New Tancredo Ad Depicts Fictional Terrorist Attack
Tom Tancredo's new ad, set to run in Iowa — if any stations will accept it, that is — is a true original. The ad depicts the dire consequences of our open borders through a dramatization of a fictitious terrorist attack in the middle of a shopping mall. Furthermore, it even ends with the sound of an explosion!
One has to wonder if the plot is taken from the hypothetical terror scenario described by Brit Hume at the first Fox News debate earlier this year, which involved terrorist attacks taking place at malls.
Comments (94)
Jake D wrote on November 12, 2007 4:29 PM:You youngsters have never seen / heard of LBJ's "Daisy" ad?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daisy_(television_commercial)
Mlangen wrote on November 12, 2007 4:30 PM:Tancredo, you've just made me vomit in my own mouth.
Legalize wrote on November 12, 2007 4:33 PM:Because LBJ used an alarmist add in 1964, Tom Tancredo is totally beyond reproach for being a rabidly biggoted buffoon!!
Seth H. wrote on November 12, 2007 4:36 PM:As a present Coloradan, I'm just going to throw in an apology that our representative to the presidential race is so crazy. Thankfully, I don't live in his district (I live in Boulder, to fulfill the compulsion of all those who live here to point that out with pride).
I wonder about Tancredo sometimes... Does he really believe what he's spouting or is he spouting it because he thinks it's the best way to instrument a power grab? Neither show any sign of intelligence, it's just a question of the level of delusion he embodies.
Jake D wrote on November 12, 2007 4:41 PM:I lived through the Cold War, and we didn't fear the Soviets because of racism -- Tancredo's ad about terrorists sneaking over the border is unfortunately not as "fictional" as you would like -- you people have no idea how to defend a country!
jeffgee wrote on November 12, 2007 4:44 PM:In your guts,
you know he's nuts
Originally applied to Goldwater in '64, fits Tancredo today.
Why does anyone persist in responding to Jake D. He is has lapsed into that very special state of awareness that transmutes 24 into reality. The only way to help him through Keifer Sutherland (sorry Jake - I mean Jack Bauer).
jeffgee wrote on November 12, 2007 4:47 PM:Well, Jake D, our one-man truth squad, speaking your truth to liberals, we're all eyes. Tell us how YOU would defend a country.
Muahdog wrote on November 12, 2007 4:47 PM:Adman Tony Schwartz did the Daisy ad for LBJ against Barry Goldwater. Anyone invoking the "mushroom cloud" scenario should be hoist by their own petard. Still, I've always admired his sound archives of New York City.
Jake D wrote on November 12, 2007 4:49 PM:Ah, the irony, jeffgee (see Ad, Daisy, above ; )
Kenji wrote on November 12, 2007 4:49 PM:Good thing Jake D is here to protect us. Thank you, Great White Father!
JohnW1141 wrote on November 12, 2007 4:52 PM:You tell 'em JakeD!! These people don't know how to defend a country like Tom does. Why, when it comes to defending this country, I'm sure Tom's military record says it all!
W Action wrote on November 12, 2007 4:56 PM:If you think this is, um, extreme, try checking out Tancredo's appointment calendars over the last few years. You'll be interested to learn all the "mainstream" GOP organizations that have eagerly provided him forums for his xenophobic rants, including Congressional endorsing conventions and think tank symposiums. As Krugman emphasizes in his new book, the Republican Party reconstituted itself the racist party in 1968. Note how theocrats have willingly dropped the pretense that pro-life is their defining issue now that they have their new anti-brown-people meme: it's all about the scary Arabs.
tomeck wrote on November 12, 2007 4:57 PM:So if "Islalmic terrorist now freely" roam all over our country, why hasn't anyone attacked yet? Because they're afraid of Bush and Tancredo? Sure.
Open borders isn't our problem. Wingnuts in high positions in the government is our problem.
