Viva Tancredo!

|

The "crazy people in room doing crazy things" article is a hackneyed one, sure, and I already linked a classic of the genre yesterday, but this Orange County Weekly write-up of a Tom Tancredo rally at the Nixon Library contains some high-grade kookery.

Not to be outdone, the African-American community turns out two speakers of its own, Ted Hayes and Terry Anderson. Anderson warms up the crowd with a joke that involves killing Hillary Clinton, sending hat-wearing older ladies into red-faced spasms of laughter.

Hayes says illegal immigrants are actually responsible for black poverty. "Illegal immigration is the greatest threat to black people since slavery," he says, prompting a standing ovation. Then he starts a chant of "These colors don't run! These colors don't run!"

Alright, Ted Hayes! You might remember Hayes, the surly operator of the "Dome Village" homeless shelter, from Peter Bagge's cartoon on the "brown peril." Hayes' entry into the anti-immigration movement seemed to portend a coming white-black alliance against Mexican immigration, but it only portended this if you were really stupid.

Tancredo closes out the emotional night by reminding the audience that hunting down all illegal immigrants, sending them home, and building a 2,000-mile wall between us and Mexico is our calling, much like a previous generation "saved the world" during World War II. "Next, we build a wall along the Canadian border," he proposes to thunderous applause.

Wow. I thought he was making a gaffe when he originally proposed that in the pages of Marie Claire. He wasn't.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

96 responses to “Viva Tancredo!

  1. How about two giant seawalls along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts?

  2. Do you have any idea how much we’re spending to dispose of the corpses of illegal immigrant whales, Grotius?

    What part of “bllllloooooooooo-ooooooooooooooooooooo-wooooooooooooooo” don’t you understand?

  3. How about a giant impenetrable dome over the entire US? If only we had the resolve.

  4. My solution would be to build a wall completely around Tancredo so he’ll never have to see another undocumented worker again.

  5. Dan, I can get behind that idea.

  6. “If you ask anyone in the room if they had to choose between voting for Hillary Clinton, or Satan, they’d be with Satan.”

    Takes the phrase “Lesser of two evils” to a whole new level.

  7. John:

    How about a giant impenetrable dome over the entire US? If only we had the resolve

    We’d have to have doors in it so we could get planes in and out. Of course they would have to have combonation locks on them. How’s the code 1-2-3-4 sound?

  8. Like all demogogues, his rant contains just enough truth to pull in the ignorant. Like all demogogues the bits of truth are embedded in mountains of bullshit (insert standard libertarian apology to bulls here). Here’s hoping that he never gets any traction with the electorate.

  9. Was that part about the pitchfork and torch a joke?

  10. How’s the code 1-2-3-4 sound?

    That’s the kind of code an idiot would use on his luggage!

  11. Enough with these half-measures!

    What we need are giant walls built around the borders of each state. That will reduce unwanted immigration, such as rich people from California moving to Colorado and driving up property values!

    If that doesn’t work, we could build walls around each town and city!

  12. Think outside the box, people.

    If we invade Mexico, our southern land border will be really, really short and much more conducive to a fence. Think how much money we’d save!

  13. How’s the code 1-2-3-4 sound?

    What a coincidence, that’s my luggage combination!

  14. hey, mine too. does this mean we’re related?

  15. tarran
    you’ve never seen been to Beijing, they build walls around the houses and buildings and man them with gate keepers…then there’s that whole great wall thing and the berlin wall thing…where will it all end…

  16. Tancredo closes out the emotional night by reminding the audience that hunting down all illegal immigrants, sending them home, and building a 2,000-mile wall between us and Mexico is our calling, much like a previous generation “saved the world” during World War II.

    Mr. Tancredo, I don’t use the word ‘hero’ lightly, but you are the greatest hero in American history.

  17. I am somewhat reassured that reasonoids are well versed in Mel Brooks trivia. That flags something about me that is probably not too complimentary, though.

  18. dammit.

    gotta change my combination, too (/kicks pebble).

    Once at LAX I asked one of those crazies who was protesting a whole slew of grievances what he felt about the whales. “We should nuke the whales and give the meat to Africa. Especially the suspected gay whales.”

    Even though that was ca 25 years ago (!), I’m still puzzled by it…

  19. But crimethink, there are Messicans outside the box!

  20. Spice for the stew — Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam (Bowling Alone) is supposedly “sitting on” new research about the downside of diversity.

