the courts can).

1 These refineries would daily produce 375 million gallons of gas for various civilian needs, 54 million gallons of commercial jet fuel, 20 million gallons of military gas, and perhaps 16 million gallons of military jet fuel.

2 Can you now see why our Senate has been bought and paid for. The House has 435 members and somewhat more of a problem to buy but still many have so been acquired.

There, I said it. This post gave me the confidence to come out and call it for the record, been thinking it for about 6 months now. Anyway, this stuff is free so if I am wrong and you get…

I like Ron Paul, he’s fairly easy to know.

With Rep. Tom Tancredo out of the race, who is left to stand for the rule of law and strengthen our border security? Rep. Tancredo thinks it’s Mitt Romney but I respectfully disagree. I have concern for someone who’s positives on the issues……

This is why Tancredo’s move surprises and disappoints me. If you look at where Romney stands on immigration, it doesn’t seem to match up with where Tancredo stood. And given this article’s reference to Tancredo’s stellar ACU ratings, it doesn’t make sense that he’s endorsing a governor who mandated everyone in his state carry health insurance, among other big-government ideas.

Tancredo’s fallen victim to the “lesser of evils” syndrome. He thinks that Romney is the candidate who can win because the conventional wisdom is that the pro-amnesty Mike Huckabee and John McCain are gaining momentum at Romney’s expense and Tom’s endorsement is an attempt to combat that. But as far as the base of Tancredo voters goes, can they really support Mitt Romney when there’s much more conservative alternatives out there like Duncan Hunter or Fred Thompson? It’s the party regulars who vote in the primaries, and for the GOP those people probably see issues the way a Duncan Hunter or a Fred Thompson do, not necessarily how Mitt Romney does.

I look at it this way – while the GOP establishment here in Maryland backs Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani, the grassroot voters mainly look for candidates who are more conservative. My choice is Duncan Hunter, but others like Fred Thompson. Moreover, the media doesn’t cast a vote, we do. (Like most of them really want to help the Republican cause anyway.) And going against principle as Tancredo appears to be doing could negatively impact him in future races, something we’ll have to look for.

All I want from Tom Tancredo is a good reason.

Michael Swartz
http://www.monoblogue.us

You already know what Clinton/Obama’s response will be when Romney promises border security: what, so your landscaping company won’t have employees? So now you’re against sanctuary policies?

Romney’s wrong on my 3 top issues: immigration, 2nd amendment, and nanny-state policies.

For that matter, so are Huck, McCain and Rudy. Maybe Fred’s not the prettiest or most charismatic fellow, but he’s better for me than the rest.

If the choice is Huck/McCain/Romney/Giuliani, please tell me why I should vote for the GOP, or even vote in 2008? The GOP Congress has already showed us their commitment to conservative principles- short of a few senators and a small, dedicated caucus, the GOP is just Democrat-lite.

I just don’t see why Tancredo made this decision. Sacrificing the anchor of principle for a fair breeze candidate will mean nothing in a storm.

How could this be in such an affluent society?

It must be a right wing conspiracy… I blame Bush!