Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo continued to defend his comments that threatening to bomb Muslim holy sites would be the right way to “deter any kind of aggression” from terrorists and said that anyone who wouldn’t do the same “isn’t fit to be president” on Sunday morning. (CNN.com (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/08/05/tancredo-defends-threat-to-bomb-muslim-holy-sites/))

So ... uh ... er ... Holy swords of fire, Batman! I didn't think it could get any worse!

“This shows that we mean business,” said Bay Buchanan, a senior Tancredo adviser. “There’s no more effective deterrent than that. But he is open-minded and willing to embrace other options. This is just a means to deter them from attacking us.” (CNN.com (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/08/04/tancredo-bomb-muslim-holy-sites-first/))

Apparently, invading Iraq, pissing on the Geneva Conventions, and attacking our own Constitution isn't enough of a sign.

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to make of this, other than to take comfort that Tancredo is polling miserably and falling.

Of course, maybe this just means Americans don't mean business.

Who is that idiot? That is the dumbest suggestion I have ever heard. One almost suspects that he is some redneck who would not be able to locate the US on a map. His arguments, man. What if someone else suggested, that bombing capitol hill would be a good way to demonstrate they mean business.

Who is that idiot?

He's a Republican member of the U.S. House of Representatives, and I do believe he's running for president.

He hasn't a chance of winning a spot on the ticket. But at least this outrage is relevant. Huckabee and Brownback are fighting over Catholics after the former's campaign smeared the entirety of Catholicism. People wondered at one point if former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney's religion (LDS) would count against him in his quest for the presidency. It seems that the rest of the field has made it a non-issue; in a recent Iowa poll, he was the only GOP candidate (including non-candidate Thompson) to top the "undecided" vote.

I almost feel badly for Republican voters. And then I remember they're Republicans. This is the party they've worked to build.

unethical

Tiassa,

Just a question, LDS?

From europe, hearing these things from a man which runs for the most powerful office on earth, really sends shudders down my spine (and anyone else overhere). Hopefully, the majority of the 25% of the electorate who would vote republican are wise enough to dismiss this man as a crank.

I cannot get into my head, how anyone can take such a man seriously.

Your last point, I agree. The moderates allowed the pary to be taken over by neo-cons and religious fanatics.

unethical

What do you mean?

What do you mean?

Tom Tancredo's remarks are unethical.

Ah ok. And irresponsible. I can already hear bin laden laughing.

What? How would you know?

Just a question, LDS?

Latter-Day Saints. Mormons. The official name, as I understand it, is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

Mormons tend to creep people out. The exploitative South Park episode actually does a good job of pointing out what people find strange. Additionally, people get strange vibes from their Mormon acquaintances:

• It may be a myth, but there is a widespread belief among the infidels that Mormons are only allowed to wear church-approved underwear.

• I recall a time a girl I knew was near to tears when she suddenly realized she wasn't drinking caffeine free Diet Coke. (Even worse, she actually was drinking the caffeine free label, and just got confused.)

• A woman I worked with in Eugene, Oregon, told me she was separating from the church because one of her friends had been excommunicated on the grounds of committing premarital fornication; the friend was apparently raped.

• A professor in the Seattle area faced excommunication proceedings after he wrote a book documenting the scientific evidence that disagreed with an old church belief that indigenous American tribes were descended from Jews, and that their dark skin was a sign of inferiority because it represented their fall from God's grace.

Things like this make people nervous about Mormons. To the other, they really do try to be nice people, even and especially when trying to evangelize. The thing is, though, that their holy book was apparently, and quite literally, pulled out of a hat. (See point #6 at at this site (http://www.lds-mormon.com/transltn.shtml).) From the outside, it's a stranger thing than the rest of Christianity. At least with monsters like Joseph Kony (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Kony), who enslaves children as soldiers (the Lord's Resistance Army) in a fight to establish a Christian nation in Uganda, the basis of corruption is something familiar to me. Mormons, despite the legends and the polygamous sects, and so forth, are certainly not evil to any degree remotely comparative to Kony, but the strangeness of their presentation seems to scare the hell out of people.

Thanks!

So they are people who have some rather peculiar beliefs, but seem to function in modern soceity (sort of).

So how do they stand on foreign relations? Hawks or Doves? Maybe you should get a quaker for president, they are usually pacifists.

Another trigger happy republican seems to me the worst of worlds.

Right and people sit and wonder "why do they hate America ?" While they may not hate Mainstream Americans, this is not giving you a good image.
Not that Aussies have an excuse, Pauline Hansen popularity shows that we're still racist.

I would not go as far as say hating america.

There is alot of good stuff as well, we never here of it. And your right, we have our extremist in europe as well, but they are luckily marginal.