Radio Head wrote on November 12, 2007 5:01 PM:JD: Whose fault would you say it is if jihadists have come into the country since 9/11? If Tancredo is right, this administration is to blame. If it's not true...then it's not true, you know?
nogo war wrote on November 12, 2007 5:02 PM:I tried to find the link on youtube and could not...could anyone post it?
I want to link it as one of the resident moonbats on such open minded places ... as wizbang...
Feed the Frenzy!
Richard L. Adlof wrote on November 12, 2007 5:02 PM:See . . . Tancredo is the Republican's Republican . . . No other idiot . . . Sorry . . . Republican candidate is brillant enough to play-up on their single selling point of fear during the start of the holiday shopping season.
Tancredo HAS GOTTA BE the Republican Nominee for November 2008. Anything else is letting America down.
Imagine a Tancredo/Pink Sugar ticket or . . .
Imagine a Tancredo/Brownback ticket or . . .
Imagine a Tancredo/Santorum ticket or . . .
Imagine a Tancredo/Cheney ticket or . . .
Jon Stewart said it best last week: "Live free or do whatever it takes to make sure I don't die!"
Which is basically a satirical restating of the quote attributed to Ben Franklin: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
I like to say that Republicans are like 10-year-olds at a sleepover telling stories about the boogeyman. The more frightening the boogeyman - the sharper his fangs, the more evil his plots - the more memorable the experience. And of course the fiend grows more frightening with each retelling, as each 10-year-old tries to top the others.
It really pisses them off when Mom comes downstairs and turns on the lights. It ruins their fun.
Jake D wrote on November 12, 2007 5:03 PM:One thing's for sure, I would have closed down the borders on 9/11/01.
BushSucks wrote on November 12, 2007 5:04 PM:Oh Lordy they done gone and blown up the Wal Mart! Somebody call Jack Bauer or Walker Texas Ranger or something!
Mike H wrote on November 12, 2007 5:05 PM:I love the weird restraint of this paranoiac ad. What, no mention of 9/11? Why Spain et al and not New York? Kooky stuff.
But the best line is about the "20 million aliens who've come to take our jobs." Not illegal aliens, just aliens.
So, Indian software engineers and British marketing managers aren't here to make a good living, they're here simply to TAKE WHAT'S MINE?
The folks in his district really need to send him packing. Feh.
al75 wrote on November 12, 2007 5:10 PM:Tancredo tells us that AS WE SPEAK we are being overrun by Islamofascist terrorists. In other words: he thinks Bush, Negroponte, and the rest of the present Republican regime have failed to defend America?
I happen to agree, though I worry more about the lack of port security, failure to regulate and safeguard toxic chemicals, than I do about the guys at the car wash.
All the same, I'm glad Tancredo's on board pointing out the incompetence of the Bush administration on this critical issue.
I hope someone presses Bush to respond
Larry Geater wrote on November 12, 2007 5:19 PM:Jake D posted
One thing's for sure, I would have closed down the borders on 9/11/01.
Just how exactly would you accomplish that? We are not a fortified city-state where you just close the gate, you know?
RobertSeattle wrote on November 12, 2007 5:20 PM:When you're campaign in in doubt, pull the fear card out!
Hmmm. . . and if elected he'll do WHAT? He implies he's going to do something, but never says what exactly. I don't recall anybody proposing a perfect solution to either illegal immigration or terrorism, but I guess he must have one because he's not a "spineless politician."
I love the theory behind the ad-- propose a scary hypothetical, claim to be the only one to solve it, but give no details. Maybe someone else could run an ad portraying the hypothetical problem of rampant robot attacks, and accuse other politicians of ignoring the problem.
Jake D wrote on November 12, 2007 5:25 PM:Larry Geater:
Our southern border is 3,141 km
long -- divided by every available Army, Marine, National Guard, and militia unit -- would have done it just fine, while NATO and our own Air Force / Navy was providing recon and cover.
Jake D posted"One thing's for sure, I would have closed down the borders on 9/11/01."
Simple minded solutions for simple minded people.
I prefer the "Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out!"
Now tell us how you would shut down the borders.
Jake D wrote on November 12, 2007 5:29 PM:JohnW1141:
Please see my 5:25 PM post.
