Tancredo moves within 4 points of Hickenlooper

[rightwinger]

Last Friday Tom Tancredo the 3rd party constitutional candidate and pro-legalization marijuana advocate was 8 points behind Hickenlooper. One week later (yesterday) Rasmussen is showing him at 4 points behind.

Tom Tancredo is gaining quickly--while Dan Maes is floundering at 12%. Hickenlooper numbers have not gone up--and it is showing a 2 or 3 point drop for Hickenlooper in the last week.

I hope most of you will join me (in crossing party lines) to vote for this advocate of legalising marijuana for governor of this state.

Poll: Tancredo within 4 points of Hickenlooper | percent, hickenlooper, tancredo - Top Stories - Colorado Springs Gazette, CO (http://www.gazette.com/articles/percent-106441-hickenlooper-tancredo.html)

[wkhey4]

My independent vote goes to Hickenlooper. The best all around candidate.
I stopped voting for single issue politicians yrs. ago. :jointsmile:

[FlyinPolynesian]

My independent vote goes to Hickenlooper. The best all around candidate.
I stopped voting for single issue politicians yrs. ago. :jointsmile:

Same here :thumbsup:

[HighPopalorum]

*cough cough rasmussen cough*

[TheReleafCenter]

Frightening. If Tancredo wins and Prop 19 passes in Cali, that might be it for me in Colorado.

[donniedorko]

Frightening. If Tancredo wins and Prop 19 passes in Cali, that might be it for me in Colorado.

Tancredo won't win. Doesn't have the money and machine required, plus there are a certain percentage of R's who will vote for Maes out of loyalty or because they don't like Tancredo. It may nnot be a huge percentage, but enough to split the vote.

Personally I'm guessing the "Tancredo surges" stories are overblown. I'll be surprised if he hits 40% in the final results, but we'll see. I'm sending my ballot this week.

[wkhey4]

Tommy T's greatest hits...

Tom Tancredo's Greatest Hits (VIDEO) (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/19/tom-tancredos-greatest-hi_1_n_768393.html)

[rightwinger]

Tommy T's greatest hits...

Tom Tancredo's Greatest Hits (VIDEO) (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/19/tom-tancredos-greatest-hi_1_n_768393.html)

TOM TANCREDO is now making National News--he was on Heraldo last Sunday and tonight will be on the O'reilly Factor (Fox news). If he wins this race it will be the biggest upset in this election cycle let alone this state.

Now--I know many of you are turned off on Tancredo--because of his hard line stance on illegal immigration in this state.

Our costs alone per year in Colorado for illegal immigration is 1.1 BILLION dollars and our deficit strangely enough is currently around 1.4 BILLION dollars.

Cost of Illegal Immigration in Colorado (http://www.articlesbase.com/immigration-articles/cost-of-illegal-immigration-in-colorado-681673.html)

Since we are a "balanced budget" state--and we have Tabor laws restricting state government from raising taxes--unless we vote for them--CUTS will be made to meet our budget. Education--Medicade--and other govenment services that provide to our legal citizens--is being taken up by illegals in this state.

So my final point is: If you don't mind sacrificing education--Medicade and other programs and paying out 1.1 BILLION dollars on average per year for illegals--then go ahead and vote for Hickenlooper. Because he's not going to do anything about it.

If it bothers you that you are paying 1.1 BILLION dollars on average per year for illegals--then you probably should vote for Tom Tancredo.

[Zedleppelin]

TOM TANCREDO is now making National News--he was on Heraldo last Sunday and tonight will be on the O'reilly Factor (Fox news). If he wins this race it will be the biggest upset in this election cycle let alone this state.

Now--I know many of you are turned off on Tancredo--because of his hard line stance on illegal immigration in this state.

Our costs alone per year in Colorado for illegal immigration is 1.1 BILLION dollars and our deficit strangely enough is currently around 1.4 BILLION dollars.

Cost of Illegal Immigration in Colorado (http://www.articlesbase.com/immigration-articles/cost-of-illegal-immigration-in-colorado-681673.html)

Since we are a "balanced budget" state--and we have Tabor laws restricting state government from raising taxes--unless we vote for them--CUTS will be made to meet our budget. Education--Medicade--and other govenment services that provide to our legal citizens--is being taken up by illegals in this state.

So my final point is: If you don't mind sacrificing education--Medicade and other programs and paying out 1.1 BILLION dollars on average per year for illegals--then go ahead and vote for Hickenlooper. Because he's not going to do anything about it.

If it bothers you that you are paying 1.1 BILLION dollars on average per year for illegals--then you probably should vote for Tom Tancredo.


Dammit man, you owe me a new keyboard. Your post caused me to burst into uncontrollable laughter with a mouthful of Dr Pepper.

:S2:
:S2:

[wkhey4]

Dammit man, you owe me a new keyboard. Your post caused me to burst into uncontrollable laughter with a mouthful of Dr Pepper.

:S2:
:S2:

Rightwinger would have us belief that he is for Tanwacko because of Tommy's stance on legalization when in fact he'd vote for him even if he came out against legalization. Sheep in wools clothing trying to advance the right wing's agenda.

