Tom Tancredo Hired Illegal Laborers to Renovate His McMansion

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Considering that you insulted me first, AND you keep coming back for more, despite your protestations to the contrary, you seem to be getting some delight from it.

Kinky . . .

I pointed out that I found your general attitude unpleasant. It is what it is - if you take it as an insult - that's your beef.

Besides - that whole "you started it" thing is rather immature, no?

Let's review. You insulted me before I said a word to you. It was your first post here and a choice you made. You want to own it, or keep passing the buck? Not willing to admit that your first post was the immature one? If you're all for peace and being the better person, I'd say you owe me an apology. If this is just for show, then you will pass. Show your true colors.

Edited December 2, 2007 by Green-eyed girl

[Caladan 19]

I have never claimed that the "mere presence" of illegals in this country affects Americans negatively. I have always addressed the issue from the vantage points of illegal activity, what you have to do to enter, stay and work, and economically, that they take jobs from legals. Do not put words in my mouth.

You try to follow me. I asked you how supporting illegals benefits minorities and low-income Americans. Can you tell me?

Given your posts on this subject, here and in other threads - that really does take the cake.

On this thread, I have laid bare the ASSumptions, red herrings, and major trippin' that the lefties MUST do to appear to have a point. I have gotten more "I dunno's", "I don't care's", and "I give up's" from my questioning that really shows that illegal lovers have not one leg to stand on. And all you have to contribute, Numero seis, is a slam as utterly out of context and meaningless as it takes the cake that I ask that someone not put words in my mouth? Are you blind or merely insipid? For sure, you are in denial about the presentation your kindred spirits showed here, and your bias is showing.

I don't think its unreasonable to question whether what he paid for the work he was the equivalent market rate for that kind of job. Of course I have no idea whether he did or not - but is it really an invalid question?

Are you directing this to me?

I think it's relevant...but not solely relevant. I think there are also other factors to consider...whether the contractor was personally known to him (did Tancredo think it was a personal favor? Was he getting a break by 'hey I'll do it for cheaper so that you refer me to your friends') and what financial state Tancredo thought the guy was in...like was he hurting for business and just was undercutting everyone else to get the job?

I am just as interested in finding out the truth as most. I'm not looking to protect anyone from scorn, if it's deserved. I hold steadfast to my anti-illegal beliefs, and would be quite disappointed in T if it's proven he had a reasonable understanding of the situation as it really was. However, whether or not he is outed as a hypocrite does not change my stance in the slightest. I understand it'll be chum for the libs for a while, but at the end of the day....he's one man, and while his vocal beliefs align with mine on this subject, he does not speak for me and many others if he's been caught diddlin on the side. If anything, it illustrates how illegals have the ability to not only destroy the free mkt, but they have dire economy consequences by being able to be super competitive in price ONLY BY removing the tax cost to any job. So the only people who get screwed are Uncle Sam, the manual US, or GC laborer, oh and the US population too.

What she said. Tom is only one man, and with the hypocrisy demonstrated by the illegal lovers on this thread, it cannot be made more clear who has the best interest of our future in mind when they formulate a thought and it ain't the illegal camp.

No offense, but you haven't made a single blessed argument. You've thrown out a lot of invective. You've constructed a lot of strawmen based on the positions of no one here. You've ranted on and on about the illegal cheerleading squad while ignoring anything anyone has to say, and you do so while screaming about libs. And somehow you working in a government office in 1976 is relevant, but you haven't said how.

And now you're claiming victory? In what contest? Break me a give, as Yoda would say.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Considering that you insulted me first, AND you keep coming back for more, despite your protestations to the contrary, you seem to be getting some delight from it.

Kinky . . .

I pointed out that I found your general attitude unpleasant. It is what it is - if you take it as an insult - that's your beef.

Besides - that whole "you started it" thing is rather immature, no?

Let's review. You insulted me before I said a word to you. It was your first post here and a choice you made. You want to own it, or keep passing the buck? Not willing to admit that your first post was the immature one? If you're all for peace and being the better person, I'd say you owe me an apology. If this is just for show. then you will pass. Show your true colors.

Yes - it was immature, and I admit it was opportunistic. I can admit that - sure.

But... different question.

Was it untrue?

Does the last page of comments from you prove or disprove that assertion?

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Oh, I am definitely claiming victory! And a sweet one at that. The other side can complain all they want, they did not deliver. It's beyond conjecture. If you can't see that, too bad for you.