  21. Where was Alan Keyes 25 years ago?

  22. If we invade Mexico, our southern land border will be really, really short and much more conducive to a fence. Think how much money we’d save!

    Hell, we should take everything to the north of the Panama Canal. Then we’d have our own Hadrian’s Wall… that’s already built and paid for!

  23. “Tancredo, Don’t Run!”

  24. If we invade Mexico, our southern land border will be really, really short and much more conducive to a fence. Think how much money we’d save!

    How come no one liked this idea when I said it 😉

  25. Why didn’t we just make Panama a state back in the 70s? Did anyone propose this?

  26. Tancredo closes out the emotional night by reminding the audience that hunting down all illegal immigrants, sending them home, and building a 2,000-mile wall between us and Mexico is our calling, much like a previous generation “saved the world” during World War II.

    We built a 2,000-mile wall around Germany? Huh.

    How about a giant impenetrable dome over the entire US? If only we had the resolve.

    Verrrrry interesting, John. But is that to keep the United States protected from the rest of the world, or vice versa? Also, would we need smaller bubbles for Hawaii and Alaska, or should we cut our losses and let them drift loose?

    [/tongue-in-cheek]

  27. Interviewed before the rally, Whittier resident Vince “not ‘Vincente'” Estrada is quick to point out his dad was Spanish, not Mexican. … Estrada’s mother is from Texas and, he admits, is “probably” Mexican.

    Dude’s trying to pass. Burn him! Burn him!

  28. Did anyone see the story about the mob that attacked and killed the guy in Austin after he hit and injured a child during the Junteenth Celebration? It was a black crowd and a hispanic driver. There is a lot of tension between blacks and hispanics. Black people generally have a different view of immigration and illegals in particular than rich white people do.

    These are strange days. I would have never believed that a third party could ever work but I am starting to change my mind. A third party that offered to do something about immigration could take black and the few remaining union votes from the Democrats and Reagan Democrats from the Republicans and cripple both parties.

  29. John, it would work about as well as the GOP’s efforts to rally black support by thumping on gay people.

    Illegal immigrants are unpopular among African-Americans.

    Racial demogogues, even less so.

  30. My solution would be to build a wall completely around Tancredo so he’ll never have to see another undocumented worker again.

    I never thought I’d say this, but…

    Dan T. wins the thread.

  31. “John, it would work about as well as the GOP’s efforts to rally black support by thumping on gay people.”

    The gay marriage issue is another winner. Black people overwhelmingly object to gay marriage. Yet, Democrats like you tell them to sit down and shut up about it despite the fact that Blacks have been by far the most loyal Democratic voters for over 70 years now. Would that cause them to vote Republican? No, there is too much history there. But a third party that had credible black candidates? I think that is very possible. How long are black people going to continue to vote Democratic while the rich white people who run the party tell them to take lower wages in the name of open borders and let the language of the civil rights movement be prostituted to help rich gay people get married? At some point something has to break. Things are not static in politics. They do change, it just takes a while. In 1925 it was inconceivable that blacks would ever vote for the Democratic Party yet by 1936 Blacks were overwhelmingly Democratic. People are very tired and angry over immigration. It is the rich elite of both parties shoving a bill down the throats of the rest of the country. A third party could really work.

  32. What can I say, Tom Tancredo has the power to bring us all together.

    Preferably on the other side of whatever wall he builds from him.

  33. Somehow, I doubt the OC Weekly’s interpretation of events. Now, surely, even the most committed hack should have alluded to the possibility that they’re being misleading, right? I guess Weigel is truly in a class his own.

    Oddly enough, Weigel fails to mention what happened to Hayes over the weekend. I guess such violations of basic rights are OK, just as long as they serve the greater good (of profits for crooked seekers of corporate welfare, that is).

  34. The gay marriage issue is another winner. Black people overwhelmingly object to gay marriage. Yet, Democrats like you tell them to sit down and shut up about it despite the fact that Blacks have been by far the most loyal Democratic voters for over 70 years now. Would that cause them to vote Republican? No, there is too much history there. But a third party that had credible black candidates? I think that is very possible. How long are black people going to continue to vote Democratic while the rich white people who run the party tell them to take lower wages in the name of open borders and let the language of the civil rights movement be prostituted to help rich gay people get married? At some point something has to break. Things are not static in politics. They do change, it just takes a while. In 1925 it was inconceivable that blacks would ever vote for the Democratic Party yet by 1936 Blacks were overwhelmingly Democratic. People are very tired and angry over immigration. It is the rich elite of both parties shoving a bill down the throats of the rest of the country. A third party could really work.

