Tom Tancredo Hired Illegal Laborers to Renovate His McMansion

[natty bumppo 297]

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, they prove it."

Steven ... I'm still waiting for your answers to the questions she asked ... and I think her questions were asked first.

What better way to avoid answering questions .. than to ask other questions in return

Edited December 2, 2007 by Natty Bumppo

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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 far as this thread goes - yes you are. And you have proved it throughout this thread.

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.

I added my opinion, late. As stated previously, there is no requirement or expectation for "originality". If that's a problem for you, then all I have to say is "So what?". I also came late to the "character assassination" party. You were in there doing that way before I was.

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.

You didn't expose anyone - you entered this thread with a stereotype, then proceeded to engaged in a bunch of circular logic and blood-spitting vitriol without actually addressing anything in any detailed way, and without participating in a 2-way discourse. I guess you were too "nonchalant" to answer others' questions, or indeed hold yourself to the same high standards you seem to expect from others...

Edited December 2, 2007 by Number 6

[Sofiyya 1,687]

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, criticized me for assuming anything about her views or political philosophy but then continued on and on with framing the argument as an ideological one.

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, they prove it."

Stroke your ailing ego all you need to, Steven, but when the rubber met the road, you had no response to my very basic question about how supporting illegal immigration benefits the low-income and minority among us. You simply give up, throw up your hands and fall into bed with Mexico appeasers, the illegal alien lobby, and corrupt, exploitive employers. And that is where you left it.

So don't come and pretend that I am the problem because I didn't concede to your red herrings. When you declared that you had no plan except to surrender, you opened yourself bare, guts and all.

All you have left is to pretend that you know who I am. I'm not even a Republican.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

All you have left is to pretend that you know who I am. I'm not even a Republican.

That also - takes the cake. A stereotyper who doesn't like being stereotyped

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

Steven ... I'm still waiting for your answers to the questions she asked ... and I think her questions were asked first.

What better way to avoid answering questions .. than to ask other questions in return

You'll have to go back several pages, but I did. If you're talking about the "70 Americans who lost their jobs to illegals" question.... I also answered it by pointing out that we have lost far greater numbers of American jobs to overseas labor.

Go back a few pages and you find my answers.

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

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, criticized me for assuming anything about her views or political philosophy but then continued on and on with framing the argument as an ideological one.

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, they prove it."

Stroke your ailing ego all you need to, Steven, but when the rubber met the road, you had no response to my very basic question about how supporting illegal immigration benefits the low-income and minority among us. You simply give up, throw up your hands and fall into bed with Mexico appeasers, the illegal alien lobby, and corrupt, exploitive employers. And that is where you left it.

So don't come and pretend that I am the problem because I didn't concede to your red herrings. When you declared that you had no plan except to surrender, you opened yourself bare, guts and all.

All you have left is to pretend that you know who I am. I'm not even a Republican.

I give up. This isn't an argument. This is just some silly game of letting you turn an otherwise insightful argument into a playground match of who can insult the other better.

Let me know when you want to have a real argument.

Edited December 2, 2007 by Mister Fancypants

[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 far as this thread goes - yes you are. And you have proved it throughout this thread.

We disagree. You insult, then deny that you are someone who insults. Doesn't have legs.

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.

I added my opinion, late. As stated previously, there is no requirement or expectation for "originality". If that's a problem for you, then all I have to say is "So what?". I also came late to the "character assassination" party. You were in there doing that way before I was.

And your opinion was ignored, which you complained about. And you have been complaining ever since.

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.

You didn't expose anyone - you entered this thread with a stereotype, then proceeded to engaged in a bunch of circular logic and blood-spitting vitriol without actually addressing anything in any detailed way, and without participating in a 2-way discourse. I guess you were too "nonchalant" to answer others' questions, or indeed hold yourself to the same high standards you seem to expect from others...

I exposed plenty. whether you are willing to admit it or not. The credibility level of this crowd was low to start with and progressively got lower. Steven folded and proceded to ofiscate and dance. There was no point in moving on after he admitted that he simply is not up to the fight to preserve this nation's sovereignty.

I'm not a whiner or a quitter, that's why I annoy you. I didn't have to introduce a sterotype, it was already present. I simply used it as a weapon and won. Sorry, you're a sore loser.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think it speaks volumes when you have to hide behind perceived gaps in other's arguments to avoid putting forth your own.

