<p>I think everyone knows his “deal” regarding the issue. He was a U.S. Representative, so if we didn’t know his “deal”, that would be unfortunate.</p>
<p>I’m glad he wasn’t able to spew more hatred than he already has. </p>
<p>And even though everything he says isn’t threatening, hateful or illegal, the man shouldn’t be put on a pedestal and allowed to talk if he harbors caveman ideals.</p>
<p>As righteous as you may feel in saying that, you have to realize that what you’re arguing for is pretty subjective.</p>
<p>This is how to break it down.</p>
<p>Let’s assume that he is within the limits of free speech in what he’s saying. Actually, no, let me explain that despite the fact that what Tancredo likes to say arguably comes from an ignorant or hateful place in his heart, it is not actually defined as “hate speech,” because there is no imminent threat of violence from him saying it. It’s ironic that I type that because there was violence from him saying virtually nothing at all.</p>
<p>Anyway, if he’s using neutral language to share hateful ideas, then he is not using hate speech.</p>
<p>So if you use that same type of language to attack someone for their political beliefs (whatever their political beliefs are does not matter whatsoever), it’s also still legal. Here’s why this is tricky:</p>
<p>Some people think that because they’re defending racial equality that the disgust they feel towards the speech that disagrees with them alone is an argument for “hate speech.” But keep in mind that this is all an issue of values. Maybe you feel that the top priority in America is racial equality. What if I argue that the most important issue in America is everyone’s right to hold their own political beliefs and discuss them openly, regardless of their race, gender, or creed? Then someone working to silence the thoughts of someone racist is appalling.</p>
<p>Sure he was a U.S. Representative, but Representatives focus on tons of issues, and that also was in the past. There is always the possibility that a. he has some new ideas b. he has reworked some of his older ideas c. the issue he’s discussing now is totally unrelated to whatever he focused on in the past. And, even if a. b. and c. are all untrue, maybe I, Carolina Student, have no idea what his deal is, I just know some basic information. Maybe I wanted to get to know him in a way OTHER than wikipedia or some other website. Maybe I wanted to have the chance to ask him specific questions after he spoke.</p>
<p>Allowing someone the opportunity to speak isn’t putting them on a pedestal, it’s an exercise in our First Amendment. If he’s harboring caveman ideals, then it should be SUPER easy to strike down his arguments, right? Well, too bad, because not a single Carolina student was given the opportunity to do that. That is incredibly disappointing.</p>
<p>If listening to what he says makes you want to vomit, then exercise your right to not listen to him. But his speech is of value to plenty of people - people who agree and disagree with him - and a desire to limit that is rather scary. Using your arguments, people could argue that you should not be allowed to be put on a pedestal for your blatant hatred of conservative ideals. They could use what you’ve said in this forum to say that you’ve already spewed enough of your opinions about your obvious distaste of an ideology, which blatantly goes against the fabric of our constitution.</p>
<p>Maybe that sounds crazy to you, but the argument could be made.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>First of all, it is clear that you don’t believe in free speech. If you did, you wouldn’t have said that YWC shouldn’t be able to have anyone else speak. In doing so, you engaged in outright censorship, something that the university community and this nation as a whole is against. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not insulting liberals-I said that many, including YDs, were fine. Only a few were crazy, and their actions (assaulting police and damaging property) were indeed “wacked out”.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’ve already said that some protests were justified…it is only the people that engaged in censorship, disrespect and violence that were in the wrong. I’m a bit concerned that you regard freedom of speech so lightly, though…its only part of our constitution. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>For the umpteenth time, freedom of speech is protected no matter who is speaking. There is no guarantee that anything Mr. Tancredo would have said would have been racist; indeed, I guess we’ll never know. Going on your logic, the university should have cracked down on the pro-Palestinian demonstrations that occurred last semester, because those were obviously “pro-terrorism”. You can’t pick and chose the speech that you would like to permit-this country guarantees freedom of speech for anyone, not just hardcore liberals. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The university didn’t invite him…YWC did. It isn’t the university’s job to shred the constitution and prohibit freedom of speech, like some of you support. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course not-but once a speaker is invited, his/her freedom to speak his mind should be protected. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>On this, we agree.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, the constitution doesn’t apply to everyone. Slaves are 3/5th a person, and conservatives shouldn’t be allowed to voice their opinions. Your logic is all that is and has been wrong with this country. Everyone has a right to speak-as I said earlier, the university tolerated a pro-Palestinian demonstration earlier this semester that many could consider to be pro-terrorist, but no conservatives disrupted the ceremony because we believe that the constitution applies to all Americans, not just those we agree with. Unfortunately, it seems like people like yourself who only believe in selective application of the rights that we are guaranteed could use a Constitutional refresher course.</p>
<p>Like it or not, you are a prime example of the exact intolerance that you purport to be against.</p>
<p>Where does this idea that Tancredo is racist come from ( really want to know). Everything I have read on the man and his immigration views stems from the idea of illegality. What I heard the man say during his campaign was that he wanted to stop illegal immigration, have a moratorium for a set number of years while assimilating and obtaining citizenship for the illegals already here. Nowhere have I heard racist speech.</p>