    John, you’re kind of hitting on the classic Democratic quandry – the Democratic party is basically a collection of people who may not like each other, but like Republicans even less.

    It is interesting to consider whether the Democrats should be willing to sacrifice the black vote in order to gain the Latino vote (assuming that’s what it takes). The numbers certainly say “yes”, don’t they?

  35. What can I say, Tom Tancredo has the power to bring us all together.

    Preferably on the other side of whatever wall he builds from him.

    That’s two winners in one thread. You’re on a roll.

  36. “Next, we build a wall along the Canadian border,” he proposes to thunderous applause.

    Guess I’ll have to swim the Strait of Juan de Fuca instead of hiking through the rockies.

  37. If Tancredo loves blacks so much, he sure has a funny way of showing it. You know, going to speak to the neo-secessionist League of the South and all. Its strange he has a problem with Mexico taking over the southwest, but he will speak to people who support taking the South out of the Union again.

  38. crimethink | June 27, 2007, 10:39am | #
    Think outside the box, people.

    If we invade Mexico, our southern land border will be really, really short and much more conducive to a fence. Think how much money we’d save!

    Not only that, but if we annexed Mexico, millions of illegal aliens would instantly become American citizens, wiping out the entire problem!

  39. carrick,

    I’m currently parsing the pronouns to see if Dan T is questioning Tancredo’s patriotism. Needless to say, I’m suspicious.

  40. “It is interesting to consider whether the Democrats should be willing to sacrifice the black vote in order to gain the Latino vote (assuming that’s what it takes). The numbers certainly say “yes”, don’t they?”

    Two things. First, the Latino vote is not as monolithic as people thing. There are a lot of Mexicans who have come here legally and do not like illegals. Further, the continueing flood of illegals screws existing immigrants just as much as it does any other low skilled group. No one ever seems to pay attention to it, but poll after poll says that there is a significant minority, like 35%, of hispanics who oppose open borders. So, I am not sure that open borders gets you a monopoly on the hispanic vote. Second, the black vote may be smaller than it once was but it is a little like the Jewish vote in that it is concentraited and holds sway over a lot of house seats. If the Democrats ever lost the black vote, they would be doomed in the house and would lose any but the most lopsided Presidential elections.

  41. Tom Tancredo mildly dislikes America, or at least parts of it.

  42. Hell, we should take everything to the north of the Panama Canal. Then we’d have our own Hadrian’s Wall… that’s already built and paid for!

    Don’t forget to add the lions swimming in the canal, a la the proposal in the immigration thread last week.

    But I am glad to see we’re thinking outside the box.

  43. Two things. First, the Latino vote is not as monolithic as people thing. There are a lot of Mexicans who have come here legally and do not like illegals. Further, the continueing flood of illegals screws existing immigrants just as much as it does any other low skilled group. No one ever seems to pay attention to it, but poll after poll says that there is a significant minority, like 35%, of hispanics who oppose open borders. So, I am not sure that open borders gets you a monopoly on the hispanic vote.

    You may be right but consider the principle of the lesser evil – will legal Hispanic immigrants and citizens side with undocumented workers or will they side with the xenophobes?

    I can’t imagine Americans of latin heritage really think that the Minutemen and talk-radio zombies have no problem with Mexicans, just “illegals”.

  44. Did anyone see the story about the mob that attacked and killed the guy in Austin after he hit and injured a child during the Junteenth Celebration?

    It wasn’t the driver they killed – it was his passenger.

    Mob rules.

  45. John,

    You wouldn’t get “credible black candidates.”

    You’d get Ted Hayes, Terry Anderson, and Alan Keyes.

    Your nice little theories about black voters being obedient dupes suffering from false consciousness may make you feel better, but a more honest evaluation leads to the inevitable conclusion that black voters pull the level for Democrats in such stunning numbers because the Democrats do a better job representing them.

    How long are black people going to continue to vote Democratic while the rich white people who run the party tell them to take lower wages in the name of open borders For as long as the anti-immigration movement continues to use George Wallace-esque language and ideas in pushing their cause – you know, forever. There simply cannot be an anti-immgrant movement without demonizing the brown hordes and swearing to protect the virtue of “traditional American culture” from them. For obvious reasons, that’s not a political style that attracts black voters.

    “…and let the language of the civil rights movement be prostituted to help rich gay people get married?” For as long as gay marriage continues to have absolutely no effect on their lives – you know, forever.

