Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Sandman on July 22, 2006, 02:12:06 AM
-
I used to think Pat Buchanan was a bit of a nutburger. Hell, he probably still his and he's had his share of provocative statements.
Check this out:
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/VIDEO__Matthews_Buchanan_Slam_Neocons_0720.html
I think he's spot on.
-
You think he's what ?
-
Yeah saw that... and Mathews really - I mean really - surprised me here.
-
He is spot on! The last 2minutes is what ive said here since it started.
I dont know Pat and what he may have said in the past but on the current situation it looks like he really gets it.
-
Right now, I can't think of a candidate that I'd vote for over Buchanan. He's the only one that has shown to have a *clue* of what's going on in our foreign policy.
-
LOL... so the liberals here stand "pat" with pat on this one? But of course... they hate all his other ideas. Never was a candidate reviled so much by the left as he was.
So now..... because his isolationist conservative views fit their current thinking.... He is brilliant? Because he blasts the people they dislike.... he is intuitive and compassionate?
Liberals are fun to watch.
lazs
-
All I can say is Pat is the stupid one and I am glad he's never become the Pres. Israel attacked all that stuff for a reason, to stop the Syrian and Iranian weapons and personnel (terrorists) from coming into Lebanon.
Now, I'll agree that the neo-cons don't appear to know how to wage war, but I am also sure the libs are just as clueless.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
So now..... because his isolationist conservative views fit their current thinking.... He is brilliant? Because he blasts the people they dislike.... he is intuitive and compassionate?
I was thinking the exact same thing.
-
I also think that most socialists are isolationists because they think that all that projection of power could best be used right here in the good ol USA to screw with the lives of the ordinary citizen.
On "programs" to "help" people here and run their lives.
Pat has allways had these isolationist views... I did not see these socialists praising him in the past when he blasted klinton for his little junkets into other countries affairs.
don't forget to wear your seatbelt now ya heah? click it or ticket.... hire more highway patrol to catch those seatbelt offenders...
Heck... If we don't catch em then they will drive up health care and insurance and we won't get that rebate every year that we get now from the health care and insurance companies...
Hell.... health care and insurance migth go back up to the levels it was before seatbelt and helmet laws and all the rebates!
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
LOL... so the liberals here stand "pat" with pat on this one? But of course... they hate all his other ideas. Never was a candidate reviled so much by the left as he was.
So now..... because his isolationist conservative views fit their current thinking.... He is brilliant? Because he blasts the people they dislike.... he is intuitive and compassionate?
Liberals are fun to watch.
lazs
:lol
-
I remember when Crossfire first aired on CNN :cry
-
"They want The United State to fight Israel's war against Hezbollah, Syria and especially Iran. And the Israelis want us to fight Iran as well. But it's not in the interest of The United States. "
Hmmmmm.
Now where have I heard that before
-
Originally posted by lazs2
....Never was a candidate reviled so much by the left as he was....
not in Miami, rofl!
-
Libs have been calling Pat a nazi for 20 years, and now that he says something that pokes a finger in Bush's eye, he's their hero
-
Is he right about this also?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Buchanan
Civil War
Buchanan believes that the American Civil War was not fought over slavery, and has ridiculed opponents of the display of flags of the Confederate States of America in state capitals.
The War Between the States was about independence, about self-determination, about the right of a people to break free of a government to which they could no longer give allegiance. How long is this endless groveling before every cry of 'racism' going to continue before the whole country collectively throws up?
Buchanan had a grandfather who fought in the Civil War on the Confederate side. Though his political views are often considered traditionally Midwestern in origin, Buchanan is proud of his Southern heritage. He is a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans[6].
-
Originally posted by Sandman
I used to think Pat Buchanan was a bit of a nutburger. Hell, he probably still his and he's had his share of provocative statements.
Check this out:
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/VIDEO__Matthews_Buchanan_Slam_Neocons_0720.html
I think he's spot on.
Pat's been right about most things for a long time.
Note to Lazs: This is what a real conservative (not neoconservative bait & switch) looks like.
-
Originally posted by bj229r
Libs have been calling Pat a nazi for 20 years, and now that he says something that pokes a finger in Bush's eye, he's their hero
Thats taking it abit far isnt it.
