Hogan Made Wrestling Posted February 22, 2004 Report Posted February 22, 2004 http://www.amconmag.com/3_1_04/cover.html Usually I think Pat is a fundamentalist nutjob, but I think he is dead on with this one. He basically outlines everything I hate about the neo-lib/neo-con movement as well.
Jobber of the Week Posted February 22, 2004 Report Posted February 22, 2004 Buchannan is an isolationist paleo-conservative. He's pretty crazy, but sadly there's been times now where I believe a very small, very select amount of Pat Buchanan wisdom would actually do us better. His opposition to us intervening in every world conflict is a big part of that.
Guest MikeSC Posted February 23, 2004 Report Posted February 23, 2004 Buchannan is an isolationist paleo-conservative. He's pretty crazy, but sadly there's been times now where I believe a very small, very select amount of Pat Buchanan wisdom would actually do us better. His opposition to us intervening in every world conflict is a big part of that. Folks, conservatives have learned to ignore Buchanan years ago (he killed us in 1992). He will sell out his beliefs (didn't he run WITH a Communist last year), is a racist and utterly useless person who happens to speak well. Again, amazing how much respect the left will give somebody when they criticize "neocons". O'Reilly and now Buchanan get a little love. Strange. -=Mike
snuffbox Posted February 23, 2004 Report Posted February 23, 2004 Buchanon = Pathetic. I wouldnt mind seeing him take the same path as Wisconson's favorite senator, Joe McCarthy
Hogan Made Wrestling Posted February 23, 2004 Author Report Posted February 23, 2004 Buchannan is an isolationist paleo-conservative. He's pretty crazy, but sadly there's been times now where I believe a very small, very select amount of Pat Buchanan wisdom would actually do us better. His opposition to us intervening in every world conflict is a big part of that. Folks, conservatives have learned to ignore Buchanan years ago (he killed us in 1992). He will sell out his beliefs (didn't he run WITH a Communist last year), is a racist and utterly useless person who happens to speak well. Again, amazing how much respect the left will give somebody when they criticize "neocons". O'Reilly and now Buchanan get a little love. Strange. -=Mike With O'Reilly are you talking about his criticism of Bush, or something else? Because I don't consider Bush a neo-con.
Guest JMA Posted February 23, 2004 Report Posted February 23, 2004 Bah. Buchanan has proven countless times that he's a bigoted extremist. Who really gives a fuck if he criticizes neo-cons? He's STILL Pat Buchanan.
Guest MikeSC Posted February 23, 2004 Report Posted February 23, 2004 Buchannan is an isolationist paleo-conservative. He's pretty crazy, but sadly there's been times now where I believe a very small, very select amount of Pat Buchanan wisdom would actually do us better. His opposition to us intervening in every world conflict is a big part of that. Folks, conservatives have learned to ignore Buchanan years ago (he killed us in 1992). He will sell out his beliefs (didn't he run WITH a Communist last year), is a racist and utterly useless person who happens to speak well. Again, amazing how much respect the left will give somebody when they criticize "neocons". O'Reilly and now Buchanan get a little love. Strange. -=Mike With O'Reilly are you talking about his criticism of Bush, or something else? Because I don't consider Bush a neo-con. One of the critiques of Bush is that he's beholden to neocons and obeys whatever they want. -=Mike
Guest Cerebus Posted February 23, 2004 Report Posted February 23, 2004 I'm still nto sure what a "neo-con" is because everyone I talk to gives me a completely different answer and I expect no difference on this board. Can we drop the useless labels please?
Jobber of the Week Posted February 23, 2004 Report Posted February 23, 2004 Again, amazing how much respect the left will give somebody when they criticize "neocons". O'Reilly and now Buchanan get a little love. That's why I said what I said, tool. I actually said he was pretty crazy. It's like Michael Savage-Weiner. There's another guy I think is a nutcase and I think his background pretty well proves it. But sometimes, I can actually nod my head in agreement on one thing he said, and then go back to "this guy's a nut" when he starts raving on again.