  46. Careful carrick… there’s only one letter between being on a “roll” and just being a “troll”.

    CB

  47. First, the Latino vote is not as monolithic as people thing.

    It is not as monolithic as the black vote (or the white male vote), but it is becoming moreso.

    So, I am not sure that open borders gets you a monopoly on the hispanic vote.

    No, it doesn’t. However, the existence of a closed-borders Republican Party getting their ropes ready for the Big Roundup gets you a monopoly on the Hispanic vote, or something close to it.

  48. Joe – The white male vote is monolithic?

    Huh?

    CB

  49. Dan T.,

    You should use a different handle, because we had this other guy who commented here a lot who used that name.

  50. Cracker’s Boy,

    Monolithic is, of course, a relative term. Heck, a million or so black voters pick the Republican in each presidential election.

    But the white male vote is about 2:1 Republican. If you add in other qualifiers, like Christian and heterosexual, it goes up from there.

  51. Wouldn’t a wall along the border also keep illegals in? Walls are funny like that.

  52. Illegal immigrants are unpopular among African-Americans.

    Racial demogogues, even less so.

    Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Kweise Mfume please call your offices. Joe says you are not popular anymore.

  53. Wouldn’t a wall along the border also keep illegals in? Walls are funny like that.

    Well, we could always ask the guys who build it for us which side they want to stay on.

  54. We don’t need a wall.

    Just bring the troops home from Korea and Germany. Have them string 2000 miles of double concertina wire along the border with Mexico.

    What’s the Army good for if it can’t stop an invasion?

  55. “Democrats do a better job representing them.”

    Other than affirmative action, name one issue the Democrats represent blacks on? They screw them royally for immigration. Clinton sold them out on welfare reform. A majority of black Americans support school vouchers yet the Democrats will do anything to stop vouchers in order to keep the money coming from the teachers unions. Meanwhile genrations of inner city kids get terrible educations. The Democratic Party is for rich, educated white people like you, not for anyone else. Just like the Republican Party is for the amoral corporate right. You kid yourself all you want, but that is the truth.

  56. Joe – thanks. I didn’t realize it was that strong for the Republicans… I figured it was more 50/50. After I posted, I got to thinking that you meant that white males are monolithic in that they will vote for a white male, ANY white male (Republican or Democrat) before they will vote for a black candidate. Which may be true. In that situation, I’m thinking the black vote is more monolithic… since I have not researched it (go ahead, dump on me) I “have a feeling” that the black voters will vote for a white democrat before they will vote for a black republican. Monolithic by party, not by race versus whites who are monolithic by race more than party.

    I suspect that this is changing… but like all things race-related, they take time. I’m a white male. Thirty years ago, I would not have voted for a black, no matter who they were. Now, I’ll vote for a black republican long before I will vote for a white democrat (assuming that there is not a libertarian candidate of any color/sex).

    Who knows… maybe one day a woman… (just not THAT woman, if you know what I mean).

    I’ve voted for women before, and perhaps even voted for black candidates without knowing it. (Since (generally) Names are more sex-revealing than race-revealing.) My old strategy was to:

    1) Vote for the candidates that I prefered.
    2) If I didn’t have a preference, I’d vote AGAINST the incumbent.
    3) If there wasn’t an incumbent, I’d vote FOR the woman. (Chaos theory).

    CB

  57. You should use a different handle, because we had this other guy who commented here a lot who used that name.

    I had the same thought. The New Witty Dan T. cannot possibly be the same person as the Lame Troll Dan T.

  58. Urban development. Voting rights. Anti-discrimination in housing, employment, and financial services. Civil rights in general. Community policing.

    And since black people are more likely to be in families with low levels of wealth, the entirety of the anti-poverty/universal health care agenda.

    BTW, Clinton-style welfare reform did not “screw black people royally” – they supported much of it, as it provided (in contrast to the demogogic welfare-queen-bashing of the Republicans in the 70s and 80s) significant assistance in employment services, child care, and other “hand up” program. Better and fairer school funding.

    And no, your personal feelings about any or all of these agendas are not really relevant to the question at hand – on each and every one of them, African-American voters are solidly behind the Democrats.

    Gay marriage and school vouchers? I think we’ve got a pretty good idea of how significant those issues are to black voters after the past few elections.

  59. The Democratic Party is for rich, educated white people like you, not for anyone else.

    Funny how the Democratic Party keeps winning huge majorities among every racial, ethnic, and religious miniority in the country, then.