Speaking for myself i said that his statments in that interview is spot on. I dont know about his previous stuff.
On this tho.. he is correct.
Even Bush has his bright moments even if they are few and far apart. They are prolly not intentional tho ;)
-
Originally posted by lukster
Is he right about this also?
yes :)
-
Libs have been calling Pat a nazi for 20 years, and now that he says something that pokes a finger in Bush's eye, he's their hero
I voted for Pat twice but there is some foundation in the libs claim that Pat is/was a 'Nazi' or 'racist'. If you have read anything about his opinion of WW2 and Americas roll in it, or his opinions on the Civil war, or America's blind support of Israel etc... you can see their logic.
If you were a liberal it would be an easy leap to 'Nazi' or 'racist'. While these labels would be untrue and unfair they are hardly in line with modern neo-cons.
Pat has been poking his finger in Bush's eye for a long time, going back to his father. Even after he re-joined the Republican party and endorsed Bush he poked him in the eye again.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
This is what a real conservative (not neoconservative bait & switch) looks like.
Which was exactly my point. I didn't want to post this in the derailed Ann Coulter thread, but the notion that the GOP represents conservatism isn't true as long as the Neocons are shaping the agenda.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I also think that most socialists are isolationists because they think that all that projection of power could best be used right here in the good ol USA to screw with the lives of the ordinary citizen.
On "programs" to "help" people here and run their lives.
Pat has allways had these isolationist views... I did not see these socialists praising him in the past when he blasted klinton for his little junkets into other countries affairs.
don't forget to wear your seatbelt now ya heah? click it or ticket.... hire more highway patrol to catch those seatbelt offenders...
Heck... If we don't catch em then they will drive up health care and insurance and we won't get that rebate every year that we get now from the health care and insurance companies...
Hell.... health care and insurance migth go back up to the levels it was before seatbelt and helmet laws and all the rebates!
lazs
The socialists are coming! The socialists are coming!
LOL.
-
Finally a neo-con/fundamentalist/wacko/presidential wanna-be speaks out.
:rolleyes:
-
So Sandy do you still think he's a "nazi" and "a bit of a loon"?
-
Originally posted by Sandman
I don't often find myself agreeing with Pat. He's a nazi.
...but this time, he's right.
:aok
-
So he's a "nazi" and "a bit of a loon" but this time he's right?
Like a blind pig finding an acorn?
Are you going to keep him around for a while and scratch him behind his ears?
-
I think Sandy answered your question Toad with the 1st sentence of his post:
"I used to think Pat Buchanan was a bit of a nutburger. Hell, he probably still his and he's had his share of provocative statements."
Seems like some of you are getting carried away. It is in fact possible to agree with something somebody says without agreeing with everything he says. But then, that's the type of thinking that seems to give some people a great deal of difficulty.
Sorta like being able to support the troops, but not the war.
As far as what Sandy posted, I agree with Buchanen completely. Do I agree with everything he's ever said? No. Do I think he'd make a good President? No.
That being said.... true conservatives like Buchanan make me all nostalgiac for the olden days of like..... 15 years ago, when the Republican party was in fact sane.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
The socialists are coming! The socialists are coming!
LOL.
Coming? They've been here for over 50 years and are well entrenched. They found that the war isn't quite over as they thought until about 6 years ago. One or two more generations of public schooling will probably do it though.
-
So, I take it you disagree with his opinion on this topic. Fair enough.
-
It's just somehow so beautiful to see you guys fawning over something Pat said.
Even a "nazi" can be admired, I guess. :rofl
For the record, Pat has more than once put some cogent arguments forth. Sometimes favoring the right and sometimes (rarely) favoring the left. I think Laz has it right; he's only on your radar screen right now because he's currently slamming Bush. How could you not like him now, eh?
Tell me, is Pat "right on" or "a bit of a loon" about this issue:
Of Pulitzers and treason (http://www.theamericancause.org/042606-print.htm)
or this one?
The stealth amnesty of Mike Pence (http://www.theamericancause.org/print/061306_print.htm)
President? Why not? Like he'd be that all much worse or that much better than the two pandering bozos we'll be presented with as "choices" in '08.
-
You assume too much.
I've heard and agreed with tons of things he's said over the years.
You act like we've just discovered the guy 'cuz he poo-poo'd the preznit.