The worry I can have, is that these people are not marginal. They are actually contenders. If a european politician would claim to be guided by God (or invoke him constantly), he would be considered a fanatic and shunned by the voters. The personal belifs of our politicians are never really discussed. We still somehow belive that politics as a rational game, not religious.

However, the president of the USA seems to belive that he is doing gods work. This the implies that he is right all the time. I find that worrying

So they are people who have some rather peculiar beliefs, but seem to function in modern soceity (sort of).

Sort of, indeed. I try to avoid Salt Lake City, and Utah in general.

So how do they stand on foreign relations? Hawks or Doves? Maybe you should get a quaker for president, they are usually pacifists.

I'm not able to answer as a generalization regarding Mormons. To the other, I would probably support a Quaker. If e'er I return to the Christian flock, it would be to the Society of Friends.

What's really funny is watching people try to figure out whether or not Mormons are Christians.

Ok, Now i'm confused, I though Mormons were a branch of Christianity ?

Ok, Now i'm confused, I though Mormons were a branch of Christianity?

I agree that they are, but not everyone does. It's sometimes subtle, but I'm more accustomed to hearing phrases like "Christians and Mormons", instead of, say, "Lutherans and Mormons" the way you might hear "Lutherans and Episcopalians"; the terminology tends to separate Christians and Mormons. Of course, it depends on one's perspective. There are some Protestant sects that think Catholicism isn't Christianity. With Mormons, most of my social conditioning has suggested that the LDS is something separate from Christianity.

Googling "mormons christian (http://www.google.com/search?q=mormons%20christian)" produces a number of links pertaining to the argument:

• Abrams, Cooper (Castle Country Baptist Church): "Are Mormons Christian? (http://cnview.com/on_line_resources/are_mormons_christian.htm)" (No)
• Lindsay, Jeff: "LDS FAQ: Are Mormons Christian? (http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Christian.shtml)" (Yes)
• Champneys, Mark. "Ex-Mormon Christian (http://www.integrity.com/homes/exmormon/)" (No)

And it goes on. And on. And on. (There's a bit at the Champneys site, about definitions (http://www.integrity.com/homes/exmormon/def.htm); it's kind of strange; the Mormon trinity is apparently polytheistic while the Christian trinity is monotheistic. O-kay ....)

Anyway, make what you will of it. And good luck.

I think i'll concentrate on Islam, which has a lot of similar but a bit easier to understand sects and branches, most of which have to do with geography and history.

From europe, hearing these things from a man which runs for the most powerful office on earth, really sends shudders down my spine (and anyone else overhere). Hopefully, the majority of the 25% of the electorate who would vote republican are wise enough to dismiss this man as a crank.

I cannot get into my head, how anyone can take such a man seriously.

Only a few do. Two sets of poll numbers out of Iowa show Mitt Romney leading the GOP pack: 27% in the Woodbury County GOP Straw Poll (http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2007/08/07/news_living/local/9b0d5c6430fef43c86257330000158bd.txt), and 26% in a post-debate Washington Post/ABC News poll (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2003822229_poll05.html). (Note, only 19% of respondents to the WP/ABC poll were "very satisfied" with the GOP field.) The Mad Bomber Tom Tancredo scored 8% in the Woodbury poll, grabbing fourth place behind Giuliani (14%) and "undecided" (17%). Tancredo's standing in the WP/ABC poll is weaker; he tied for sixth place with Sam Brownback at 5% each.

I can't possibly do the math to tell you how many voters that actually suggests in a nationwide projection. Tancredo's best hope for the office at this point is an act of God that kills all the other candidates. We're safe for now, and the odds are that Tancredo will not be returning to the House of Representatives after the 2008 election. Once he drops the presidential race, he will probably focus on reelection. If the press is just, reporters will keep the gaffe front and center through that campaign, as well.

Our international neighbors need not fear a Tancredo presidency.

And our Asian neighbours need not fear a Prime Minister Pauline Hansen, Even Ultra conservative John Howard distanced himself from her, therefore her chances are nil.
However, the labor candidate has not made any promises on relaxing our detention laws...

Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo continued to defend his comments that threatening to bomb Muslim holy sites would be the right way to “deter any kind of aggression” from terrorists and said that anyone who wouldn’t do the same “isn’t fit to be president” on Sunday morning. (CNN.com (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/08/05/tancredo-defends-threat-to-bomb-muslim-holy-sites/))

So ... uh ... er ... Holy swords of fire, Batman! I didn't think it could get any worse!

“This shows that we mean business,” said Bay Buchanan, a senior Tancredo adviser. “There’s no more effective deterrent than that. But he is open-minded and willing to embrace other options. This is just a means to deter them from attacking us.” (CNN.com (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/08/04/tancredo-bomb-muslim-holy-sites-first/))

Apparently, invading Iraq, pissing on the Geneva Conventions, and attacking our own Constitution isn't enough of a sign.