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

I'm not a whiner or a quitter, that's why I annoy you. I didn't have to introduce a sterotype, it was already present. I simply used it as a weapon and won. Sorry, you're a sore loser.

(note to self: Never engage in an argument with someone who thinks that arguing is a game of winning or losing. That was fun for the first 10 years of my life.)

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Sorry, you're a sore loser.

I essentially made two specific arguments in this thread - one related to the article, the other related to your attitude. I can't be a "sore loser" for something I didn't actually touch. I think the article is bogus - in that we agree, no?

[Sofiyya 1,687]

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, criticized me for assuming anything about her views or political philosophy but then continued on and on with framing the argument as an ideological one.

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, they prove it."

Stroke your ailing ego all you need to, Steven, but when the rubber met the road, you had no response to my very basic question about how supporting illegal immigration benefits the low-income and minority among us. You simply give up, throw up your hands and fall into bed with Mexico appeasers, the illegal alien lobby, and corrupt, exploitive employers. And that is where you left it.

So don't come and pretend that I am the problem because I didn't concede to your red herrings. When you declared that you had no plan except to surrender, you opened yourself bare, guts and all.

All you have left is to pretend that you know who I am. I'm not even a Republican.

I give up. This isn't an argument. This is just some silly game of letting you turn an otherwise insightful argument into a playground match of who can insult the other better.

Let me know when you want to have a real argument.

When you get an argument, Steven, I'll be happier than anyone. You posted a hit piece, then told me that you have no fight left in you against the very folks you, as a so-called liberal should oppose. It was like "invasion of the Body Snatchers". You can't argue your own admitted defeat.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I think it speaks volumes when you have to hide behind perceived gaps in other's arguments to avoid putting forth your own.

Why swim when you can float and get the same results? It didn't take much to put them on crutches.

I'm not a whiner or a quitter, that's why I annoy you. I didn't have to introduce a sterotype, it was already present. I simply used it as a weapon and won. Sorry, you're a sore loser.

(note to self: Never engage in an argument with someone who thinks that arguing is a game of winning or losing. That was fun for the first 10 years of my life.)

When you have an argument that doesn't begin with a hit piece, let me know. You must think you win just by posting those articles. You also must think you have an argument. You don't.

Edited December 2, 2007 by Green-eyed girl

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

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

It doesn't. It hurts them. Everyone knows that. Elitist types just don't seem to care much about the American poor and lawfully resident minorities but rather cater to those aliens that openly pizz on our laws and the profiteers of this ever growing illegal crowd.

Who among us is an elitist? I think pragmatist is the word you're searching for.

Pragmatist most certainly wasn't the word I was searching for. Elitist was the word I meant to pick. Thanks for trying to read my mind but that attempt clearly failed. There's nothing pragmatist in suggesting that a crowd of 20 million or so illegal aliens is something we've just gotta get used to. If I was looking for a word describing that position, defeatist comes to mind.

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

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, criticized me for assuming anything about her views or political philosophy but then continued on and on with framing the argument as an ideological one.

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, they prove it."

Stroke your ailing ego all you need to, Steven, but when the rubber met the road, you had no response to my very basic question about how supporting illegal immigration benefits the low-income and minority among us. You simply give up, throw up your hands and fall into bed with Mexico appeasers, the illegal alien lobby, and corrupt, exploitive employers. And that is where you left it.

So don't come and pretend that I am the problem because I didn't concede to your red herrings. When you declared that you had no plan except to surrender, you opened yourself bare, guts and all.

All you have left is to pretend that you know who I am. I'm not even a Republican.

I give up. This isn't an argument. This is just some silly game of letting you turn an otherwise insightful argument into a playground match of who can insult the other better.

Let me know when you want to have a real argument.

When you get an argument, Steven, I'll be happier than anyone. You posted a hit piece, then told me that you have no fight left in you against the very folks you, as a so-called liberal should oppose. It was like "invasion of the Body Snatchers". You can't argue your own admitted defeat.

A hit piece? Revealing that the candidate who is most vocal about illegal immigration is nonchalant over whether or not the contractors who renovated his house were illegal is a hit piece? There lies the breakdown of why this thread carried on and on into silliness of a playground insult match. You took it as a jab on your position. Interestingly revealing.

[Fandango 1,439]

Absolutely a hit piece....no details whatsoever.