-
Ah, OK. I guess it's just funny then that you've never mentioned him or his positions/ideas in the last seven years on the board before. Probably just keeping it all to yourself for some reason I guess.
-
Oh so I don't know the guy? What are you, some kind of detective?
I remember watching him alla time on Crossfire - prolly starting in the late 80's. He used to take leaves of absences to run for preznit every 4 years then come back.
I especially remember him chiming in about the Bush/Gore Florida election.... when he said that there was no possible way that so many people intended to vote for him in some Jewish community, and that the ballots were all messed up.
So what are you trying to say here, Toad? That because all your snooping around for something I've said about him turns up nothing, therefore I don't know the guy?
I guess you're wrong.
.....and drifting waaaaaaaay off topic.
-
Originally posted by Nash
I've heard and agreed with tons of things he's said over the years.
Again I just think it's awfully odd that after agreeing with those tons of things you've never, ever mentioned one of them here in the last seven years.
But a Bush slam brings out an instant "attaboy".
Just sayin'.
-
Just sayin' nothin'.
"It's just somehow so beautiful to see you guys fawning over something Pat said."
"Ah, OK. I guess it's just funny then..."
"Again I just think it's awfully odd that..."
What a wonderful insight into your thoughts. I'm so glad that you decided to share them, even if you had to pull them outta yer arse.
Do you actually have anything to say about Buchanan's position here?
btw, this is by far not the first time he's slammed Bush, so I don't know why you get the idea that a Bush slam from him brings out an "instant attaboy." Some of us know how to restrain ourselves and besides.... there's just too much to choose from these days - from Pat or otherwise. ;)
-
Originally posted by lukster
CThey found that the war isn't quite over as they thought until about 6 years ago.
Yes, because staunch conservative George W. Bush has killed socialism once and for all by creating... the largest federal budget in the history of civilization. :eek:
-
Originally posted by Nash
Do you actually have anything to say about Buchanan's position here?
No. Because that would entail that they (and their party and their president) are dead wrong on this issue. When you are wrong it's much easier to change the subject than to deal with the facts.
-
Amen.
But be careful though, Funked. When pinko commie socialist tree-hugging hippies like me (phhht) agree with something, that 'something' must be wrong and swiftly attacked. Sorta like when a Goldwater era Republican (of all things!) says something that these modern-day GOP whippersnappers don't like - it's off with his head.
But I know you can handle yourself - not worried about that. And you make a great point:
Has there in fact been any discussion here at all about Buchanan's thoughts in the post that Sandman made?
Goose egg. There's probably a reason for that, and you've no doubt nailed why.
-
I didn't d/l the video (gawd dialup sux), but I have thought Buchanon was was sharp cookie for a long time. I would'nt vote for him, but he knows his foreign relations.
-
I love this thread...
hey Toad & lazs...
Your hypocrite detector is busted.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Even a "nazi" can be admired, I guess. :rofl
Careful... Marge Schott sais something similar and lost the Cincinnatti Reds...
-
Originally posted by Nash
Amen.
But be careful though, Funked. When pinko commie socialist tree-hugging hippies like me (phhht) agree with something, that 'something' must be wrong and swiftly attacked. Sorta like when a Goldwater era Republican (of all things!) says something that these modern-day GOP whippersnappers don't like - it's off with his head.
But I know you can handle yourself - not worried about that. And you make a great point:
Has there in fact been any discussion here at all about Buchanan's thoughts in the post that Sandman made?
Goose egg. There's probably a reason for that, and you've no doubt nailed why.
Maybe it was the way the article was written, or the Matthew character in the interview part. It's pretty obvious they're both working with hearsay, far as statements they make. Has Buchanen offered any insightful knowledge here where he's justified saying what he does?
Let's take Matthew saying something like "the war was supposed to be a cakewalk." Now com...mon!!! I don't remember hearing anything like that the whole time this war has been going on.
Anyway, from reading something like that, it just makes the rest of the article nonsense, or at least non-objective. Neocons? Is this mainstream language?