  60. I had the same thought. The New Witty Dan T. cannot possibly be the same person as the Lame Troll Dan T.

    No, it’s me. I cannot quite explain my change in mood.

  61. three cheers for social sanctioning.

  62. Dan T.,

    You’ve always been able to turn a phrase. The difference probably is that now you are doing so on a subject where folks agree with you.

  63. We live in a world that needs walls, and those walls have to be built by appropriations from Congress. Who’s gonna do it? You? You, thoreau? Tom Tancredo has a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for illegal immigrants, and you curse the nativists. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what Tom Tancredo knows. That the illegal immigrant’s death in the desert, while tragic, probably saves lives. And Tom Tancredo’s existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don’t want the truth because deep down in places you don’t talk about at parties, you want Tom Tancredo on that wall, you need Tom Tancredo on that wall.

    Tom Tancredo uses words like country, culture, language… Tom Tancredo uses these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. Tom Tancredo has neither the time nor the inclination to explain himself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that Tom Tancredo provides, and then questions the manner in which Tom Tancredo provides it. Tom Tancredo would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, Tom Tancredo suggests you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, Tom Tancredo doesn’t give a damn what you think you are entitled to!

  64. I have a different theory, but I will keep it to myself.

  65. Um, about Dan T., that is, not about MikeP’s screed.
    (Just kidding about “screed,” MikeP. I didn’t read what you wrote, but it was long.)

  66. Mini-Weigel! Despite what someone else said above, TomTancredo didn’t attend a LeagueOfTheSouth meeting. Members of that group attended a meeting organized by another group.

    The group that started that lie has an indirect link to the MexicanGovernment.

    You learn something new everyday, just not from Reason’s contributors.

  67. I ometimes forget Joe that you are a Democratic automaton incapable of any self awareness or criticism of the Democratic Party. I love your comment on school vouchers. I guess black just don’t give a shit and love the teacher’s unions so much that they are willing to sell their kids’ futures for the sake of a government funded monopoly. The point is not that black people haven’t or are not voting Democrat. The point is that the Democrats are completely screwing black people and that cannot go on forever without some kind of consequences. Live in denial all you want, but that doesn’t change the facts.

  68. let the language of the civil rights movement be prostituted to help rich gay people get married?

    Some of my best friends are gay!

  69. I say we be nice to Dan as long as he keeps this up.

    Good going, Dan.

  70. The point is that the Democrats are completely screwing black people and that cannot go on forever without some kind of consequences.

    I think it’s more like the Democrats are giving blacks about a 75% screwing and it simply makes more sense to vote Dem when the other choice is a party that really will give them a complete screwing.

  71. I say we be nice to Dan as long as he keeps this up.

    Good going, Dan.

    Thanks. It will be interesting to see who gives in first…heh

  72. If only black people would listen to John.

    “I guess black just don’t give a shit and love the teacher’s unions so much that they are willing to sell their kids’ futures for the sake of a government funded monopoly.”

    Nah, they complain about lousy schools all the time – AND YET, when given a choice between Republicans who agree with them on school vouchers, immigration, and gay marriage or any Democrat this side of Zell Miller, they pick the Democrat every single time. That’s because school vouchers may be more popular than nothing, but Democratic ideas for school reform are even more popular than vouchers.

  73. Hey Rhywun!

    awesome pics on your blog. The Sunday Walk series is terrific! Thanks for posting them!

  74. joe –
    why are you the only one that gets to make sweeping generalizations about black people?

  75. Oh really TLB? I guess the LOS themselves must be a front for the SecretMexicanShadowGovernment.

    It has Tancredo listed as a guest, asshat.

  76. Reinmoose,

    I forgot that you weren’t at that meeting.

    joe got black people.
    Grand Chalupa got Middle Easterners.
    Lonewacko got Mexicans.
    Jennifer got people with kids.
    John got Democrats.
    Guy Montag got everyone against the Iraq war.
    VikingMoose got Mr Steven Crane.
    Urkobold got physicists.
    I got Rush fans (both kinds).

    I think you were assigned Christian White Supremacists. Fire away. It’s an easy target.

  77. 🙁
    I was hoping for something more challenging… though I guess I am qualified as an authority on Christian White Supremacists, seeing as there is no shortage of them in my extended family (though they are slowly dying off).

  78. here are a lot of Mexicans who have come here legally and do not like illegals.