Tross wrote on November 12, 2007 5:36 PM:Jake is such a fine example of what the GOP wants us to be -- so afraid of everything and everyone that we turn ourselves into a police state.
News flash: There will always be bad people intent on hurting someone. We cannot stop everyone from attacking us. Even if we close the borders there are people inside the country already who would be very happy to blow up something -- they might even be Americans (gasp!).
Instead of trying to police the world, maybe if we went about truly focusing on what we do that invites terrorist attacks (unnecessary war comes to mind) and what causes others to feel that violence is there only option (unprovoked murder by contractors comes to mind), who knows, maybe we could ratchet the violence DOWNWARD as opposed to upward.
Just a thought.
CatStaff wrote on November 12, 2007 5:37 PM:If we know, as Tom Tacredo apparently does, that there are thousands of evil jihadists roaming free where seldom is heard a discouraging word, why don't we just go and corral the varmints?
Anonymous wrote on November 12, 2007 5:37 PM:Jake D wrote on November 12, 2007 5:29 PM:JohnW1141:
Please see my 5:25 PM post.
I did, I couldn't possibly take it seriously.
agateman wrote on November 12, 2007 5:41 PM:Please you can't compare Tommy the Tank with LBJ. At least LBJ would drown his sorrows in Bourbon and Branch Water while Tommy the Tank would simiply drown you. No waterboarding for him, just the deep six if you don't have a card. What the hell is this country coming to. And I'm a vet.
Anonymous wrote on November 12, 2007 5:42 PM:SO, Jake, you'd put the entire military along the southern border. But some of the 9/11 terrorists entered from the Northeast. So the entire Canadian border would go unguarded.
Not to mention that (as the Bushies are proud to tell us) no terrorists have attacked us in the ensuing years, much less after crossing from the south. So you've deployed our entire military against the wrong target.
And you've prevented millions of migrant workers from coming across to tend our fields, thereby ruining our agriculture industry and eliminating your source of tomatoes.
You're a real visionary military leader. Any chance we can get you to work for the other side? It would make our lives a bit easier.
jolly ranchero wrote on November 12, 2007 5:46 PM:You misspelled Tancredo's name. I think it has 3 "k"s in it.
that ad qualifies as psychological terrorism
biggerbox wrote on November 12, 2007 5:48 PM:1. Where is that mall? Oklahoma City, perhaps? How does he intend to protect us from White Nationalists in hoodies?
2. Has Tancredo missed all the news stories about places being evacuated because of suspicious packages, or swarthy individuals detained for looking funny? It's not like people aren't looking out for such things. Terrorists are roaming freely mostly in his imagination.
Damn, there I go again, reacting to right-wing craziness as if they were actually trying to make sense. I should know better by now.
Let's see, what's a suitable response to "Illegal immigrant terrorists are gonna blow you up at the mall!!!"? How about "What kind of a name is Tancredo, anyway? Sounds foreign to me. Suspicious. Mexican, maybe. What's he doing at the mall anyway? Is he hanging around the men's bathroom?"
Nora wrote on November 12, 2007 5:48 PM:No they took it from 24. That's probably where Brit Hume got the thought in the first place too.
Jake D wrote on November 12, 2007 5:54 PM:Anonymous:
I can't possibly take someone afraid of posting their real name here seriously either -- come back when you grow sone actual balls -- until then, have a nice life.
Anonymous wrote on November 12, 2007 5:55 PM:Tancredo is still running? I thought he dropped out months ago.
Joe Monster wrote on November 12, 2007 5:56 PM:How long before this imaginary attack shows up in the other Republican campaign ads? How long before the Bush administration refers to it as a reason for doing something 'deciderly?'
31tudor wrote on November 12, 2007 6:01 PM:What do these neorepublicons fear from Mexicans? And what about protection of the Us Canadian border? Or the west and east coast borders? All I see is the fear of friendly, hard working Mexicans, PERIOD!