Does a disservice to Buchanan being in a news article like that. Wouldn't be surprised if he's upset. Does him more harm than good, in my opinion. Though I don't keep up with Buchanan's thoughts, it's the way the article is presented that I don't like, and by association...yes it does give the appearance or impression to me that Buchanan's words in the article are more finger pointing than substance. Guess that's politics, or journalism or what have you. Darn near conpiratorial sounding. Because of that, I disagree Buchanan is spot on.
Les
-
Uhm..... this wasn't an article - it was an interview. And Mathews is a staple of MSNBC.
Here - watch it. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOyo-DNlXDQ&eurl=)
Then come back and discuss it, k?
-
I didn't watch the video Nash. Only read the article part, with excerpts of the interview. Not having watched the video I can't comment on Buchanan's thoughts as they may have been presented in that medium. Was refering to the article. The written part of the interview, which was the interview I suppose. Excerpts are misleading usually though, true, and may be taken out of context sometimes.
Les
-
Okay.... what you saw wasn't an article, it was transcript. Of an interview.
-
Transcript. That's the word I was looking for. Thank you Nash.:)
Les
-
Watched it yet?
-
No, I can't watch videos easily on dial-up. Have tried before and after waiting several minutes with nothing happening, well you understand. Sorry.
Les
-
Yeah - no worries.
-
I would like to ask all those opposed to the war and now supporting Mr. Buchanan’s position to consider whether your opposition is truly to the war or merely to Bush.
Consider the following quote by Ulysses S. Grant.
“Experience proves that the man who obstructs a war, in which his nation is engaged, no matter whether right or wrong, occupies no enviable place in life or history. Better for him, individually, to advocate war, pestilence, and famine than to act as obstructionist to a war already begun. The history of the defeated rebel will be honorable hereafter, compared with that of the Northern man who aided him by conspiring against his government while protected by it. The most favorable posthumous history the stay-at-home traitor can hope for is - oblivion.”
Winston Churchill’s Memoirs of the second World War Volume I, The Gathering Storm. Explains how in pre-war Europe much like now, in an open democratic society our biggest weakness is allowing our own domestic politics to weaken our resolve and to thwart our decision making capabilities. That is the sole point of terrorism, to foment domestic political opposition in the enemy country.
In the afterward to the abridged edition, written in 1955 in the thick of the Cold War, Churchill predicts that the Soviet Union will collapse on itself and the greatest crisis facing the West will be the Arab Israeli conflict.
And I doubt he foresaw the true role of oil at that point in history. It is no coincidence that Britain was the only major European state to actively participate in Iraq II.
Saddam and Al Qaeda are weak and non influential today only because they have been preempted, just like Milosevic. It is one of the supreme ironies of history and life that pacifism causes war.
As far as Iraq consider what the likely alternatives to going to war were.
Continued repression and mass murder by the Baathist dictatorship, which eventually with massive oil income and failing sanctions would have allowed Iraq to reconstitute itself as a threat to the region, perhaps with Uday or Kusay in power.
Or perhaps the fall of Saddam due to internal revolt of the Shia and Kurds, which would have involved a high intensity bloodbath that would make today's low intensity war look rather “civil” by comparison.
This probably would have also involved active military intervention by at least Turkey, Syria and Iran and perhaps non-local forces such as China, Pakistan, or Russia. So, if you think you can wish away the problems in Iraq by being anti-"neo-con", you are dreaming.
While the current situation is not perfect, in my view the world and the region are much better off since the US is attempting to manage the situation and trying to work toward some level of stability.
I also believe the Iraq War was necessary because it is in the national interest and the interest of the current Western led world’s political and economic order to position substantial ground troops in the region for the long term.
The presence of permanent US base’s in Iraq provide an adequate US military presence in the region to keep things in line without inflaming tensions like the Saudi bases did.
I don't know if you realize this but today there is not a single American troop or military facility in Saudi Arabia, a prime recruiting tool and supposed justification for 9-11 according to Bin Laden. Our primary air base has been moved to Qatar. Our ground troops and armor are based primarily in Kuwait and Iraq.
Because of Iraq II, we were able to remove one of the primary motivations for a Wahhabist revolution in Saudi Arabia. This was done under cover of the Iraq War to assure that it did not appear that Bin Laden had ordered us out, thus further enhancing his stature in the Arab World.