[mustangwomyn]

TOM TANCREDO is now making National News--he was on Heraldo last Sunday and tonight will be on the O'reilly Factor (Fox news). If he wins this race it will be the biggest upset in this election cycle let alone this state.

Now--I know many of you are turned off on Tancredo--because of his hard line stance on illegal immigration in this state.

Our costs alone per year in Colorado for illegal immigration is 1.1 BILLION dollars and our deficit strangely enough is currently around 1.4 BILLION dollars.

Cost of Illegal Immigration in Colorado (http://www.articlesbase.com/immigration-articles/cost-of-illegal-immigration-in-colorado-681673.html)

Since we are a "balanced budget" state--and we have Tabor laws restricting state government from raising taxes--unless we vote for them--CUTS will be made to meet our budget. Education--Medicade--and other govenment services that provide to our legal citizens--is being taken up by illegals in this state.

So my final point is: If you don't mind sacrificing education--Medicade and other programs and paying out 1.1 BILLION dollars on average per year for illegals--then go ahead and vote for Hickenlooper. Because he's not going to do anything about it.

If it bothers you that you are paying 1.1 BILLION dollars on average per year for illegals--then you probably should vote for Tom Tancredo.

It has a hell of a lot more to with than Immigration, the guy is a nut case.

[donniedorko]

You say that about TABOR as if you're frustrated by its limitations, but as a right winger shouldn't that be a sacred cow for you?

I don't know much about FAIR so can't say whether or not their data is trustworthy. But generally when a group has a stated goal (in their case reducing immigration, legal or otherwise) I'm skeptical. I'll look around later and see if I can find something non-partisan. Right off the bat, though, I wonder if they gave the "illegals" credit for the taxes their generally do pay and never receive benefit from, such as Social Security.

With a name like rightwinger, I'm guessing this was posted in a moderate tone to try and win over moderates. Most wingers, after all, would probably want to do away with most of the services that immigrants might be a drain on.

[cologrower420]

It has a hell of a lot more to with than Immigration, the guy is a nut case.

Like anyone on the 'left' is any better.

It speaks to the larger issue of a two party system. Until enough people get pissed at partisan politics, no politician will make it 'easier' to elect someone who isn't a dem or repub. They are interested in keeping their jobs and their lobbying dollars, not the good of the people.

I'm independent but have never voted democrat, but I hope the repubs fail miserably here, and maybe with minority status they'll start to get the idea.

It's frustrating looking at the repubs dealing with the maes situation. The people voted for him, and now it's obvious he can't beat hick, so now the right is doing everything it can to get someone else on the ballot, see:tancredo. Obviously if voters wanted a different candidate they would have voted for them. To blatantly go against the wishes of voters is absurd to me, just like the prosecutors in cali and ericholder, who say they'll continue to arrest marijuana users even if prop19 passes.

But you should be hating all politicians, not just the right. Many on the left are responsible for the issues you face with regards to your healthcare, don't act like anyone is on 'our side' as patients.

[mustangwomyn]

Like anyone on the 'left' is any better.

It speaks to the larger issue of a two party system. Until enough people get pissed at partisan politics, no politician will make it 'easier' to elect someone who isn't a dem or repub. They are interested in keeping their jobs and their lobbying dollars, not the good of the people.

I'm independent but have never voted democrat, but I hope the repubs fail miserably here, and maybe with minority status they'll start to get the idea.

It's frustrating looking at the repubs dealing with the maes situation. The people voted for him, and now it's obvious he can't beat hick, so now the right is doing everything it can to get someone else on the ballot, see:tancredo. Obviously if voters wanted a different candidate they would have voted for them. To blatantly go against the wishes of voters is absurd to me, just like the prosecutors in cali and ericholder, who say they'll continue to arrest marijuana users even if prop19 passes.

But you should be hating all politicians, not just the right. Many on the left are responsible for the issues you face with regards to your healthcare, don't act like anyone is on 'our side' as patients.
:wtf4:

[ColoMtnRunner]

Tancredo will never legalize pot. He will most likely regulate it even more.

As far as immigration, I can't tell an illegal from a legal. They came here because life is better then where they were before. Nobody should be a criminal for that. Looks like a license to discriminate to me.

Dean - O

[senorx12562]

My independent vote goes to Hickenlooper. The best all around candidate.
I stopped voting for single issue politicians yrs. ago. :jointsmile:
I am definitely a single issue voter, and that issue is Liberty. Break it down any way you want, the more free we are, the better off we are, and the more government there is, the less free we are. Of course, with freedom comes responsibility, but that's the price, and a small price it is. I've voted for every libertarian available in every election for 30 years, and will do so until the day I die. Tancredo is a nativist and protectionist fool, although otherwise the best of the "major party" candidates, Maes is a moron, and Hickenlooper is a socialist. What's a thinking man to do? Whatever I can get away with that doesn't hurt anyone else. Don't tread on me.