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to make of this, other than to take comfort that Tancredo is polling miserably and falling.

Of course, maybe this just means Americans don't mean business.

I'm all for it. As long as we nuke Jerusalem once another right wing Christian Terrorist like Eric Rudoplh, or Timothy McVeigh blows up and kills Americans.

On a certain level, there are times when you want a leader who appears to be bat-shit crazy, like Tancredo. It can deter rational enemies in some cases.

Unfortunately, the present situation is not one of those cases. Some of our enemies do not act entirely rationally and, amongst those who are rational, huge recruitment boost their organization would get from a U.S. strike against Mecca may vastly outweigh their personal desire to keep Mecca safe.

During the Cuban Missile Crisis, though, his sort of crazy-lookinged posturing worked for us in the end.

I recognize that some of his supporters like him for his "no immigration, legal or otherwise" stance, but I'm surprised more people aren't driven off by things likel this.

Unfortunately, the present situation is not one of those cases

I might disagree. I'm glad things haven't ... oh, unfortunately for ... er, never mind. My bad.

Eh, bombing holy sites is too far. Besides it punishes the moderates. I say we bury every insurgent, al-qaeda and muslim terrorist with a few strip of bacon. Should solve our problems in a hurry.

Ask the British about that one. The pork stunt didn't go over too well in India.

On a certain level, there are times when you want a leader who appears to be bat-shit crazy, like Tancredo. It can deter rational enemies in some cases.

Unfortunately, the present situation is not one of those cases. Some of our enemies do not act entirely rationally and, amongst those who are rational, huge recruitment boost their organization would get from a U.S. strike against Mecca may vastly outweigh their personal desire to keep Mecca safe.

During the Cuban Missile Crisis, though, his sort of crazy-lookinged posturing worked for us in the end.

I recognize that some of his supporters like him for his "no immigration, legal or otherwise" stance, but I'm surprised more people aren't driven off by things likel this.

I dont agree with what you say about Cuba. Kennedy was taking a firm stand, and it showed the soviets that he was not going to be pushed around. Krushev was also scared about nuclear war even for his bragging. But in the end, it was a quid pro quo arrangement. They removed their missiles from Cuba, the US removed theirs from Turkey.

If Kennedy did do a "Crazy looking posturing", I am sure that he did not mean it seriously. I am afraid that Tancredo does.

Eh, bombing holy sites is too far. Besides it punishes the moderates. I say we bury every insurgent, al-qaeda and muslim terrorist with a few strip of bacon. Should solve our problems in a hurry.

Have you been reading John Birmmingham ? ....Sanction 4 was it ?

Just a question, LDS?

Mormon, "Church of Latter Day Saints" = LDS (not to be confused with LSD, which many people think the founder was on when I came up with some of the crazy shit that Mormon's believe).

From europe, hearing these things from a man which runs for the most powerful office on earth, really sends shudders down my spine (and anyone else overhere). Hopefully, the majority of the 25% of the electorate who would vote republican are wise enough to dismiss this man as a crank.

Um. In Europe there are pleanty of crazies who run for office. But, like in America we generally just shrug them off.

I cannot get into my head, how anyone can take such a man seriously.

The man's a parriah in his own party and no one THERE even takes him seriously.

The moderates allowed the pary to be taken over by neo-cons and religious fanatics.

That may be less true than you think. Current Republican front-runners are Giuliani, McCain & Romney-- all party mavericks, two of whom are publicly pro choice and the other one is privately as well. Two are moderates on the "gay" issues. And if you throw Ron Paul in the mix-- he's the sainest cantidate of either the Dems or the Reps.

The same polarization claim can be said of the Democrats that seem to be moving towards left wing loons, which is why the only thing that's even keeping people like Clinton in the race is her last name, and Obama's good looks and race are what's propelling him... otherwise you'd have Edwards and god-knows-who.

In fact, there is almost a visible move towards the center. Which, is a good thing.

~String

In fact, there is almost a visible move towards the center. Which, is a good thing.

USA PATRIOT Act, war vote, wiretapping bill. Move to the center is a great thing, isn't it? Make it so the people can't tell the difference, and we might just see 2002 all over again.

String,

Yes Giuliani and the others, they are moderates. But, if any of them get the nomination then what?

Would there be democrates voting for them? Or will they have to cater for the base, including the religious right. It will interesting to see just how far they will go there, if the number of votes get close. I seem to remember Bob Dole talking nonsense in 96. He advocated large tax cuts eventhough he was against it in the senate. But, that is campaigning for you.

And I agree here with Tiassa, I really dont see them moving to center that much.