No I don’t like the war, call me a “neo-con” if you will. I have an eleven year old son and I would find my life not worth living if something ever happens to him. But I don’t believe we can use the rational of the pre-WWII isolationist and hope our oceans will protect us from the threats that we now face.
-
Part of what it means to be "liberal" I guess.
You get to think what you want and aggree with a person on one issue but not on another.
Hard for people who call themselves "conservatives" now to understand.
If you make your decsisions rationaly and not by fear or hate or brainwashing it really lets you listen to all sides of every issue and leaves you less exposed to the kind of brain washing that most "conservatives" on this board have been subected to for the last 5 years. As the lies they loved get torn up one by one and the dead pile up they just look for someone else to hate.
And who better to hate then the ones that were not as stupid as you and didnt drink the koolaid.
It is very funny though that the only guy that seems to be able to go for the throat with Bush is another conservative..
Man the democratic party are a bunch of beaten pups.
-
Gunston.. OMG.
The depths that people will go to try an rationalize truths that undermine thier world view is increadable.
-
Pre-empted Al Qaeda? About 14 years late...
-
Originally posted by Pongo
The depths that people will go to try an rationalize truths that undermine thier world view is increadable.
While I may disagree with some of his ideas, you can't disprove his views anymore than he can prove them. Maybe he is right, we will never know...
Being proactive is great, but you need to perform like a surgeon to avoid making the longterm situation worse. Hate to say it, but the timing of the US has been akin to a $5 an hour comic... too late, or far too early.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Part of what it means to be "liberal" I guess.
You get to think what you want and aggree with a person on one issue but not on another.
I hardly think that to be a "liberal" trait. It's more like finding agreement on one point with a person you normally despise and then trying to use that point to attack those you think that person represents. That this is even done pretty much disproves your assertion that's it's common for a liberal to weigh individual issues.
-
"But I don’t believe we can use the rational of the pre-WWII isolationist and hope our oceans will protect us from the threats that we now face."
I agree, considering the threats in the nuclear age are even greater than pre WW2, its simplistic folly to pretend you can just withdraw and hope all the bad men will go away. The USA is a trading nation, and by definition, that implies national interests beyond its borders, political, military, and economic.
As for CNNs "Crossfire" ya, I miss that show (the original), what CNN has now is a bunch of Hollywood prima donas with "their shows", they all remind me of Heraldo now.
And what ever happened to Headline news? now we have Nancy Grace talking about who Scott Petersons cell mates are, ughh. Soap Operas.
:(
-
pat was a cheekbones before this and he is still a cheekbones after this ... lazs is right
-
So...you liberals... Do you agree with everything ol pat said in that article and think that he set the right tone and everything?
It seems to me to be exactly the same kind of attack piece he allways does... it is just as "mean spirited" as anything else he has done.
I guess that is what most of us who are not liberals are laughing at... For the people or policies that liberals hate... no amount of vitriol or bile is too much... A comedian that ridicules the ones they hate is elevated to comic genius status..
It is amusing is all... and telling.
oh.. and sandie....you don't believe that we are more and more socialist every year?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
oh.. and sandie....you don't believe that we are more and more socialist every year?
lazs
Not really... Your bogeyman is obviously socialism. Mine is corporatism, but that's another thread.
-
interesting.... corporatism can be socialism I suppose but....
Are you saying that the control of power by corporations is the reason that we have more and more powerful government interferance in our lives (socialism) ?
I could see your point on say seatbelts... insurance companies lobbied for that con... They used the "costs us all millions" idea on us and the politicians seeing it could increase their power went for it. None of us ever got rebates on our insurance and healthcare... and niether item went down in cost... the government got to "enforce" the law with more police and money to fund the program.
This would be symbiotic socialism in my view between corporations and government.
I admit that it is often hard to seperate the two but.... A government with a strong constituional bent and one that is anti socialist... would never have allowed it to happen in the first place.
Corporations controling politicians is indeed a problem but... with a strong constitutional governement that was centered on individual human rights... the corporations could not have any negative effect..
lazs
-
If corporations control the government and the government controls everything, then total corporate control is the same as total government control. Get a helmet and VFTR.
-
VFTR?
-
Originally posted by Nash
What a wonderful insight into your thoughts. I'm so glad that you decided to share them, even if you had to pull them outta yer arse.