    As evidenced by the massive latino-driven anti-immigration deomnstrations marching through the streets of LA, NYC, etc.

  79. OH NOES TLB FOILED US AGAIN!!1111

  80. VM,

    I didn’t know anybody followed those damn links – I never do… I only put that in there in hopes that my browser would save my info. Glad you enjoyed the meager pickings.

  81. Discussing the aggregate behavior of groups is not “making sweeping generalizaitons.” Generalizing requires the additional step of assuming that individual behavior will match that of the group’s aggregate behavior.

  82. more hijack: hey rhywun, where in bay ridge?

  83. I believe I’ve already supplied this link. Let me suggest reading it.

    Had the SPL gotten in contact with AmericansHaveHadEnough! or Tancredoscampaign, they would have found out that these guys had nothing to do with the event. Perhaps the SouthernPovertyLawCenter can explain that when they correct the record and, if they have any common decency, apologize to TomTancredo for smearing him in this fashion. Update #1: I spoke to JamesLayden, the Chairman of the SouthCarolinaLeagueoftheSouth. He was very polite, but was also a little foggy on what his group’s involvement was with the event, if they had any beyond encouraging their members to go. However, he did say definitively that they did not sponsor the event.

  84. NoOneEverSaidTheySponsoredTheEventTheySaidTomTancredoSpokeToLeagueOfTheSouthMembers.

    WhichHeDid.

  85. I forgot that you weren’t at that meeting.

    ^#,

    I showed up for the meeting, but Urkobold? told me it had been rescheduled due to a meeting of the American Union of Blog Trolls (Local #419).

    I knew something sounded fishy about that. Dammit.

    Are there any groups left? I’ll even take “fraudulent psychics.”

  86. Your attempt to show your superior command of semantics failed in that you defined stereotyping, not generalizing. Generalizing is examining the behavior of a few individuals and assuming the whole group acts that way, rather than stereotyping which is attributing the perceived qualities of a group to an individual.

    Way to actually not answer the question.
    Also, people who are “discussing the aggregate behavior of groups” usually don’t invest themselves so emotionally in their statements.

  87. I’ll even take “fraudulent psychics.”

    As opposed to legitimate ones?

  88. Reinmoose,

    Don’t care.

    You’ve added nothing to this thread.

  89. I’ll even take “fraudulent psychics.”

    As opposed to legitimate ones?

    Good point. I apologize for the redundancy.

  90. Generalizing is examining the behavior of a few individuals and assuming the whole group acts that way, rather than stereotyping which is attributing the perceived qualities of a group to an individual.

    Regardless, I’ve done neither.

    I made easily-verifiable statements about broad trends, which did not rely on observations of “a few individuals,” and made no statements about any group “as a whole,” just about their political preferences in the aggregate.

  91. I usually ignore Cesar, and this is going to be my last reply on this topic. The claim

    This page (splcenter.org/intel/news/item.jsp?aid=79) says: “League of the South (LOS), a neo-Confederate hate group, hosted a barbeque”

    As RWN discusses at the link above, that claim is false.

    They backpeddle here:

    splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=706

    As stated above, the SPLC has an indirect link to the MexicanGovernment. Obvious, joining a coalition headed by someone who’s collaborating with that government and who’s written an “OppositionResearch” paper for that government and who was at least introduced to clients by that government doesn’t concern them.

    And, of course, I’m still waiting for the “civil libertarians” at Reason to discuss how TedHayes’ FirstAmendment rights were violated (see my first link way above).

    I guess snark in support of corporatism is more important than discussing a clear violation of someone’s FirstAmendment rights.

  92. Jake Boone,

    I’ll have to check the minutes, but I’m pretty sure you got bestiality opponents.

    No, that’s not a typo. One of those nutjobs who shows up only for the animal rights’ posts swooped in and took the proponents.

    You’re stuck making sweeping generalizations about almost everyone as a whole.

  93. That was me.
    How embarrassing!

  94. Aw, crap. Well, okay, I suppose I’d better get to work crafting a sweeping generalization about bestiality opponents…

    Bestiality opponents… umm… all oppose bestiality!

    Hmm. Doesn’t really have the zing to it I was hoping for. Reinmoose, you wanna trade?

  95. hey rhywun, where in bay ridge?

    Right off the Bay Ridge Ave. station on the R. I moved here from Chelsea a couple months ago and quadrupled my space for less rent.

  96. Give me your tired, your poor,
    Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
    The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
    Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
    I lift my lamp beside the golden door.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.