Invigilator wrote on November 12, 2007 6:04 PM:Er, didn't all the 9/11 hijackers enter the US legally, on visas? Mr Jake D -- do you mean close the borders, as let no one in or out? Do you realize how insane that idea is? Do you need that spelled out for you?
RichM wrote on November 12, 2007 6:06 PM:OK folks - let's not go bursting Jake D's bubble by pointing out that all the 9/11 highjackers were here on *legal* visas. (And none of them were from Iraq).
mcboo wrote on November 12, 2007 6:12 PM:Ah yes, more fear-mongering & racism.
I thought the days of people maxing their educations at the 7th grade in one-room school houses was over. Thanks for showing us otherwise Tom.
Whether it's the racists lie "they're coming to take our jobs" or the fear fanatic lie "they're on our soil now" this entire thing makes me sick.
The immigrants are here but "jobs are up" (if you believe the president and the administration). So what jobs are they taking exactly? You'd think they'd be going down with all those immigrants taking them right? The terrorists are here but not attacking. How in the hell do you brag that there's been no new attacks (beats on chest and grunts) while simultaneously crying about how they're everywhere. Oh, they're probably just waiting for some more Democrats to get elected before blowing stuff up right? But I've got to admit that if more Democrats get elected (as they were in the last election) then maybe there will only BE Democrats in office if/when another attack occurs.
I'm more than happy to risk THAT, tyvm.
NJ Lawyer wrote on November 12, 2007 6:12 PM:"You youngsters have never seen / heard of LBJ's "Daisy" ad?"
Um, yes I have, you disingenuous, xenophobic troll.
Jake D wrote on November 12, 2007 6:12 PM:It would not have been "insane" that day, until everything had been sorted out -- you guys are under the mistaken impression that I think everything Bush does is golden -- I wouldn't have let Saudi Arabian citizens out of the country unless they were fully interviewed by the FBI either.
Jake D wrote on November 12, 2007 6:13 PM:NJ Lawyer:
Do you think we were afraid of the Soviets based on racism?! Come on, get a clue!
couser wrote on November 12, 2007 6:15 PM:jeffgee
Tell us how Tancredo will protect us...
This bit of campaign trash does nothing express any policy or means to combat th' turrists'
"One thing's for sure, I would have closed down the borders on 9/11/01."
LOL.... An action that would have been both useless and pointless, placing you right alongside the Bush administration when it comes to "protecting" the U.S.
Jake, dear, do try to not sound any dumber than you really are.
"divided by every available Army, Marine, National Guard, and militia unit -- would have done it just fine, while NATO and our own Air Force / Navy was providing recon and cover."
Too late. Q.E.D.
Jake D, do me a favor, step over all those empty pizza boxes, move over to the window, lift up the tattered blanket and take a look at your neighbors houses.
Can they see your scared, wizened little face peering out the basement windows at them?
jeffgee wrote on November 12, 2007 6:35 PM:I have no idea. Why don't you ask Tancredo.
VictorLaszlo wrote on November 12, 2007 6:43 PM:The troll-poking here nearly ruins this board.
Apparently the moderators disagree, but it's really unfortunate that nearly every thread at TPM is all about one individual.
r€nato wrote on November 12, 2007 7:23 PM:dey dook er jerrrbs!
I have a plan to stop illegal immigration which makes infinitely more sense than the troll's:
All the unemployed men who lost their jobs to illegal immigration should go down to the border, get naked and make a big gay sex dogpile...
Austin Cooper wrote on November 12, 2007 7:31 PM:Well, I'm sure we're all surprised that Tommy "Torpedo" Tancredo has released such an advertisement.
I mean, the Republicans have never engaged in the political use of fear before. They've never attempted to manipulate the electoral process by, say, raising the Terror Alert Level or releasing information to Fox of "concerns" about "chatter".
Have They?
r€nato wrote on November 12, 2007 7:34 PM:I too lived through the Cold War, and it's beyond pathetic that some people - people who think they are 'tough guys' - think illegal immigration should make us piss our pants worse than the threat of invasion and/or being nuked by the Soviets, an actual nation which actually had bombs and tanks and guns and planes and stuff.