Well, I don't believe I did. I believe what happened is some folks pulled some instant admiration for Pat outta their asses. And I think they actually value Pat about as much as what usually comes outta there.
As for my take on the transcript (nope, didn't watch it... is the transcript complete?) I agree with some of what he says but not all of it. There's quite a bit of conjecture, less of substance.
But he was absolutely 100% correct about the Swift boat guys and Kerry.
:rofl
-
Originally posted by Toad
Well, I don't believe I did. I believe what happened is some folks pulled some instant admiration for Pat outta their asses.
Of course you do.
Funny thing is, when going back and reading the posts that preceded your revelation, I just don't see the "instant admiration for Pat." It would be slightly interesting to see what you consider to be admiration for Pat, but I don't really care. Admiration for Pat (or lack thereof) didn't have a thing to do with the subject despite you wanting so much for it to be.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
VFTR?
Vote From The Rooftops
-
Instant admiration for Pat? I've admired him since I was 20 years old or so FWIW. He's flawed but who isn't?
-
"If corporations control the government and the government controls everything, then total corporate control is the same as total government control. Get a helmet and VFTR."
"Control" would not be the right word but you have the idea... the real word is more like "symbiotic" They use each other to broaden their powers... like the old kings and religious leaders... when they fight we get screwed... when they cooperate... we get screwed.
I worry tho when people like sandie are conned into thinking that a bigger and more powerful government will protect them from the corporations and special interests. The government is just a corporation and special interest.
All we need it a small government with a very plain and strong bill of rights.
My problem with people like sandie and groups like the aclu is that they want a strong government that regulates everything. One that considers the will of the people over that of basic human and individual rights.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
[BMy problem with people like sandie and groups like the aclu is that they want a strong government that regulates everything.
[/B]
My problem with people like Lazs is that they don't have a clue what I want and yet they go on and on thread after thread as if they do.
-
Meanwhile... back on the topic of Bush. Buckley: Bush Not A True Conservative (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/22/eveningnews/main1826838.shtml)
-
So... the guy doesn't really have to say anything as long as he's critical of bush? Gotcha sandy. You're proving lazs' point for him.
-
Lazs had a point?
-
Lazs had more of a point than the guy in the link you posted. You champion anyone that criticizes bush no matter who they are.
-
Did you have a point that's on topic?
"I think Mr. Bush faces a singular problem best defined, I think, as the absence of effective conservative ideology — with the result that he ended up being very extravagant in domestic spending, extremely tolerant of excesses by Congress," Buckley says. "And in respect of foreign policy, incapable of bringing together such forces as apparently were necessary to conclude the Iraq challenge." -William F. Buckley
-
Wow... no you're just getting to the selective quotes because half of the rest of what he said was downright silly.
You need to learn about context, sandy. Then you really need to work on considering it. I know it's a pipedream because this is the major shortcoming of the entire democratic party these days, but I can be optimistic.
-
I'll take that as a "no."
Thanks for playing.
-
Playing? You haven't served yet. As a matter of fact, you haven't really done anything other than selectively quote people and pretend that means anything other than you have a tendancy to pick and chose statements and pretend that means something.
Is that the game you were trying to play?
-
sandie... you may not have admitted to it but mini has you pegged... you will agree with any liberal socialist idea put forth on here and any anti Bush thread.
I am no fan of Bush myself but... he is still better than most of the guys you quote and you would vilify if they weren't speaking against Bush at the time.
I am sure that I am not the only one to find it amusing that your new heros are the likes of Pat and William F.
lazs
-
I'll admit that you guys can't have a discussion without categorizing and labeling the participants.
Other than that, you've got nothing. You don't want to talk about Buchanan or Buckley. Fine, move on.
-
I'll admit that you guys can't have a discussion without categorizing and labeling the participants.
That's the biggest liberal tell...
Not that I care but Sandman you have history on the forums and only judging from that you certainly fit the liberal, socialist mold. Maybe not as extreme as some but close enough... I know, don't label me etc...
Like others I don't see what is so 'worth mentioning' about either Pat's or Bill's comments presented in this thread. Both have been very critical of Bush and Republicans in the past. Pat has been right on a lot of things for the longest time.
What was this thread about anyway? Have you reached some epiphany and decided that true conservatives were right all along? Or were you just sticking it to Bush through Pat and Bill?