Edited December 2, 2007 by Green-eyed girl

[Caladan 19]

I thought victory in an argument was something achieved when you convinced your interlocutors that you had a coherent position and that you were correct, not something you declared by fiat.

[GabachaYucateca 0]

I thought victory in an argument was something achieved when you convinced your interlocutors that you had a coherent position and that you were correct, not something you declared by fiat.

Maybe in your world, Caladan!

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Was it untrue?

Does the last page of comments from you prove or disprove that assertion?

No, it's not true. It's merely a tactic of last resort. I've been in enough of these to see the pattern. J'accuse, then proclaim the argument to be null and void because someone wasn't as nice as I think they should have been. Whatever your tolerance level for debate may be, it doesn't eliminate the fact that the illegal lovers had no game.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

This is a very weird thread.

[Caladan 19]

I thought victory in an argument was something achieved when you convinced your interlocutors that you had a coherent position and that you were correct, not something you declared by fiat.

Maybe in your world, Caladan!

I'm a tricksy hobbit that way.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I thought victory in an argument was something achieved when you convinced your interlocutors that you had a coherent position and that you were correct, not something you declared by fiat.

That's what happens when both sides are evenly matched and playing by the same rules. Hasn't happened here, so they complain about their oppenent instead. This has been the demonstrable pattern.

This is a very weird thread.

Waiting for that apology, you better person, you!

[Caladan 19]

I thought victory in an argument was something achieved when you convinced your interlocutors that you had a coherent position and that you were correct, not something you declared by fiat.

That's what happens when both sides are evenly matched and playing by the same rules. Hasn't happened here, so they complain about their oppenent instead. This has been the demonstrable pattern.

You haven't made an argument. This isn't about your tone or being mean. There has been no argument from you, just a lot of empty assertions.

If this is the new standard of argument, then apparently all we need do is screech 'illegal alien lover' for a few pages and then pat ourselves on the back for being brave victors.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Was it untrue?

Does the last page of comments from you prove or disprove that assertion?

No, it's not true. It's merely a tactic of last resort. I've been in enough of these to see the pattern. J'accuse, then proclaim the argument to be null and void because someone wasn't as nice as I think they should have been. Whatever your tolerance level for debate may be, it doesn't eliminate the fact that the illegal lovers had no game.

Its not true that you come across as being rude and abrasive? If you say so... But to contradict your statement - my post was actually the first resort - because I read through the thread, came across your "don't put words in my mouth" comment and laughed out loud. For all the reasons I have said. Whether its true is evidenced by the way you responded to that comment - and again - I think it speaks for itself.

As I said - bringing up other's points is really irrelevant to me and mine - seeing as I don't think this article is a good topic to use to discuss illegal immigration. I may not agree with Tom Tancredos politics - but that's not to say I think character assassination is a viable, honest tactic; especially when the author of the article relegates its subject to Bond Villain status.

Also - I've said elsewhere that I don't support illegal immigration. Few people here actually do - they just disagree as to what should be done about it. But feel free to call me an "illegal lover". I'm not - but as mentioned about, trying to discuss anything less than absolute black and white opinions on this topic seems to be rather futile.

Edited December 2, 2007 by Number 6

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I thought victory in an argument was something achieved when you convinced your interlocutors that you had a coherent position and that you were correct, not something you declared by fiat.

That's what happens when both sides are evenly matched and playing by the same rules. Hasn't happened here, so they complain about their oppenent instead. This has been the demonstrable pattern.

You haven't made an argument. This isn't about your tone or being mean. There has been no argument from you, just a lot of empty assertions.

If this is the new standard of argument, then apparently all we need do is screech 'illegal alien lover' for a few pages and then pat ourselves on the back for being brave victors.

What you're missing, possibly on purpose, is that there has to be an argument to argue against, and the pro-illegals fell on their faces. I tried to pump them up with questions, but they could not answer them. I simply adapt to what I have to work with. It's not easy, but I played the hand I was dealt.

Edited December 2, 2007 by Green-eyed girl

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Its not true that you come across as being rude and abrasive? If you say so... But to contradict your statement - my post was actually the first resort - because I read through the thread, came across your "don't put words in my mouth" comment and laughed out loud. For all the reasons I have said. Whether its true is evidenced by the way you responded to that comment - and again - I think it speaks for itself.