[denverbear]

Vote Tancredo/Miller to keep Hick out


From Rocky Mountain Gun Owners PAC

Governor - Though we've remained silent in this topsy turvy race until now, RMGO PAC has no choice but to endorse Tom Tancredo/Pat Miller for Governor/Lt. Gov.

With Republican nominee Dan Maes polling in single digits, and frothing-at-the-mouth anti-gunner John Hickenlooper (he's a member of Mayors Against Illegal Guns) hoping to benefit from the split within the GOP, we can't remain silent on this close race. We're not averse to controversy.

Here's what pushed us over the edge: the very first person Dan Maes chose to put on his staff (a Lt. Governor is largely a staff/administrative position) was Tambor Williams, a certified liberal Republican who often voted against gun owners' interests in the legislature. If this is his first pick, we shudder at the thought of subsequent decisions.

Tom Tancredo, on the other hand, asked long-time RMGO member Pat Miller, a vocal advocate for gun rights, to serve as his Lt. Governor. Tancredo also tipped his hat to the kind of administration he'd put together by indicating he'd appoint gun rights hero State Senator Greg Brophy as head of the Department of Natural Resources (a position which hunters and shooters have a vested interest in).

This endorsement is not without it's misgivings. Tancredo did not have a spotless record on gun issues in the post-Columbine flurry of gun control.

Since those missteps, though, Tancredo has shown a tenacity that is rare in politicians, and, importantly, answered RMGO's candidate survey 100% pro-gun, without any caveats.

If you haven't voted yet, Rocky Mountain Gun Owners' PAC encourages you to vote for Tancredo for Governor.

Secretary of State - Scott Gessler has routinely stood against the stifling abuses of the Sec. of State's office, regardless of which party controlled it. And he's been an advocate for First Amendment rights, something vital in an agency which often seeks to control free speech. We encourage you to vote for Scott Gessler.

Judges - While RMGO is deeply involved in many legal issues, like the campus carry issue and our lawsuit against the U.S. Postal Service carry ban, tracking judges' voting records is a huge undertaking.

That's why we rely on www.CleartheBench.org. That organization is led by gun rights activist Matt Arnold, and we enthusiastically endorse their program. Check their website for judge information.

------------------------------------

From the National Association for Gun Rights Federal PAC

U.S. Senate - Ken Buck is an obvious choice. Joining with Sen. Jim DeMint, Ken Buck will make a nice addition to the team of pro-gun conservatives who won't play the normal games in Washington, D.C. Ken answered our survey 100%, and has taken a keen interest in gun rights during his career.

NAGR PAC gave Ken Buck's campaign the maximum allowable donation, and encourages you to vote for him for U.S. Senate.

Fourth Congressional District - Cory Gardner has routinely fought for gun owners' interests in the State Legislature, and can be expected to continue to do so when elected to Congress. In sharp contrast, Congresswoman Betsy Markey has cynically tried to appear pro-gun while still supporting gun control measures and opposing pro-gun reforms.

But Markey's big negative is that she's a supporter of the most anti-gun Speaker of the House in U.S. history, Nancy Pelosi. That alone should make gun owners shudder.

NAGR PAC gave Cory the maximum donation allowable by law.

Vote Cory Gardner for Congress if you live in the Fourth Congressional District.

[HighPopalorum]

Maes is a moron, and Hickenlooper is a socialist. What's a thinking man to do?

Given those options, the thinking man holds his nose and votes socialist. :twocents:

On issue after issue, the modern right lines up on the wrong side of civil liberty: torture, marriage equality, human migration, privacy, women's reproductive freedom, capital punishment, drug law reform, prisoners' rights... the list is endless. If the Reps were running a libertarian-leaning candidate, I would vote for him or her. They are not - the current slate of Tea Party "libertarians" are anything but lovers of liberty.

When the Republicans kick out the authoritarians and the Christian ideologues, I will return to the fold. Until then, this thinking man will vote for Democrats.

[boulderbud5525]

Given those options, the thinking man holds his nose and votes socialist. :twocents:

On issue after issue, the modern right lines up on the wrong side of civil liberty: torture, marriage equality, human migration, privacy, women's reproductive freedom, capital punishment, drug law reform, prisoners' rights... the list is endless. If the Reps were running a libertarian-leaning candidate, I would vote for him or her. They are not - the current slate of Tea Party "libertarians" are anything but lovers of liberty.

When the Republicans kick out the authoritarians and the Christian ideologues, I will return to the fold. Until then, this thinking man will vote for Democrats.
well said! :thumbsup:

[bikeTripper]

the current slate of Tea Party "libertarians" are anything but lovers of liberty.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

As I have mentioned elsewhere, these right wing RepubLibertarianicans are not interested in civil liberties. They will mouth the hands off economics of Libertarians, because they do not want to be regulated or taxed, but real Liberty scares them. It's way too hard to control free people.

[wkhey4]

Given those options, the thinking man holds his nose and votes socialist. :twocents:

On issue after issue, the modern right lines up on the wrong side of civil liberty: torture, marriage equality, human migration, privacy, women's reproductive freedom, capital punishment, drug law reform, prisoners' rights... the list is endless. If the Reps were running a libertarian-leaning candidate, I would vote for him or her. They are not - the current slate of Tea Party "libertarians" are anything but lovers of liberty.