-
Maybe it was an opinion from a guy who is not generally known as a liberal that was agreeable to a liberal? Maybe that's all it was. Maybe Pat isn't anyones "new hero".
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Maybe it was an opinion from a guy who is not generally known as a liberal that was agreeable to a liberal? Maybe that's all it was. Maybe Pat isn't anyones "new hero".
Or it could that a liberal who hates labels stumbled across something that a conservative commenter said counter to the position of the conservative President. Then uses such statement on a forum to show that 'wow maybe he isn't the liberal we all thought..'
Anything is possible.
Pat was highly critical of NAFTA and other such issues that play well with the left. I guess Pat's opinion of the situation with Israel and Hizbu'llah was some how deserving of discussion. Pat didn't support war with Iraq either but I don't recall reading any 'I agree with Pat' threads by the anti-Iraq war types back then.
People will be suspicious of others motives when it comes to things like this. That's just how it is...
-
Originally posted by Bruno
Not that I care but Sandman you have history on the forums and only judging from that you certainly fit the liberal, socialist mold. Maybe not as extreme as some but close enough... I know, don't label me etc...
For another thread... Pick your questions/issues. Ask me straight up. Keep an open mind and don't try to paint me into some preconceived picture you have drawn up in your head with some agenda you wish to assign to me. I object to the labels liberal and conservative because it treats each as being mutually exclusive, as if a person can't see things in both agendas that are agreeable. I object to the red/blue labels as if a person can't agree with both the Democrats or the Republicans given a particular issue.
With that, I'm done talking about me in this thread.
Now... Let's talk about Bruce Bartlett (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/22/earlyshow/leisure/books/main1337222.shtml) or maybe columnist Fred Barnes (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/235mjdqp.asp) or maybe Doug Bandow (http://www.amconmag.com/12_1_03/cover.html) or maybe William Bryk (http://www.freezerbox.com/archive/article.php?id=300).
-
Are there "disaffected conservatives"?
Sure there are.
I'm pretty sure most folks here think I'm a diehard conservative or even Republican but I didn't vote for Bush in the last election.
I could have voted against him the first time he ran if the Democrats had found a better man to run than Gore.
I, and many others I believe, feel we are always voting for the "lesser of two weevils" as Aubrey said. I still think it's amazing that the Democrats couldn't find a man to beat Bush in two tries.
Or as Lewis Black puts it:
"It's not like I'm saying Kerry would have been any better. Let's face it. When you when into that voting booth, you had a choice between two bowls of s***. The only difference was the smell. How did you Democrats find Kerry? What's the matter with you people? ... The first time I heard him speak, I thought ... 'I don't have enough bread crumbs to get me home.' The fact of the matter is the Democrats not being able to find somebody to defeat George Bush is beyond belief. It's stunning. It would be like finding a normal person who would lose in the Special Olympics."
-
Originally posted by Sandman
With that, I'm done talking about me in this thread.
I call them out for going ad hominem instead of dealing with the topic at hand. So they... step up the ad hominem crap. :rolleyes:
These guys have the debate skills of early hominids...
-
Lewis Black was dead on.
-
Liberalism is truly a mental disorder
-
Originally posted by BGBMAW
Liberalism is truly a mental disorder
How special.
-
Originally posted by BGBMAW
Liberalism is truly a mental disorder
somebody got a spell checker.
-
Originally posted by BGBMAW
I'm incapable of constructing factually based arguments so I am just going to start calling names.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Meanwhile... back on the topic of Bush. Buckley: Bush Not A True Conservative (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/22/eveningnews/main1826838.shtml)
That headline is misleading. Buckley never said "Bush Not A True Conservative"I just watched the video, you can check it out from your own link.
-
Originally posted by Krusher
That headline is misleading. Buckley never said "Bush Not A True Conservative"I just watched the video, you can check it out from your own link.
Damn... it uses Real Player for the vid. No wonder I missed that. Hate that program.
-
So you are saying that Bush is not a small government conservative republican?
Ok.... I admit it... he ain't. Black said it fairly well tho... just not strong enough...
The worst republican is better for me than the most conservative democrat.. cause... lets face it...