More domestic terrorism has been committed by white Christian males than by Mexican illegal immigrants.
Paul O. wrote on November 12, 2007 7:39 PM:Coward.
Tancredo shows himself to be not just a coward, but the same kind that's in the White House now.
It turns one's stomach.
Jake D wrote on November 12, 2007 7:49 PM:r€nato:
I'm not concerned about illegal alien Mexicans being terrorists -- this is not about racism for me -- in fact, I thought Bush's guest-worker proposals didn't allow ENOUGH workers in for agriculture, etc. I simply want them all documented and to catch any actual terrorists / other threats in the process.
bwindrip wrote on November 12, 2007 8:20 PM:Be afraid. Buy this. Be afraid. Vote for me. Be afraid. Tell your representatives to cede all their power to the executive. Be afraid.
Well, I for one have had it with this shit. I like Cenk Uygur's approach. I'm not afraid of "Islamofascism" because I'm not a f***ing coward. And anyone who would trade our Constitution for the illusion of safety is exactly that.
Tancredo is a cartoon. But there are plenty of politicians who appear rational, but are working from the same handbook.
Reject them all.
Jake D wrote on November 12, 2007 8:28 PM:Well, as I said, I am not afraid about illegal alien Mexicans being terrorists -- so, this is not about racism for me -- I simply don't think that the "dramatization" of a shopping center terrorist attack is that far off-base. Don't you remember 9/11? I thought we were supposed to be connecting-the-dots now?
JMohr wrote on November 12, 2007 8:45 PM:Jake D. - I have never seen such a sissy pants coward in all my life. Is there no far fetched plot that would not make you crap your pant?
You are exactly the kind of idiot with paranoid delusions that terrorists hope to reach.
Close down the whole boarder by bringing out every military division, reserve unit and guard unit. Using NATO and US Air Forces to fly recon WHAT A CHILDISH FOOL. WHAT THREAT FROM ACROSS THE BOARDER THAT WOULD HAVE JUSTIFIED THAT KIND OF REACTION. WE CERTAINLY HAVE NOT BEEN ATTACKED SINCE 9/11 SINCE WE HAVE FAILED TO FOLLOW YOUR SAGE ADVICE. PLEASE SEE A SHRINK. GET ON MEDICATIONS. YOUR COME ACROSS AS A FOOLISH BUFFOON. I LAUGH AT YOU AND YOUR TRULY PATHETIC MIND.
lilybart wrote on November 12, 2007 8:53 PM:"They took r jaabs !" (for anyone who has seen the South Park episode.
Sara J wrote on November 12, 2007 8:57 PM:This is par for the course from Tancredo, who has always been one of the nuttiest of the wingnuts.
At a guess, I'd say the rest of them keep him around to say crap like this so they don't have to. Watch to see how many Republican presidential candidates fail to disavow this ad in all its racist, fearmongering glory and then you'll know how many of them agree with everything he said.
PaulB wrote on November 12, 2007 9:03 PM:"I simply don't think that the 'dramatization' of a shopping center terrorist attack is that far off-base."
Yes, dear, but that's because you're quivering with fear, not to mention completely failing to live in reality. Tancredo's basically batshit nuts and you're right there with him. Sorry, Jakie, but you don't get to drive the rest of the country with you.
"Don't you remember 9/11?"
Yes, dear, we do. Did you have a point to make?
"I thought we were supposed to be connecting-the-dots now?"
We have, Jakie-pooh. And the dots we're connecting point out that you and Tancredo are wholly disconnected from reality, are trying desperately to drum up fear, fear, and more fear, and are whining because we refuse to live in that imaginary world you've created.
Sorry, Jakie, but I like it here in the real world. You should join us some time.
Michael Powe wrote on November 12, 2007 9:08 PM:There is a simple response to "JakeD" and it fits on a license plate: "Live Free or Die". "JakeD" doesn't want to live free, he wants to live in a police state in order to be sure he won't die in a terrorist attack.
