''"Everything is at stake here. Everything. I firmly believe with all my heart, you guys, that, although we have had many threats to our nation. We have gone through a whole lot of things, and survived a many things... But nothing, I do not believe, not the Soviet Union during that 35-year period leading up to the fall of the Soviet Union thanks to Ronald Reagan... We had that threat, we survived it. Later we found out we had another threat to our way of life and that was al-Qaeda... But I firmly believe this... The greatest threat to the United States today, the greatest threat to our liberty, the greatest threat to the Constitution of the United States, the greatest threat to our way of life; everything we believe in. The greatest threat to the country that our founding fathers put together is the man that's sitting in the White House today."

http://www.greeleytribune.com/article/20100709/NEWS/100709676/1008&parentprofile=1001

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/senate-races/107815-former-rep-tancredo-obama-is-countrys-greatest-threat-

Wow, just wow...

::)

I would really like to know how he figures that out.



Cat

Wait... It gets better!

::)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7ceyrBw50Y&feature=related

Better way to deter terrorism than threaten to bomb mecca and medina? hmm? How about taking out a billboard in Times Square with the likeness of Mohammed in an unflattering position and calling every hard-line Islamic leader in the world a coward. Add in selling weapons to Iran and it might be close to even, but probably not quite.

You know who talks like that?  A has-been.  Nice knowing you Tommy T!  Remember, he retired from the house in '08.  Mike Coffman, another Republican, took the Colorado 6th in '09.  He's in about the same place Sarah Palin is minus the big bucks and high profile!
::)


It is distressing to me on a fundamentally human level to hear anyone suggesting the bombing of religious sites as a political tactic.  I know they do it in other parts of the world and we see the results.  Do we want to be that kind of country? 

On the other hand, we have the First Amendment.  Citizen Tancredo can suggest we bomb Mecca, but he can't file a bill to do it!

The scary part is the people nodding their heads without considering that Tancredo is advocating terrorist tactics, with us as the terrorists. 

Oh I do believe that O'bama is indeed dangerous in his position.  If he had his way, and if he were actually competent in using the Democratic majority in the Congress, he would have the government take over pretty much every aspect of personal life and business in the country.  The flagrant government "stimulus" spending that in fact has not worked, the misappropriation of lender's rights in the GM and Chrysler bankruptcies, the misappropriation of taxpayers' money in the GM and Chrysler investments (in which we will lose upwards of $50 billion), and his continued insistence to pour Federal monies at propping up State and Local governments that need to manage their own finances are all assaults on the country's well-being, whether they were done with good intentions or not.

But, fortunately, when it comes to leading the Democratic majority in Congress, the President has not been able to find his a$$ with both hands and so his danger has been considerably reduced.  He had two years to take advantage of that majority and for the most part has peed it all away. 

Come November that problem in the Congress will be eliminated and the abuse of powers that we've seen will come to a quick end.  Which is what we usually see when EITHER party gets a full majority and is perceived as having squandered it.  Took 5 years for that to happen to Bush and it is taking less than 2 to happen to O'bama.

Mind you... I support many of the things that Obama has done in terms of holding BP's feet to the fire, dealing with terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan, ditching McChrystal, and a considerable part (but not all) of the financial reform and consumer lending reform legislations.  And his outreach to talk "straight talk" about the duties of fathers is indeed inspirational. But his social spending agenda is nothing less than a run on the national treasury, personal initiatives and freedoms.

Point of thought... if Bill Clinton had O'bama's severe left-wing tendencies, he indeed could have inflicted untold damage on the country, because Clinton actually had the political savvy to manage the Congress to Git 'r' Done.  But O'bama's incapability to rein in his congress fortunately is limiting the speed with which he can inflict damage to the country on these issues.

Oh I do believe that O'bama is indeed dangerous in his position.  If he had his way, and if he were actually competent in using the Democratic majority in the Congress, he would have the government take over pretty much every aspect of personal life and business in the country.  The flagrant government "stimulus" spending that in fact has not worked, the misappropriation of lender's rights in the GM and Chrysler bankruptcies, the misappropriation of taxpayers' money in the GM and Chrysler investments (in which we will lose upwards of $50 billion), and his continued insistence to pour Federal monies at propping up State and Local governments that need to manage their own finances are all assaults on the country's well-being, whether they were done with good intentions or not.




Just what aspects of personal life has Obama tried to "take over"? (its the repubs who want to get into our bedrooms) ..."and business"?  but you said you support the finance regulations and consumer protection.

The stimulus?  It started as Bush's idea, as I recall, and where would we be now without it?  It was about the only thing Bush got right. 

Saving Chrysler and GM was certainly about jobs, but also has defense implications, like where else shout the military go for its hardware, should we buy our tanks from Japan, or Germany?

And I guess you would like to see the states and towns go belly up - no schools, fire dept's, police, no state colleges, no unemployment comp. etc.

A recipe for another great depression.

But as Max said, you are entitled to your opinion, no matter how loony.

Just what aspects of personal life has Obama tried to "take over"? (its the repubs who want to get into our bedrooms) ..."and business"?  but you said you support the finance regulations and consumer protection.

The stimulus?  It started as Bush's idea, as I recall, and where would we be now without it?  It was about the only thing Bush got right. 

Saving Chrysler and GM was certainly about jobs, but also has defense implications, like where else shout the military go for its hardware, should we buy our tanks from Japan, or Germany?

And I guess you would like to see the states and towns go belly up - no schools, fire dept's, police, no state colleges, no unemployment comp. etc.

A recipe for another great depression.

But as Max said, you are entitled to your opinion, no matter how loony.