The democrat will say one thing and then... push comes to shove.. he will vote right on down his parties liberal socialist lines... he will put in a buttload of liberal socialist judges and sigh off on every new welfare socialist program that comes down the pike.
I have seen sandie slam a lot of these republicans but rarely if ever slam the much worse liberal socialist democrats.
Even tho... if you are not a socialist.. the democrats would enrage you.
The perceotions people get about what you are can often be a total of what you criticize and what you don't.
That is why some here, like sandie, are percieved to be socialists.
lazs
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
I call them out for going ad hominem instead of dealing with the topic at hand. So they... step up the ad hominem crap. :rolleyes:
These guys have the debate skills of early hominids...
6000+ posts here and you're not used to it yet? :D
-
For another thread... Pick your questions/issues.
We don't need another thread since you post regularly on this forum. The content of what you post is there for anyone to read and to make a judgment on. It's not surprising that some find your views liberal. These labels aren't pulled out of thin air. If you feel you are just misunderstood well then take a look at your previous postings.
In addition Laz is also correct in that sometimes it's not just what you post but what you don't:
I have seen sandie slam a lot of these republicans but rarely if ever slam the much worse liberal socialist democrats.
Even tho... if you are not a socialist.. the democrats would enrage you.
The perceotions people get about what you are can often be a total of what you criticize and what you don't.
That is why some here, like sandie, are percieved to be socialists.
Keep an open mind and don't try to paint me into some preconceived picture you have drawn up in your head with some agenda you wish to assign to me.
Don't try and box me in man. I refuse to conform to your preconceived ideas and refuse to be shackled by your labels man...
If you object to labels so strongly you may want to try to avoid the stereotypical 'liberal' responses. I understand that very few liberals like to be called as such but there's no agenda surrounding my use of the word.
Now... Let's talk about Bruce Bartlett or maybe columnist Fred Barnes or maybe Doug Bandow or maybe William Bryk.
You still haven't expressed to us why you think these folks opinions are now relevant. Plenty of conservatives have been critical of Bush going back to early in his first term, some even before he was elected. Folks like myself, on this forum, have said that Bush is not a conservative years ago. I didn't vote for him or his father and have no real problem with folks criticizing him. He could very well end up being the worst Republican president we have had, next to Lincoln of course.
My agenda simply consists of trying to understand what is so worth mentioning about the fact that Bush isn't so popular with conservatives. He is still better then the alternatives in the past 2 elections, but only by a hair.
FUNKED1
I call them out for going ad hominem instead of dealing with the topic at hand. So they... step up the ad hominem crap.
These guys have the debate skills of early hominids...
Referring to someone as a liberal is not an ad hominem. Liberals may not like being called liberals but it is what it is.
As for debating, what's to debate? I stated Pat is right now and has been right for some time. The only question is why is Pat's position now worthy or a topic?
-
Maybe cause he just recently said it?
Do you know what ad hominem means?
-
Maybe cause he just recently said it?
Recently said what? I got his 'don't label me' and it means nothing given what he has posted on this forum in the past...
I can say I am the King but so what...
Do you know what ad hominem means?
Sure I do. However, my usage of liberal isn't 'ad hominem'. The discussion of whether he's a liberal or not was well underway before I mentioned it. Saying that his posting history is consistent with some one who is a liberal in rebuttal to his claim that he is not is not an ad hominem. Referring to someone as a liberal does not automatically equal 'ad hominem'.
-
Originally posted by BGBMAW
Liberalism is truly a mental disorder
You know that stuff works for Michael Savage, he is an intersting radio guy.
It just makes you look like a pupet that likes his hand up your ass.
-
Pat Buchanan is still right. (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51385)
-
really? what is he saying sandie? that the paris peace talks with the communist vietnamese was such a success that we ought to do the same with the arabs?
lazs
-
Here's the gist of what he said.
"Which brings me to the point. America is a world power with a broader interest in the Middle East than Israel's, and if we are to protect those interests and play the role history has assigned us, we cannot allow any nation to exercise veto power over whom we talk to. While most Americans wish to maintain our commitment to the security and survival of Israel, we must declare our political and diplomatic independence of Israel, as Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan all did."
I'll agree that we won't let Israel control our interests in the region. Nor the UN or any other country or a few loud spoken malcontents in this country. A temporary peace through appeasement has already been used up.