<p>The man is against people breaking the law and receiving benefits/money/rights with no citizenship. My impression was that he was to speak about the bill proposed to allow illegal persons to attend state schools and pay instate tuition? Was this not correct?</p>
<p>I detest many of the ideas of many different politicians, but I can still listen to them or not listen as I desire. The students who acted like uneducated, undisciplined, rude and self-centered adolescents did not show any desire to gain facts.</p>
<p>If you feel that racial equality is not the top priority, that’s fine. I think that it shouldn’t be either–it shouldn’t be a priority at all, because it SHOULD HAVE been achieved by now. But, thanks to men in powerful positions like Tom Tancredo, it hasn’t been. It should be easy to strike down his arguments, and apparently, the protesters believed his argument wasn’t worth hearing. That may or not be true. He made other similar speeches at other colleges. I’m sure he would have said the same thing or something similar at Carolina.</p>
<p>I don’t hate Conservative ideals. I actually never said that. I hate racism, and it should have absolutely no place in today’s society. I don’t feel righteous in saying my opinion. I know people disagree, but I simply don’t see how anyone could tolerate racism of any calibur in 2009.</p>
<p>I don’t doubt your argument. I see where you’re coming from and it’s valid, but there obviously were not enough people that thought his speech was of value to overpower those who thought it was not. And if he felt so empowered to share his opinion, he could have stayed. After all, no one made him leave. </p>
<p>Again, I am not defending the violence of the protesters. I am simply defending those who were respectful.</p>
<p>Blair if you are answering me, I still don’t understand. How is wanting immigrants to come to our country through legal channels racist? I don’t care what country, what color of skin or what language they speak—if they don’t take the steps to enter legally, they are illegal. Seems simple to me and race is not part of the issue.</p>
<p>He’s racist, IMO, because he thinks anyone who legally comes to live here should assimilate–forget your home country, your culture, and your old ways of living. Basically, ideas straight from the 1800’s.</p>
<p>mkm, that post answers you^</p>
<p>Also, he is National Chairman for YWC.</p>
<p>I have never seen that statement from him—as far as forgetting heritage and culture. Do people need to learn our language and our laws? I say yes, if I went to Germany or Italy or Brazil to live–I would expect to learn their language, their customs and their laws (doesn’t mean I have to give up my cultural heritage).</p>
<p>Google it and you’ll find it–verbatim. I agree that legal citizens should learn English, but the rest is not necessary.</p>
<p>Cuse, you are putting words in my mouth. I never said anything about disliking Conservatives. Almost all of my friends are Conservatives, so if I decided not to listen to them, I’d be in trouble. Everyone has a right to speak, but not everyone has a right to a pedestal with which to voice their opinion. If I knew someone to be openly racist, I would have a hard time listening–I’m sorry to say that.</p>
<p>I don’t understand how I’m intolerant, other than being intolerant of a racist and insensitive man. I’m not intolerant because he is a Republican.</p>
<p>And you bashing my opinion on the issue is, again, not necessary. I never said your tolerance of a racist man was “a prime example of everything wrong with this country.”</p>
<p>Just putting it out there that America has no official language. I agree, life in America is way more convenient learning English, but thought that that should be pointed out.</p>
<p>True Cloying–that’s a whole other issue for another thread, lol</p>
<p>Here you go:</p>
<p>“Presidential Candidate Tom Tancredo advocates bombing of Mecca and Medina”
[YouTube</a> - Tom Tancredo advocates bombing of Mecca and Medina](<a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7ceyrBw50Y]YouTube”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7ceyrBw50Y)</p>
<p>"Tancredo’s urgent call for “assimilation”
[VDARE.com:</a> 03/14/09 - Tom Tancredo At American University: Maybe It Is About Race](<a href=“VDARE.com”>VDARE.com)</p>
<p>“Although he stated his opposition to “diversity,” and multiculturalism”
[The</a> Last Ditch – COOPER STERLING – Tom Tancredo and assimilation](<a href=“http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/sterling_tancredo_speech.htm]The”>The Last Ditch -- COOPER STERLING -- Tom Tancredo and assimilation)</p>
<p>Well, Cloying, Tom Tancredo apparently thinks so and thinks America has ONE culture to adhere to, which is not true, IMO.</p>
<p>Thanks for the links–to me it sounds like he (Tancredo) wants people to come here legally and understand the (most prevalent) language and the laws of customs of America. Two of those were written with a great deal of bias from the viewpoint of those groups, so it was a little difficult to see where Tancredo left off and the groups’ beliefs came in. Sorry couldn’t watch the YouTube (something wrong with my speakers).</p>
<p>My exposure to the man has been on main stream media during the campaign --maybe he was toned down for the general public? </p>
<p>At any rate, for or against his views, he should have been allowed to speak and Carolina students should have a little more class than to behave in the way they did. It certainly didn’t speak to open mindedness. And ironically that was what they were criticizing in Tancredo.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, he couldn’t have stayed. He was evacuated for his own safety. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>He’s not openly racist-not even close. He even has a hispanic wife. Unfortunately, false assumptions led some on the far left to believe that he is. Calling him openly racist is like calling the people that attended the pro-Palestinian protest earlier this semester openly terrorists-it just isn’t true, and it insults the intelligence of everyone that makes the claim.</p>
<p>Also, blair, do you not agree that Tancredo has the right to speak his mind in this country? The ACLU does, as do the vast majority of people here. Only the extreme left had a problem with it, as they are against any ideas that counter their own.</p>