I am no more rude and abrasive than are you. You think of yourself as benign when you are not. I think that speaks for itself.

As I said - bringing up other's points is really irrelevant to me and mine - seeing as I don't think this article is a good topic to use to discuss illegal immigration. I may not agree with Tom Tancredos politics - but that's not to say I think character assassination is a viable, honest tactic; especially when the author of the article relegates its subject to Bond Villain status.

And you came along to engage in character assassination of me, rather than add any original thought to the discussion.

Also - I've said elsewhere that I don't support illegal immigration. Few people here actually do - they just disagree as to what should be done about it. But feel free to call me an "illegal lover". I'm not - but as mentioned about, trying to discuss anything less than absolute black and white opinions on this topic seems to be rather futile.

The pro-illegals on this thread prior to your arrival did poorly in promoting their position. If that makes me look like the bad guy for exposing them, so be it. I had fun doing it.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I have never claimed that the "mere presence" of illegals in this country affects Americans negatively. I have always addressed the issue from the vantage points of illegal activity, what you have to do to enter, stay and work, and economically, that they take jobs from legals. Do not put words in my mouth.

You try to follow me. I asked you how supporting illegals benefits minorities and low-income Americans. Can you tell me?

Given your posts on this subject, here and in other threads - that really does take the cake.

On this thread, I have laid bare the ASSumptions, red herrings, and major trippin' that the lefties MUST do to appear to have a point. I have gotten more "I dunno's", "I don't care's", and "I give up's" from my questioning that really shows that illegal lovers have not one leg to stand on. And all you have to contribute, Numero seis, is a slam as utterly out of context and meaningless as it takes the cake that I ask that someone not put words in my mouth? Are you blind or merely insipid? For sure, you are in denial about the presentation your kindred spirits showed here, and your bias is showing.

I don't think its unreasonable to question whether what he paid for the work he was the equivalent market rate for that kind of job. Of course I have no idea whether he did or not - but is it really an invalid question?

Are you directing this to me?

I think it's relevant...but not solely relevant. I think there are also other factors to consider...whether the contractor was personally known to him (did Tancredo think it was a personal favor? Was he getting a break by 'hey I'll do it for cheaper so that you refer me to your friends') and what financial state Tancredo thought the guy was in...like was he hurting for business and just was undercutting everyone else to get the job?

I am just as interested in finding out the truth as most. I'm not looking to protect anyone from scorn, if it's deserved. I hold steadfast to my anti-illegal beliefs, and would be quite disappointed in T if it's proven he had a reasonable understanding of the situation as it really was. However, whether or not he is outed as a hypocrite does not change my stance in the slightest. I understand it'll be chum for the libs for a while, but at the end of the day....he's one man, and while his vocal beliefs align with mine on this subject, he does not speak for me and many others if he's been caught diddlin on the side. If anything, it illustrates how illegals have the ability to not only destroy the free mkt, but they have dire economy consequences by being able to be super competitive in price ONLY BY removing the tax cost to any job. So the only people who get screwed are Uncle Sam, the manual US, or GC laborer, oh and the US population too.

What she said. Tom is only one man, and with the hypocrisy demonstrated by the illegal lovers on this thread, it cannot be made more clear who has the best interest of our future in mind when they formulate a thought and it ain't the illegal camp.

No offense, but you haven't made a single blessed argument. You've thrown out a lot of invective. You've constructed a lot of strawmen based on the positions of no one here. You've ranted on and on about the illegal cheerleading squad while ignoring anything anyone has to say, and you do so while screaming about libs. And somehow you working in a government office in 1976 is relevant, but you haven't said how.

And now you're claiming victory? In what contest? Break me a give, as Yoda would say.

No kidding. She went from blaming liberal attitudes towards illegal immigration as contributing to the problem but when I pointed out the real causes and then asked her pointedly for a solution she refused to answer, criticizing me for assuming anything about her views or political philosophy but then continued on and on with framing the argument as an ideological one....'liberal ideology' happening to be the problem or at least in her eyes the most contemptable.

The fact that she spent some time in politics, yet is reluctant to talk of solutions, let alone give credit where credit is due, reminds me of a statement Edwards made on Charlie Rose the other night, "Republicans campaign by telling the American people that government doesn't work, and then when they get elected and prove it."

Edited December 2, 2007 by Mister Fancypants