When the Republicans kick out the authoritarians and the Christian ideologues, I will return to the fold. Until then, this thinking man will vote for Democrats.

I second your emotions. Well said !:thumbsup:

[senorx12562]

Given those options, the thinking man holds his nose and votes socialist. :twocents:

On issue after issue, the modern right lines up on the wrong side of civil liberty: torture, marriage equality, human migration, privacy, women's reproductive freedom, capital punishment, drug law reform, prisoners' rights... the list is endless. If the Reps were running a libertarian-leaning candidate, I would vote for him or her. They are not - the current slate of Tea Party "libertarians" are anything but lovers of liberty.

When the Republicans kick out the authoritarians and the Christian ideologues, I will return to the fold. Until then, this thinking man will vote for Democrats.
My point was that one must vote one's conscience, and since I cannot vote for any of the above in good conscience, libertarian it is.

[wkhey4]

My point was that one must vote one's conscience, and since I cannot vote for any of the above in good conscience, libertarian it is.

Make a statement and waste a vote. Sad.

[donniedorko]

Um, Hickenlooper is bad because he's in a group called Mayors Against Illegal Guns? Isn't everyone against illegal guns? I'm pro-gun, but I think most sane people recognize there need to be people who don't have them. It's surprising to me to find anyone who is pro-illegal gun.

[mustangwomyn]

Um, Hickenlooper is bad because he's in a group called Mayors Against Illegal Guns? Isn't everyone against illegal guns? I'm pro-gun, but I think most sane people recognize there need to be people who don't have them. It's surprising to me to find anyone who is pro-illegal gun.

Excellent Point, yes the illegal guns are the problem

[Zedleppelin]

All illegal guns were legal at one point. :twocents:

[ds0110]

Id like to add that all illegal drugs were legal at one point as well. And gun laws only effect law abiding citizens, while having ZERO effect on criminals (who dont care about the laws). Prohibition does not work. not even on guns.

Socialism is not american.

Authoriatarians are present in both democrat and republican parties. Religeon is just a diversion issue used to split the people and really does not matter.

A law maker is a right taker.

[donniedorko]

Id like to add that all illegal drugs were legal at one point as well. And gun laws only effect law abiding citizens, while having ZERO effect on criminals (who dont care about the laws). Prohibition does not work. not even on guns.

Socialism is not american.

Authoriatarians are present in both democrat and republican parties. Religeon is just a diversion issue used to split the people and really does not matter.

A law maker is a right taker.

That's kind of looney tunes. The whole "gubmint is evil" thing just isn't true in many cases. Laws provide the basis for our rights oftentimes. If we had no government or laws it would be every man for himself, whoever has the strength has the right. Not a world I'd like to live in.

The limitations of libertarian philosophy become readily apparent when you look at things like civil rights and the ADA (as Rand Paul found out).

No one's talking about socialism. The whole socialism thing is a giant scare tactic. There is exactly one socialist in American government with any sort of power (Bernie Sanders, VT senator). And he generally gets ignored and ends up caucusing with/voting with the Dems, who are largely a party of the center left.

Sorry, I don't buy that all guns should be legal all the time. No one needs an RPG launcher or a machine gun nest. Especially not anyone who is a lunatic with a history of mental health problems.

I do agree with you on religion though. Which is why I haven't voted with Republicans for ~2 decades, since they were taken over by the Bible beaters.

[ds0110]

That's kind of looney tunes. The whole "gubmint is evil" thing just isn't true in many cases. Laws provide the basis for our rights oftentimes. If we had no government or laws it would be every man for himself, whoever has the strength has the right. Not a world I'd like to live in.

No one's talking about socialism. The whole socialism thing is a giant scare tactic. There is exactly one socialist in American government with any sort of power (Bernie Sanders, VT senator). And he generally gets ignored and ends up caucusing with/voting with the Dems, who are largely a party of the center left.

Sorry, I don't buy that all guns should be legal all the time. No one needs an RPG launcher or a machine gun nest. Especially not anyone who is a lunatic with a history of mental health problems.

I do agree with you on religion though. Which is why I haven't voted with Republicans for ~2 decades, since they were taken over by the Bible beaters.

100 years ago it was not "every man for himself" or whatever thunderdome scenario you were imagining. Life went on without so much govt in peoples lives. Economy flourished, people were fine. Civil rights was going to happen regardless of what economic policies we adopted. We do not need all these unnecessary laws regulating our everyday life so that a politician or LEO can keep a job they shouldnt have in the first place.

Its our right as americans to own these things. Especially if we ship 50$ billion of them to pakistan, saudi arabia, (EACH - this week) and elsewhere around the world we are one of the biggest arms exporters. If the other countries can have them, so should we. Americans should be able to buy everything foreign armies can buy, plus more...not the other way around.

The situation of our military sending arms that are prohibited to US citizens, to foreign countries that later on illegally resale them to US citizens at a huge markup...is wrong. That major source of funding for foreign organized crime is only present bc of current gun laws.