Being a liberal means being willing to take risks in order to "live free." No doubt whatever, the "JakeD" class of citizen would rather live on his knees than die on his feet.
Phht!
Thanks.
mp
Jake D wrote on November 12, 2007 9:08 PM:I'm not afraid of anything -- that doesn't mean we should be prepared though -- I thought you guys were all upset that Bush ignored the "Bin Ladin Intends To Hijack Planes" memo???
Robert C wrote on November 12, 2007 9:18 PM:I've read all of the posts, with the one above calling Jake a "childish fool" being pretty typical. What's interesting to me is that Jake offers a different policy perspective and people respond with "idiot" "buffoon", etc. And yet he remains quite civil and focused on policy while his detractors froth and foam and generally embarrass themselves (except they don't embarrass themselves because this is all electronic and we can, in six posts or less, start shouting "Nazi Nazi" at anyone we disagree with and what's the consequence?) Tom Tancredo isn't my candidate, not by a long shot. But I would agree with Jake that the attack depicted in the ad is more likely to happen than not and that, with this in mind, border security is worth being very serious about. But if you'd rather call other people names because it makes you feel less than utterly powerless, well, I guess you'll go right ahead. In the meantime, I will keep thinking through the difficult balance between liberty and security. Thanks, Jake D, for acknowledging and maintaining that there is a debate worth having here.
Jake D wrote on November 12, 2007 9:20 PM:You're welcome : )
Jake D wrote on November 12, 2007 9:26 PM:My post at 9:08 PM should read "that doesn't mean we should not be prepared though" -- if there's any confusion about a double negative, please let me know.
Paulie wrote on November 12, 2007 9:30 PM:Hmm, I have a bit of catching up to do here. First off, the shameless scare tactics employed by tancredo are old hat. They may still be somewhat effective but we have been sensitized to this side of politics by the bushies.
Second, if we had a dem in the white house, tancredo's message would carry more weight (although it would be no less shameful). The fact that the current administration has curtailed so many civil rights doesn't leave much room (touch wood) for a right-wing successor.
Finally, imbeciles like Jake D need to start using the muscle that counts and stop thinking with his nads. Shutting down the border? Grow up and join the real world. Yes, the idea of a terrorist attack in a shopping mall in anywhere, USA is possible/plausible, but it doesn't mean that pricks like tancredo should be able to use the threat as a campaign tactic. I've used the word shameful a couple of times already but think about it for a second. Tancredo and any other candidate who uses fear as a tool to gain political capital should absolutely be ashamed of themselves (and that includes the current administration, although I hardly need to remind everyone of that). As far as American values go, this tactic is the antithesis of American and the sooner tancredo gets voted out of office the better.
p.s. with the the furor over the betrayus ad, shouldn't there be an equal uproar over this ad???
Well, this "imbecile" is going to call it a day -- see you all tomorrow.
Paulie wrote on November 12, 2007 9:45 PM:take your time pal
Christine wrote on November 12, 2007 9:52 PM:My question to Jake concerns the Canadian border. Specifically--since it is not about racism or even the perception thereof--how would you apportion our military response on both the southern and northern borders? In addition, how would you take preventive steps in all coastal cities with regard to shipping containers? Recalling that many experts have clearly stated that uninspected containers represent as much as or more than the present southern border potential, I would be interested in how you would provide for that patrol? Also: In any response, please indicate whether the troop levels presently in Iraq and Afghanistan would have to be altered? How would we augment any necessary troop levels? Are we looking at mandatory conscription? Yes, I am writing with a degree of sarcasm. I say that because it really is important to consider the numbers ramifications of any strategy. Otherwise, don't we just engage in pipedreams??? Chris
James Steele wrote on November 12, 2007 10:05 PM:When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis. End of story. Any snappy comebacks?
Pursang wrote on November 12, 2007 10:07 PM:Jake you've brought up ways that you would protect the country. They include deployment of the military and National Guard on our southern borders as well as a lot of personnel from the FBI to document foreign individuals entering this country either temporarily or on extended work visas.