Guest MikeSC Posted February 23, 2004 Report Posted February 23, 2004 Again, amazing how much respect the left will give somebody when they criticize "neocons". O'Reilly and now Buchanan get a little love. That's why I said what I said, tool. I actually said he was pretty crazy. It's like Michael Savage-Weiner. There's another guy I think is a nutcase and I think his background pretty well proves it. But sometimes, I can actually nod my head in agreement on one thing he said, and then go back to "this guy's a nut" when he starts raving on again. Oooh, personal insults? Shocked I am. You know, I manage to discount opinions of people I find loathesome and detestable. I don't give their views ANY credence. If Michael Moore said John Kerry was the anti-Christ, I'd probably give Kerry a second look before I took anything that tubby sack of goo said. Pat is a racist. Pat sells out his views even worse than Lieberman did in 2000 (again, I could've SWORN that his VP running mate in 2000 was an open Communist). He has virtually no ability to see the big picture. He is an angry, detestable, worthless human being whose time in the public light is an insult to thinking people. His performance at the 1992 RNC was reason enough to forever sentence him to irrelevance that would make Emmanuel Lewis blush. You called him "a little crazy", THEN added "I believe a very small, very select amount of Pat Buchanan wisdom would actually do us better." Yeah, I don't know WHY I'd get the idea that you suddenly give his crap more credence. Which part of his "wisdom" would do us some good? Which part is that? The gays = evil part? How about the racism? The America should ignore the problems that anybody else has? Is THAT the part of his "wisdom" that we should take seriously? -=Mike
Jobber of the Week Posted February 23, 2004 Report Posted February 23, 2004 No. Generally I was thinking of the concept that there's no need to intervene in every event of of violence overseas. But that's hardly a Pat Buchannan theory or something he can take credit for.
Your Paragon of Virtue Posted February 23, 2004 Report Posted February 23, 2004 How is he racist? I'm not a fan or anything I've always just figured him to be ignorant, as opposed to ignorant and racist.
Jobber of the Week Posted February 23, 2004 Report Posted February 23, 2004 How is he racist? I'm not a fan or anything I've always just figured him to be ignorant, as opposed to ignorant and racist. He downplays the holocaust and pretends it never happened. He's also expressed admiration for Hitler. While he's taken some interesting sides in other issues, it doesn't hide the fact that he's a Nazi-loving facist. I think the game Mike is playing is a little less than respectable. I was just saying I've agreed with less-extreme views that Buchanan has also agreed with, but are in no way credited to him and have nothing to do with racism. It's like if I said you liked bin-Laden because both of you thought that ice cream tastes good or something.
Vyce Posted February 24, 2004 Report Posted February 24, 2004 I was just saying I've agreed with less-extreme views that Buchanan has also agreed with, but are in no way credited to him and have nothing to do with racism. It's like if I said you liked bin-Laden because both of you thought that ice cream tastes good or something. Actually, the point Mike is making is that people like you are perfectly willing to admit that Buchanan or O'Reilly or Savage or whomever are wackjobs on the right.... ......UNTIL they embrace a position that's anti-Bush or anti-neoconservative. Then, suddenly, you're all "Well, sometimes they make sense at certain times...."
Rob E Dangerously Posted February 24, 2004 Report Posted February 24, 2004 Mike.. his running mate was Ezola Foster. You're not confusing her with Fiulani or whatever.. right?
Austin3164life Posted February 24, 2004 Report Posted February 24, 2004 Both Buchanan and Savage are retards. I'm surprised Savage is still on the air. I can't believe people listen to his crap.
Guest MikeSC Posted February 24, 2004 Report Posted February 24, 2004 Mike.. his running mate was Ezola Foster. You're not confusing her with Fiulani or whatever.. right? Yes, I got the names mixed up --- but Foster was a Communist. Extremely so. She completely went against everything Pat once claimed he stood for --- and he quietly accepted it simply so he could run a useless campaign. -=Mike
Rob E Dangerously Posted February 24, 2004 Report Posted February 24, 2004 http://www.issues2000.org/Ezola_Foster.htm I'm not sure if she just lied here or what although Lenora Fulani did back Pat
Guest MikeSC Posted February 24, 2004 Report Posted February 24, 2004 http://www.issues2000.org/Ezola_Foster.htm I'm not sure if she just lied here or what although Lenora Fulani did back Pat What I read at the time, apparently, was quite wrong. I don't know what the heck Foster was. I read Communist --- but I honestly didn't care enough Pat Buchanan's to actually double-check. -=Mike
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now