It doesnt matter what you think people need or dont need. Thats freedom. If you dont want to buy something, then dont, but dont try to tell other people what they have the right to buy, its not going to stop anyone from buying what they want, when the supply is clearly never going away. Guns are here to stay. Forget legislating them out of existence, that wont happen. This includes all "illegal" guns. Someone will profit. The question is do you want the mexican/russian cartels to profit from it, or an american in a gunstore? One will sell to felons, one wont.

And to your RPG concern...the cost would be prohibitive, much like if you want to buy a .50 cal sniper rifle today youre going to pay as much as you would for some cars new, then $10+ per shot.

Again, regardless of the laws, if I want a fully auto ak or m16, or even hand grenades or suppressors....Its not hard at all for me to buy them...and it doesnt come from a gun show/store or private purchase where there are checks to see if im a felon. It comes from a "guy" just like any illegal drug would. That stuff is actually easier for me to buy than it is to get a semi-auto .22 from a "legit" channel such as a gun show. (no bg check, no ffl, no fingerprint records, dont even give him a license) So the gun laws didnt make it harder for me to buy "illegal" weapons, they made it easier. (bc now theres big profit in learning basic gunsmithing or importing foreign military surplus) The laws provide a new way for criminals to make money.

The socialists in govt. know its not the right thing to do, and that socialism is not popular. This does not stop them from passing socialist policies to benefit their foreign lobby (bribery) interests while they hide behind their democrat or republican title. Corruption is what happens when you have big govt.


The limitations of libertarian philosophy become readily apparent when you look at things like civil rights and the ADA (as Rand Paul found out).

No they dont. The American Dental Association?? You can have both civil rights and libertarian policies. One does not somehow cancel the other.

[bikeTripper]

The American Dental Association??

Uh, I'm pretty sure he means the Americans with Disabilities Act (http://www.ada.gov/), which Rand Paul has said he would abolish, as he does not believe government should have the power to regulate such things.

[Zedleppelin]

100 years ago it was not "every man for himself" or whatever thunderdome scenario you were imagining. Life went on without so much govt in peoples lives. Economy flourished, people were fine. Civil rights was going to happen regardless of what economic policies we adopted. We do not need all these unnecessary laws regulating our everyday life so that a politician or LEO can keep a job they shouldnt have in the first place.

Its our right as americans to own these things. Especially if we ship 50$ billion of them to pakistan, saudi arabia, (EACH - this week) and elsewhere around the world we are one of the biggest arms exporters. If the other countries can have them, so should we. Americans should be able to buy everything foreign armies can buy, plus more...not the other way around.

The situation of our military sending arms that are prohibited to US citizens, to foreign countries that later on illegally resale them to US citizens at a huge markup...is wrong. That major source of funding for foreign organized crime is only present bc of current gun laws.

It doesnt matter what you think people need or dont need. Thats freedom. If you dont want to buy something, then dont, but dont try to tell other people what they have the right to buy, its not going to stop anyone from buying what they want, when the supply is clearly never going away. Guns are here to stay. Forget legislating them out of existence, that wont happen. This includes all "illegal" guns. Someone will profit. The question is do you want the mexican/russian cartels to profit from it, or an american in a gunstore? One will sell to felons, one wont.

And to your RPG concern...the cost would be prohibitive, much like if you want to buy a .50 cal sniper rifle today youre going to pay as much as you would for some cars new, then $10+ per shot.

Again, regardless of the laws, if I want a fully auto ak or m16, or even hand grenades or suppressors....Its not hard at all for me to buy them...and it doesnt come from a gun show/store or private purchase where there are checks to see if im a felon. It comes from a "guy" just like any illegal drug would. That stuff is actually easier for me to buy than it is to get a semi-auto .22 from a "legit" channel such as a gun show. (no bg check, no ffl, no fingerprint records, dont even give him a license) So the gun laws didnt make it harder for me to buy "illegal" weapons, they made it easier. (bc now theres big profit in learning basic gunsmithing or importing foreign military surplus) The laws provide a new way for criminals to make money.

The socialists in govt. know its not the right thing to do, and that socialism is not popular. This does not stop them from passing socialist policies to benefit their foreign lobby (bribery) interests while they hide behind their democrat or republican title. Corruption is what happens when you have big govt.





So you think everyone should have rocket launchers?

[senorx12562]

100 years ago it was not "every man for himself" or whatever thunderdome scenario you were imagining. Life went on without so much govt in peoples lives. Economy flourished, people were fine. Civil rights was going to happen regardless of what economic policies we adopted. We do not need all these unnecessary laws regulating our everyday life so that a politician or LEO can keep a job they shouldnt have in the first place.

Its our right as americans to own these things. Especially if we ship 50$ billion of them to pakistan, saudi arabia, (EACH - this week) and elsewhere around the world we are one of the biggest arms exporters. If the other countries can have them, so should we. Americans should be able to buy everything foreign armies can buy, plus more...not the other way around.

The situation of our military sending arms that are prohibited to US citizens, to foreign countries that later on illegally resale them to US citizens at a huge markup...is wrong. That major source of funding for foreign organized crime is only present bc of current gun laws.