How do you propose to pay for this? Where are you going to get the military and NG personnel when a significant number of those individuals are in Iraq or Afghanistan. When the military and NG is having extreme difficulty meeting recruiting goals that they significantly reduced the standards of individuals they will accept. How much money to hire extra FBI personnel to run these document centers not to mention travel to verify applications and the physical plants (office space, computers, etc.)needed for these activities.
All of these would cost a huge amount of money at a time when our budget deficit is astronomical. How do you deploy that many people along the border without building bases all along the border at another outlay of tax dollars?
All of these are just off the top of my head and if I sat down I'd probably think of a lot more scenarios that makes securing our borders difficult. Then have your thought about the ocean going freight that comes in to our country unchecked? How many people can you fit in one of those ocean going containers?
I'm just trying to say that it's very easy to mention that you want to secure the borders and throw out some easy solutions. The problem though is in the execution of those seemingly simple solutions.
Jordan wrote on November 12, 2007 10:15 PM:Mr. Tancredo is one sick bastard. I hope the people who visited this site before will not let themselves subscribe to the politics of fear that this man and his party are emitting. It's madness!
Paulie wrote on November 12, 2007 10:20 PM:Spot on Mr. Steele, nothing more need be said.
Lonny wrote on November 12, 2007 10:29 PM:Tancredo is one sick puppy. Someone needs to tell him that movies like Brazil and The Handmaid's Tale are not video howto's to set up a police state. They are warnings against.
Paulie wrote on November 12, 2007 10:34 PM:One more thing, the entire strategy of the repugnants, restricting our freedom (i.e. making us less American), is this the price we want to pay to be more safe (not that this is a given)?
bush likes to throw out one-liners so here's one for him to chew on:
the terrorists don't win when they bomb us, they win when we react the way we have since 9/11.
Hey, JakeD
Did you right the last sentence of your first post with a Jack Nicholson accent? What a bafoon.
Has anyone asked JakeD how he has so much time to blog from Iraq?
OHMYGOD OHMYGOD!!! It's too late to close the borders. There are millions of them already here! And they're in our shopping malls in hoodies and backpacks JUST LIKE OUR OWN CHILDREN.
I'm moving to Yemen where it's safe....
rob (formerly) in toronto wrote on November 12, 2007 11:35 PM:The thing to remember when someone says that "all foreigners have to be able to prove they are here legally" is that it also means you have to be able to prove that you aren't a foreigner.
"Show me your papers please"
Good lord, are people really so stupid that they don't understand that they are heading willingly towards internal passports?
gratuitous wrote on November 12, 2007 11:49 PM:BOO!
(If you listen closely, you can hear Jake wet himself.)
Blue in IA wrote on November 12, 2007 11:57 PM:For some time after 9/11 they DID do security lines and mandatory backpack checks at malls here.
There's somthing about being a completely implausible target that allows people to dissolve in self-righteous vapors at the slightest provocation.
Tom Tancredo knows his audience.
test wrote on November 12, 2007 11:58 PM:test
Yan wrote on November 13, 2007 2:55 AM:Jake D.
I've certainly seen the Daisy Ad--it's legendary!
However, just because it's been done before, it doesn't make it right. It certainly doesn't make the scenario anymore valid.
The debate is not about whether-or-not America should defend its borders--everyone's in favor of that!
The debate is about how to do so in a *rational, cerebral, and pragmatic* way, rather than in a fantastical and paranoid way.
Norbie wrote on November 13, 2007 4:57 AM:Just picked up the item on Feinstein at HuffPo. I wonder how close she lives to Pelosi in The City called San Francisco.
Must be rather close, I imagine.
Good ol' Diane Lieberman Feinstein! Yes,
she done got herself 'illuminated' during her conversation with Shrub on Air Force One enroute west. Thence she votes to affirm a racist homophobe to the federal bench plus the new attorney general.
Dan White must have shoved some sort of capsule up her butt, set to dissolve in 30 years.
Ric wrote on November 13, 2007 10:33 AM:So, have you seen any gangs of Islamic radicals roaming around your neighborhood?