Wasn;t the stimulus(Bush W's) a bipartisin stimulus with Nancy Pelosi? You know the 150 billion dollar one that was made in 2008.

I kind of agree with LyricBoy the Federal Government shoud not give  the states money although if the states had agreed to pay the money back to the federal government I wouldn;t have a problem with it. The only states that have a surplus right now are Montana and North Dakota. New York, Callifornia, Nevada, Illinois, and New Jersey all have alot of debt.

What gets me is the Dems in Congress  starting with Obama taking over in Jan 2009 as President are spending money they don;t have and they are spending currently in 1 year what Bush W. spent in 2 years.

The Financial Reform Bill is not a takeover of business!

Oh I do believe that O'bama is indeed dangerous in his position.  If he had his way, and if he were actually competent in using the Democratic majority in the Congress, he would have the government take over pretty much every aspect of personal life and business in the country.  The flagrant government "stimulus" spending that in fact has not worked, the misappropriation of lender's rights in the GM and Chrysler bankruptcies, the misappropriation of taxpayers' money in the GM and Chrysler investments (in which we will lose upwards of $50 billion), and his continued insistence to pour Federal monies at propping up State and Local governments that need to manage their own finances are all assaults on the country's well-being, whether they were done with good intentions or not.

But, fortunately, when it comes to leading the Democratic majority in Congress, the President has not been able to find his a$$ with both hands and so his danger has been considerably reduced.  He had two years to take advantage of that majority and for the most part has peed it all away. 

b]Come November that problem in the Congress will be eliminated and the abuse of powers that we've seen will come to a quick end.  Which is what we usually see when EITHER party gets a full majority and is perceived as having squandered it.  Took 5 years for that to happen to Bush and it is taking less than 2 to happen to O'bama.

Mind you... I support many of the things that Obama has done in terms of holding BP's feet to the fire, dealing with terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan, ditching McChrystal, and a considerable part (but not all) of the financial reform and consumer lending reform legislations.  And his outreach to talk "straight talk" about the duties of fathers is indeed inspirational. But his social spending agenda is nothing less than a run on the national treasury, personal initiatives and freedoms.Point of thought... if Bill Clinton had O'bama's severe left-wing tendencies, he indeed could have inflicted untold damage on the country, because Clinton actually had the political savvy to manage the Congress to Git 'r' Done.  But O'bama's incapability to rein in his congress fortunately is limiting the speed with which he can inflict damage to the country on these issues.
Um, LyricBoy the Dems plan on passing some of their left-wing agenda during the lame-duck session of congress after this years mid-term elections!

On Tancredo I think he is a little of a loose cannon!

Just what aspects of personal life has Obama tried to "take over"? (its the repubs who want to get into our bedrooms) ..."and business"?  but you said you support the finance regulations and consumer protection.

The stimulus?  It started as Bush's idea, as I recall, and where would we be now without it?  It was about the only thing Bush got right. 

Saving Chrysler and GM was certainly about jobs, but also has defense implications, like where else shout the military go for its hardware, should we buy our tanks from Japan, or Germany?

And I guess you would like to see the states and towns go belly up - no schools, fire dept's, police, no state colleges, no unemployment comp. etc.

A recipe for another great depression.

But as Max said, you are entitled to your opinion, no matter how loony.




The other thing I think LB overlooks is it was Obama who Wall Street was backing, not McCain. 

But maybe the financial institutions went with a Big Government candidate 'cos they were ready for some Big Government themselves!
:D

Just what aspects of personal life has Obama tried to "take over"? (its the repubs who want to get into our bedrooms) ..."and business"? 




The ones left untouched by the "Patriot Act"... which are.... ::)

See my replies in red...


Just what aspects of personal life has Obama tried to "take over"? (its the repubs who want to get into our bedrooms) ..."and business"?  but you said you support the finance regulations and consumer protection.Uhhh... forcing people to purchase health insurance?  Penalizing businesses who do not provide health insurance?  What's next, a mandate for Diet Pepsi in all business sort drink machines?

The stimulus?  It started as Bush's idea, as I recall, and where would we be now without it?  It was about the only thing Bush got right.  Bush did not propose a $700billion+ walking-around-money bonanza.  And yes, I objected to Bush handing money to the auto companies because by then it was clear they were headed to bankruptcy

Saving Chrysler and GM was certainly about jobs, but also has defense implications, like where else shout the military go for its hardware, should we buy our tanks from Japan, or Germany?Those companies would still be operating (under new ownership, the creditors) without a propup.  I should know.  In my industry, STEEL, 10 years ago 8 of the Top 10 steel companies faced bankruptcy and production continued and does continue to this day.

Oh and by the way, tanks, MRAPS, Humvee armor retrofits and the like are made by General Dynamics, A.M. General, and Oshkosh defense, none of whom are owned by the auto industry.


And I guess you would like to see the states and towns go belly up - no schools, fire dept's, police, no state colleges, no unemployment comp. etc. The local governments have the power to tax their own citizens and businesses, and they have the power to manage their own spending.  Why should they have to send their money to the Fed to get it back?  Ultimately the Federal Government would love to take over the responsibilities of local government in order to control even more aspects of everyday life and finance.

A recipe for another great depression. Read about the Depressions of 1920 and 1946 and how they were stopped.

But as Max said, you are entitled to your opinion, no matter how loony.
If not spending money that I do not have is "loony" then lock me up in a padded room.

Um, LyricBoy the Dems plan on passing some of their left-wing agenda during the lame-duck session of congress after this years mid-term elections!


Depends how successful they are (or are not) at overcoming the senate filibuster.