It doesnt matter what you think people need or dont need. Thats freedom. If you dont want to buy something, then dont, but dont try to tell other people what they have the right to buy, its not going to stop anyone from buying what they want, when the supply is clearly never going away. Guns are here to stay. Forget legislating them out of existence, that wont happen. This includes all "illegal" guns. Someone will profit. The question is do you want the mexican/russian cartels to profit from it, or an american in a gunstore? One will sell to felons, one wont.

And to your RPG concern...the cost would be prohibitive, much like if you want to buy a .50 cal sniper rifle today youre going to pay as much as you would for some cars new, then $10+ per shot.

Again, regardless of the laws, if I want a fully auto ak or m16, or even hand grenades or suppressors....Its not hard at all for me to buy them...and it doesnt come from a gun show/store or private purchase where there are checks to see if im a felon. It comes from a "guy" just like any illegal drug would. That stuff is actually easier for me to buy than it is to get a semi-auto .22 from a "legit" channel such as a gun show. (no bg check, no ffl, no fingerprint records, dont even give him a license) So the gun laws didnt make it harder for me to buy "illegal" weapons, they made it easier. (bc now theres big profit in learning basic gunsmithing or importing foreign military surplus) The laws provide a new way for criminals to make money.

The socialists in govt. know its not the right thing to do, and that socialism is not popular. This does not stop them from passing socialist policies to benefit their foreign lobby (bribery) interests while they hide behind their democrat or republican title. Corruption is what happens when you have big govt.



No they dont. The American Dental Association?? You can have both civil rights and libertarian policies. One does not somehow cancel the other.
They're not going to listen to you. It's like casting pearls before swine. And the sad part is that they are convinced that they are mainstream and we are extremists. The worm will turn, as it always does.

[donniedorko]

They're not going to listen to you. It's like casting pearls before swine. And the sad part is that they are convinced that they are mainstream and we are extremists. The worm will turn, as it always does.

You ARE extremists, sorry. To think that citizens should be able to buy military grade arms is nuts. We have enough problems as it is now.

I mean, yeah, sure if Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have them we should too! They also have public hangings, no rights for women, and forced religion. Woohoo! Let's do that here too. And any guesses as to what the penalty for weed is in Saudi?

Yes, I was referring to the Americans with Disabilities Act. And no, civil rights were not "going to happen anyway." Maybe in another couple hundred years. But there was absolutely nothing short of the power of the federal government that could have forced the Southern states to give voting rights to their minority citizens. Indeed, the whole idea of protecting the minority from the majority is the downfall of libertarian philosophy. There's just nothing that will make those changes happen in the fairytale world libertarians inhabit, and when asked about it, their response is to spout platitudes about how things would change eventually, when anyone familiar with American history (or indeed world history) knows that isn't true.

[ds0110]

You ARE extremists, sorry. To think that citizens should be able to buy military grade arms is nuts. We have enough problems as it is now.

I mean, yeah, sure if Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have them we should too! They also have public hangings, no rights for women, and forced religion. Woohoo! Let's do that here too. And any guesses as to what the penalty for weed is in Saudi?

Yes, I was referring to the Americans with Disabilities Act. And no, civil rights were not "going to happen anyway." Maybe in another couple hundred years. But there was absolutely nothing short of the power of the federal government that could have forced the Southern states to give voting rights to their minority citizens. Indeed, the whole idea of protecting the minority from the majority is the downfall of libertarian philosophy. There's just nothing that will make those changes happen in the fairytale world libertarians inhabit, and when asked about it, their response is to spout platitudes about how things would change eventually, when anyone familiar with American history (or indeed world history) knows that isn't true.

So you DO admit civil rights was going to happen anyway...

You were lied to. To think the war of northern aggression was only or even mostly about slavery is ignorance. Tell me what is more important: What the rules are, or who makes the rules?? Cheap labor was not a nation-breaking issue. The bigger issue was over who makes the rules...the federal govt, or the states. The question of if there would be 50 seats of power or 1. If the south wins, then every state CONTINUES to vote on its own issues....if the north wins, Washington DC makes all the rules. Of course, the winner writes the history books... Many minority groups were fighting for the south on their own free will bc their southern state was going to indentured servitude (work off a plot of land/house) or total freedom.

The right people in office is all it takes to make libertarian changes. Nothing about that is impossible or fairytale. People in power wanting to keep power is all that stops it. The fairytale world is the world where people think the democrat and republican parties are actually different political parties.

Your "point" about saudi arabia/pakistan is just redirecting the subject. They have totally different histories than us and are NOT granted the same rights we are. They didnt have a revolution for these rights like we did. Apples and oranges. "Illegal" weapons are just as, if not more available now than they would be if they were legal. (just as weed was/is) Its not a question of "so should we......?"...that time has passed. we already do have "illegal" weapons, everywhere.