Those would be the guys with scary bloodshot eyes, big noses, wearing dresses and turbans, and hauling sacks of plastic explosives along with their RPGs and AK 47s. If you see these miscreants, please call Tommy "The Crusading Jihadist" Tancredo down in Washington. He'll come right to your neighborhood and start blowing them away.
Jake D wrote on November 12, 2007 5:54 PM:
Anonymous:
I can't possibly take someone afraid of posting their real name here seriously either -- come back when you grow sone actual balls -- until then, have a nice life.
---------------------------------------
Tee hee.. Man, that's funny. So because you use "Jake D" you've got huge balls, eh?
Oh man, too good. Thanks Jake...
I watched the Tancredo spot; what can we learn? It is clear that Representative Tancredo wants some nutcake to blow up a mall someplace.
Shii wrote on November 13, 2007 2:19 PM:This ad is flagged as "adult content" on YouTube now, you have to log in to see it. Apparently it's THAT BAD.
Fred in Brooklyn wrote on November 13, 2007 8:14 PM:border with mexico 1969 miles
border with canada 3830
shoreline border 12,383
18,182 miles of border to guard.
96,000,960 feet
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0502/p01s04-ussc.html
source: "The current Border Patrol with one guy covering five miles doesn't cut it. We need static observation posts 40 yards apart, with technology and sensors and we need obvious manpower on the border."
96,000,960 feet to the border, a guard tower every 120 feet
800,008 guard towers.
who can do this?
The total numbers of the military branches used in this strategy of Jake's:
519,471 Army
346,288 ARNG
180,000 Marines
1,045,759 total soldiers.
Jake is right, there's more than enough i just those branches. All we need is 800k, and he's allocated 1M.
The remaining troops can cover international airports and major seaports; searching anyone coming from a foreign country and searching all package containers.
We have more than enough troops to initiate a complete and utter lockdown of the Continent.
If we bring all of the Navy and Coast Guard stateside, sink the ships (lest they fall into Mexico's hands), we've bought 380,000 MORE soldiers to patrol the streets of American cities and shopping malls.
They should be allowed to detain anyone suspected of terrorism.
Jake for President.
Fred in Brooklyn wrote on November 13, 2007 8:17 PM:border with mexico 1969 miles
border with canada 3830
shoreline border 12,383
18,182 miles of border to guard.
96,000,960 feet
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0502/p01s04-ussc.html
:source:
"The current Border Patrol with one guy covering five miles doesn't cut it. We need static observation posts 40 yards apart, with technology and sensors and we need obvious manpower on the border."
96,000,960 feet to the border, a guard tower every 120 feet
800,008 guard towers.
who can do this?
The total numbers of the military branches used in this strategy of Jake's:
519,471 Army
346,288 ARNG
180,000 Marines
1,045,759 total soldiers.
Jake is right, there's more than enough i just those branches. All we need is 800k, and he's allocated 1M.
The remaining troops can cover international airports and major seaports; searching anyone coming from a foreign country and searching all package containers.
We have more than enough troops to initiate a complete and utter lockdown of the Continent.
If we bring all of the Navy and Coast Guard stateside, sink the ships (lest they fall into Mexico's hands), we've bought 380,000 MORE soldiers to patrol the streets of American cities and shopping malls.
They should be allowed to detain anyone suspected of terrorism.
Jake for President.
Grant wrote on November 14, 2007 6:22 PM:r€nato wrote on November 12, 2007 7:34 PM:
More domestic terrorism has been committed by white Christian males than by Mexican illegal immigrants.
-----------------------------------------
Prove it. That personally offends me. There may be a few bad apples in every group, but you need to stop stereotyping.
-----------------------------------------
RectalCranialLoopback wrote on November 12, 2007 10:50 PM:
Did you right the last sentence of your first post with a Jack Nicholson accent? What a bafoon.
-----------------------------------------
I believe you meant to say "write". Please learn to argue intelligently. In addition to that, you misspelled the word "buffoon".