Yeah, if we make/export any technology or product, that is now widely available worldwide, we should have the right to buy it. Its available anyway. Pakistan has them, Saudi Arabia has them, Russia has them....mexico, everyone has all the weapons they want to buy...including us. What you are scared of (widespread availability of weapons) is already here. Criminals can buy weapons that you cant. You cant legislate weapons out of existence. Your crime prevention didnt work. Americans can already buy whatever weapon you can possibly imagine from foreign organized crime, here, now, today. Your gun laws arent stopping anything. Anyone that wants an rpg today can buy one from ivan or pedro if you have the money. same thing with fully auto anything, armor piercing whatever. C4 and all kinds of bombs included. Prohibition does not work. Not even on guns. It should be legal and commonly available but with checks (ID, background) Whats safer, checks or no checks? There will be no checks as long as its illegal. Im not saying rpgs should be issued to every household.

To think the military should be afforded rights above the average citizen is nuts. They serve and protect us. They are from us. We have the power. Not them. Whatever power they have is because we give it to them. They work for us. Public servants for our society. Much like how politics are supposed to be. Not the other way around. There is no such thing as "military" grade, only american grade. With gun control you should just rename it to "criminal" grade.

We will continue to have even bigger problems if we let our rampant govt. disarm or outgun us. (which some argue has already happened and the peoples lack of control of their govt is cause for many of these current problems)

This is a thread about tancredo though, so I apoligize for the semi off topic rants.......it IS like casting pearls before swine...lol

[donniedorko]

Wow. Just wow.

I'm not the one who brought up Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, so don't try telling me I'm comparing apples to oranges.

I mean, we sell nuclear tech to the rest of the world so I guess everyone should be entitled to that too. That should be a fun country to live in.

Anyway, yeah, this is getting off topic, since it's about Tancredo the loon. But clearly it's not worth arguing with anyone who is so far off in never never land that he doesn't even have a basic grasp of American history.

[senorx12562]

You ARE extremists, sorry. To think that citizens should be able to buy military grade arms is nuts. We have enough problems as it is now.

I mean, yeah, sure if Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have them we should too! They also have public hangings, no rights for women, and forced religion. Woohoo! Let's do that here too. And any guesses as to what the penalty for weed is in Saudi?

Yes, I was referring to the Americans with Disabilities Act. And no, civil rights were not "going to happen anyway." Maybe in another couple hundred years. But there was absolutely nothing short of the power of the federal government that could have forced the Southern states to give voting rights to their minority citizens. Indeed, the whole idea of protecting the minority from the majority is the downfall of libertarian philosophy. There's just nothing that will make those changes happen in the fairytale world libertarians inhabit, and when asked about it, their response is to spout platitudes about how things would change eventually, when anyone familiar with American history (or indeed world history) knows that isn't true.
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice." -Barry Goldwater

[senorx12562]

Make a statement and waste a vote. Sad.
I love it when someone says I'm wasting my vote. That is invariably code for "your vote was cast for someone of whom I do not approve."

[senorx12562]

Wow. Just wow.

I'm not the one who brought up Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, so don't try telling me I'm comparing apples to oranges.

I mean, we sell nuclear tech to the rest of the world so I guess everyone should be entitled to that too. That should be a fun country to live in.

Anyway, yeah, this is getting off topic, since it's about Tancredo the loon. But clearly it's not worth arguing with anyone who is so far off in never never land that he doesn't even have a basic grasp of American history.
Actually if you had even a "...basic grasp of American history" you would know that the Second Amendment was designed to preserve to the citizens of the various states the ability to defend themselves AGAINST the forces of the Federal government, so whatever agents of the Federal government have at their disposal to use against its citizens, we should have at least that.

[HighPopalorum]

so whatever agents of the Federal government have at their disposal to use against its citizens, we should have at least that.

You're making the rest of us look bad...

I'm as strong a 2A defender as anyone, but not when it comes to explosive munitions, artillery and even some very large-caliber automatic weapons. I believe we can certainly maintain a well-armed militia without private ownership of these things or of other advanced weapon systems like missiles, drones and aircraft-based weapons platforms. The answer is not to arm ourselves with "at least" as much firepower as the federal government, but to systematically disarm our government (literally as well as through legislation circumscribing activities) so that it no longer poses a threat to our people. A good start would be downsizing the military, ending the practice of state executions, enshrining electronic privacy in the Const, prohibiting torture of U.S. citizens (if not everyone), and continued judicial action to strike down onerous state and city gun control initiatives. Your suggestion that Americans arm themselves as we arm our government is foolish.

[wkhey4]

I love it when someone says I'm wasting my vote. That is invariably code for "your vote was cast for someone of whom I do not approve."

Ask GWB how much he loves Ralph Nader.
Because of those wasted votes we got GWB and the beginning of the end as we knew it in this country. ;)

[senorx12562]

You're making the rest of us look bad...

I'm as strong a 2A defender as anyone, but not when it comes to explosive munitions, artillery and even some very large-caliber automatic weapons. I believe we can certainly maintain a well-armed militia without private ownership of these things or of other advanced weapon systems like missiles, drones and aircraft-based weapons platforms. The answer is not to arm ourselves with "at least" as much firepower as the federal government, but to systematically disarm our government (literally as well as through legislation circumscribing activities) so that it no longer poses a threat to our people. A good start would be downsizing the military, ending the practice of state executions, enshrining electronic privacy in the Const, prohibiting torture of U.S. citizens (if not everyone), and continued judicial action to strike down onerous state and city gun control initiatives. Your suggestion that Americans arm themselves as we arm our government is foolish.
How has that systematic disarmament of the government been working for you? Seen any FBI or DEA agents forswear the use of full-autos lately? Think that's likely? Ask Randy Weaver. You are at least as naive as I am foolish.

[senorx12562]

Ask GWB how much he loves Ralph Nader.
Because of those wasted votes we got GWB and the beginning of the end as we knew it in this country. ;)
I assure you that if I were to stop voting libertarian (which ain't gonna happen at this late date), there is absolutely no possibility that my vote would EVER be cast in favor of anyone that you would ever vote for, so it is in your best interests for me and most like me to continue "wasting" our votes in such a principled fashion.

[HighPopalorum]

Make a statement and waste a vote. Sad.

He's voting libertarian. Otherwise he would (I assume) be voting for Tancredo and Buck. It isn't a vote wasted, but a vote gained by Bennet and Hick. He's absolutely correct when he says it's in our best interest.

[bikeTripper]

YouTube - REGULATION VACATION CELEBRATION! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QDv4sYwjO0)

[senorx12562]

He's voting libertarian. Otherwise he would (I assume) be voting for Tancredo and Buck. It isn't a vote wasted, but a vote gained by Bennet and Hick. He's absolutely correct when he says it's in our best interest.
Your assumption is correct, I think, although I don't know if I could hold my nose tight enough to vote for either, but especially Buck. Aside from the obvious authoritarian streak present in most current Republicans, I cannot see myself voting for ex-D.A./ Law enforcement. I don't believe, however, that it is at all obvious that a libertarian would vote Republican if forced to choose between the "major parties." If Republicans were actually in favor of smaller govt., maybe, but they aren't. I think the last one was Goldwater, at least on a national level. And if the Democrats were actually concerned about civil liberties, maybe, but they aren't. I firmly believe that the greatest threat to our liberty is the government itself. It has all the power no matter what party is in control (and the firepower, whether you believe it or not. I'd trust most of my neighbors with any weapon more than most govt. employees I've dealt with.) The bottom line on politics in the U.S., at least for me, is that there is, on any issue of importance to me, so little difference between the Dem and the Rep candidate as to be meaningless. I was so fed up this year that I refused to vote unless there was a libertarian candidate for a particular office, voted against the retention of every judge on the ballot, and only voted for the ballot issues you voted against (the economic/taxation/size of govt. ones, not the thinly veiled abortion one). Again, in your best interests.

[senorx12562]

YouTube - REGULATION VACATION CELEBRATION! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QDv4sYwjO0)
Don't feel bad, you are not the only one for whom the distinction between libertarianism and anarchy is just a bit too difficult to grasp, the makers of the video are in the same boat. Funny though.

[copobo]

Make a statement and waste a vote. Sad.

not always so. Libertarians win some local races in Colorado, so if that's his inclination...

someday I hope we see more 3rd party candidates who actually could get elected. I'm no Tancredo fan, but that race has been crazy!

Tancredo had a valid beef with the direction of his party and the candidate they were putting forward. He will take more Republican voters than the Republican! In fact, if the Democrat wasn't as strong as Hickenlooper is, I think Tancredo would have a good chance of winning.

[Dorje113]

Holy Shit, Tancredo is CRAZY.

Tom Tancredo's Greatest Hits: The Gubernatorial Candidate's Best Eyebrow-Raising Moments (VIDEO, VOTE) (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/23/tom-tancredos-greatest-hi_n_657385.html?igoogle=1#s118065)

[HighPopalorum]

Woke up to this:

Glenn Beck is threatening to move to Colorado if Tom Tancredo wins. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sk1cj_Qgkk8&feature=player_embedded#!)

Be afraid....

[Dorje113]

I'm going to have to register to vote so I can vote against Tancredo. I guess that's one way to get jaded voters out to the polls....

[HighPopalorum]

FYI, today is the last day to mail your ballots. After today, you need to drop it off at the courthouse in person, or vote at the polls on Tuesday.

Keep these bastards OUT of Colorado government. As a young man, I left the South partially to avoid the moralizing sermons of authoritarian demagogues just like Tancredo and Buck. My brother left in part because he's gay, and faced overwhelming professional and social discrimination. Now we've both built lives here, in a place that is not only beautiful, but largely free of prejudice and bigotry. To see Coloradans being fooled by these hucksters into supporting a regressive social program more at home in the Alabama of the 1970s than 21st century Colorado is heart breaking to me.

[wkhey4]

Woke up to this:

Glenn Beck is threatening to move to Colorado if Tom Tancredo wins. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sk1cj_Qgkk8&feature=player_embedded#!)

Be afraid....

If that isn't reason enough to vote against Tancrazy, I don't know what is !:D

[Zedleppelin]

Fortunately for us Beck thinks Colorado is next to Montana :glugglug: