← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · FadeTheButcher
Thread ID: 15347 | Posts: 51 | Started: 2004-10-18
2004-10-18 02:22 | User Profile
Any paleocons here want to comment on this?
[url=http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1248324/posts]Freak Republic[/url]
2004-10-18 02:32 | User Profile
I would expect him to endorse Junior George. He's been pretty consistent in his criticisms of this administration, laying most of the blame for the policies he disagrees with on Bush's advisors and not Bush himself. Agree or disagree, I believe that's pretty much been his tack.
2004-10-18 03:02 | User Profile
I think his readership will be pissed. As one letter to the editor said in the most recent issue of TAC, a vote for Bush is a vote for Perle, Wolfowitz, and Feith. I personally would be disappointed if Buchanan did this. If he doesn't support Peroutka than his whole third-party thing was a sham and/or he is an egotistical jerk. If he does support Bush then I don't want to read any commentary by him in the next Bush term about the flawed Iraq policy, the endless out-sourcing, et al.
2004-10-18 03:12 | User Profile
If I recall, he also endorses him in his latest book as well, towards the end.
2004-10-18 03:19 | User Profile
[QUOTE=FadeTheButcher]Any paleocons here want to comment on this?
[url=http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1248324/posts]Freak Republic[/url][/QUOTE]
Sure. It doesn't change my opinion that voting for Pat in the past were some of the finest votes I've cast. However, Pat doesn't think for me and [B]I won't be voting for Bush.[/B] [QUOTE]If I recall, he also endorses him in his latest book as well, towards the end.[/QUOTE] He did.
2004-10-18 03:49 | User Profile
[QUOTE=FadeTheButcher]If I recall, he also endorses him in his latest book as well, towards the end.[/QUOTE]
Maybe he's secretly a "worse is better" guy like me?
I'm voting for Bush because I think with him in office the Crunch can't be far behind. We need a draft, a war with Iran and the ensuing conflagration in the Middle East, economic ruin and political chaos.
That's the only way the Empire will die and the Republic can live. PJB states in that book that the Empire is the death of the Republic, and basically states that we've passed the point of no return in regard to Empire. So, the death of the Empire is necessary if we hope to win, and the best way to kill it is to encourage it to commit suicide by means of a really ugly car wreck.
I'm voting for Shrub. That man's magnificent mismanagement of the economy, bootlicking subservience to our most dangerous racial enemies and megolamanical hubris makes him the candidate best suited to driving the Empire over the cliff.
2004-10-18 12:45 | User Profile
Walter,
I understand your views on this. I simply can't bring myself to vote for this snakebitten fool. I think that perhaps the last opportunity to have steered the ship of state away from the shoals was 1996. Now it looks to me that the insanity known as Zionism, dispensationalism and Wall Street plutocracy has reached such a critical mass that there is no way to head this off. No matter who wins it won't prevent the U.S. from running ashore, such is the degree of lunacy of the supporters of Bush and Kerry. I don't see any difference in terms of foreign policy between either of these candidates. The War for Jews and Oil will rage on with the evil results that will come forth.
2004-10-18 16:04 | User Profile
[url]http://www.amconmag.com/2004_11_08/cover.html[/url]
While I totally disagree with Pat's decision, I must admit he makes a surprisingly good case (surprising in that I was unaware, absent an attatchment to Walter's worse-is-better tactical stance, that such a strong case even COULD be made for supporting the re-election of the most vile traitor to squat in the White House since the dark days of Lyndon Johnson). You should all really read his endorsement. I won't ruin the surprise, but it contains a really acidic twisting of the knife into the backs of the neo-cons towards the end. Additionally, it should be noted that the following note is attatched to Pat's lukewarm endorsement of the West Texas Frat Boy, and is subsequently followed by other endorsements of Kerry, Nader, Peroutka, Bodnarik and the option of not voting at all. Not exactly an example of manning the barricades for Bush, I'd say. Of course, I friggin' love Pat, and probably always will, so I may be tempted to be just a wee bit more foriving than he deserves for endorsing that worthless sack of crap masquerading as "the President of the United States." In any event, I'm convinced Pat really believes his tripe about the how the neo-cons hijacked the Bush administration and that they will be dismissed come January, during a second Bush administration. What Buchanan doesn't understand is that Bush IS a neo-con. He always has been. He just wouldn't admit to it during the 2000 election, since in the pre-9/11 context, so-called neo-"conservatism" had about as much electoral appeal as a return to the prohibition of alcohol.
"Unfortunately, this election does not offer traditional conservatives an easy or natural choice and has left our editors as split as our readership. In an effort to deepen our readersââ¬â¢ and our own understanding of the options before us, weââ¬â¢ve asked several of our editors and contributors to make ââ¬Åthe conservative caseââ¬Â for their favored candidate. Their pieces, plus Takiââ¬â¢s column closing out this issue, constitute TACââ¬â¢s endorsement. ââ¬âThe Editors"
Coming Home
By Patrick J. Buchanan
In the fall of 2002, the editors of this magazine moved up its launch date to make the conservative case against invading Iraq. Such a war, we warned, on a country that did not attack us, did not threaten us, did not want war with us, and had no role in 9/11, would be ââ¬Åa tragedy and a disaster.ââ¬Â Invade and we inherit our own West Bank of 23 million Iraqis, unite Islam against us, and incite imams from Morocco to Malaysia to preach jihad against America. So we wrote, again and again.
In a 6,000-word article entitled ââ¬ÅWhose War?ââ¬Â we warned President Bush that he was ââ¬Åbeing lured into a trap baited for him by neocons that could cost him his office and cause America to forfeit years of peace won for us by the sacrifices of two generations...ââ¬Â
Everything we predicted has come to pass. Iraq is the worst strategic blunder in our lifetime. And for it, George W. Bush, his War Cabinet, and the neoconservatives who plotted and planned this war for a decade bear full responsibility. Should Bush lose on Nov. 2, it will be because he heeded their siren songââ¬âthat the world was pining for American Empire; that ââ¬ÅBig Government Conservatismââ¬Â is a political philosophy, not an opportunistic sellout of principle; that free-trade globalism is the path to prosperity, not the serial killer of U.S. manufacturing; that amnesty for illegal aliens is compassionate conservatism, not an abdication of constitutional duty.
Mr. Bush was led up the garden path. And the returns from his mid-life conversion to neoconservatism are now in:
ââ¬Â¢ A guerrilla war in Iraq is dividing and bleeding America with no end in sight. It carries the potential for chaos, civil war, and the dissolution of that country.
ââ¬Â¢ Balkanization of America and the looming bankruptcy of California as poverty and crime rates soar from an annual invasion of indigent illegals is forcing native-born Californians to flee the state for the first time since gold was found at Sutterââ¬â¢s Mill.
ââ¬Â¢ A fiscal deficit of 4 percent of GDP and merchandise trade deficit of 6 percent of GDP have produced a falling dollar, the highest level of foreign indebtedness in U.S. history, and the loss of one of every six manufacturing jobs since Bush took office.
If Bush loses, his conversion to neoconservatism, the Arian heresy of the American Right, will have killed his presidency. Yet, in the contest between Bush and Kerry, I am compelled to endorse the president of the United States. Why? Because, while Bush and Kerry are both wrong on Iraq, Sharon, NAFTA, the WTO, open borders, affirmative action, amnesty, free trade, foreign aid, and Big Government, Bush is right on taxes, judges, sovereignty, and values. Kerry is right on nothing.
The only compelling argument for endorsing Kerry is to punish Bush for Iraq. But why should Kerry be rewarded? He voted to hand Bush a blank check for war. Though he calls Iraq a ââ¬Åcolossalââ¬Â error, ââ¬Åthe wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time,ââ¬Â he has said he wouldââ¬âeven had he known Saddam had no role in 9/11 and no WMDââ¬âvote the same way today. This is the Richard Perle position.
Assuredly, a president who plunged us into an unnecessary and ruinous war must be held accountable. And if Bush loses, Iraq will have been his undoing. But a vote for Kerry is more than just a vote to punish Bush. It is a vote to punish America.
For Kerry is a man who came home from Vietnam to slime the soldiers, sailors, Marines, and POWs he left behind as war criminals who engaged in serial atrocities with the full knowledge of their superior officers. His conduct was as treasonous as that of Jane Fonda and disqualifies him from ever being commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces of the United States.
As senator, he voted to undermine the policy of Ronald Reagan that brought us victory in the Cold War. He has voted against almost every weapon in the U.S. arsenal. Though a Catholic who professes to believe life begins at conception, he backs abortion on demand. He has opposed the conservative judges Bush has named to the U.S. appellate courts. His plans for national health insurance and new spending would bankrupt America. He would raise taxes. He is a globalist and a multilateralist who would sign us on to the Kyoto Protocol and International Criminal Court. His stands on Iraq are about as coherent as a self-portrait by Jackson Pollock.
With Kerry as president, William Rehnquist could be succeeded as chief justice by Hillary Clinton. Every associate justice Kerry named would be cut from the same bolt of cloth as Warren, Brennan, Douglas, Blackmun, and Ginsburg. Should Kerry win, the courts will remain a battering ram of social revolution and the conservative drive in Congress to restrict the jurisdiction of all federal courts, including the Supreme Court, will die an early death.
I cannot endorse the candidate of Michael Moore, George Soros, and Barbra Streisand, nor endorse a course of action that would put this political windsurfer into the presidency, no matter how deep our disagreement with the fiscal, foreign, immigration, and trade policies of George W. Bush.
As Barry Goldwater said in 1960, in urging conservatives to set aside their grievances and unite behind the establishment party of Eisenhower, Rockefeller, and Lodge, the Republican Party is our home. It is our only hope. If an authentic conservatism rooted in the values of faith, family, community, and country is ever again to become the guiding light of national policy, it will have to come through a Republican administration.
The Democratic Party of Kerry, Edwards, Clinton & Clinton is a lost cause: secularist, socialist, and statist to the core. What of the third-party candidates? While Ralph Nader is a man of principle and political courage, he is of the populist Left. We are of the Right.
The Constitution Party is the party closest to this magazine in philosophy and policy prescriptions, and while one must respect votes for Michael Peroutka by those who live in Red or Blue states, we cannot counsel such votes in battleground states.
For this election has come down to Bush or Kerry, and on life, guns, judges, taxes, sovereignty, and defense, Bush is far better. Moreover, inside the Republican Party, a rebellion is stirring. Tom Tancredo is leading the battle for defense of our borders. While only a handful of Republicans stood with us against the war in Iraq, many now concede that we were right. As Franklin Foer writes in the New York Times, our America First foreign policy is now being given a second look by a conservative movement disillusioned with neoconservative warmongering and Wilsonian interventionism.
There is a rumbling of dissent inside the GOP to the free-trade fanaticism of the Wall Street Journal that is denuding the nation of manufacturing and alienating Reagan Democrats. The celebrants of outsourcing in the White House have gone into cloister. The Bush amnesty for illegal aliens has been rejected. Prodigal Republicans now understand that their cohabitation with Big Government has brought their country to the brink of ruin and bought them nothing. But if we wish to be involved in the struggle for the soul of the GOPââ¬âand we intend to be thereââ¬âwe cannot be AWOL from the battle where the fate of that party is decided.
There is another reason Bush must win. The liberal establishment that marched us into Vietnam evaded punishment for its loss of nerve and failure of will to winââ¬âby dumping LBJ, defecting to the childrenââ¬â¢s crusade to ââ¬Ågive peace a chance,ââ¬Â then sabotaging Nixon every step of the way out of Vietnam until they broke his presidency in Watergate. Ensuring Americaââ¬â¢s defeat, they covered their tracks by denouncing their own war as ââ¬ÅNixonââ¬â¢s War.ââ¬Â
If Kerry wins, leading a party that detests this war, he will be forced to execute an early withdrawal. Should that bring about a debacle, neocons will indict Democrats for losing Iraq. The cakewalk crowd cannot be permitted to get out from under this disaster that easily. They steered Bush into this war and should be made to see it through to the end and to preside over the withdrawal or retreat. Only thus can they be held accountable. Only thus can this neo-Jacobin ideology be discredited in Americaââ¬â¢s eyes. It is essential for the country and our cause that it be repudiated by the Republican Party formally and finally. The neocons must clean up the mess they have made, themselves, in full public view.
There is a final reason I support George W. Bush. A presidential election is a Hatfield-McCoy thing, a tribal affair. No matter the quarrels inside the family, when the shooting starts, you come home to your own. When the Redcoats approached New Orleans to sunder the Union and Jackson was stacking cotton bales and calling for help from any quarter, the pirate Lafitte wrote to the governor of Louisiana to ask permission to fight alongside his old countrymen. ââ¬ÅThe Black Sheep wants to come home,ââ¬Â Lafitte pleaded.
Itââ¬â¢s time to come home.
2004-10-18 16:17 | User Profile
Just in respect to race and immigration: Bush may not be a friend of whites, but he doesn't make discrimination against whites a major interest as Kerry does. Bush may want to grant de facto amnesty to illegals but Kerry wants to grant official amnesty to illegals.
I could never vote for either Bush or Kerry, but I'd prefer Bush to win over Kerry. It might be better for America if Kerry wins, but Bush is the devil I know.
2004-10-18 16:23 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Jack Cassidy]I think his readership will be pissed. As one letter to the editor said in the most recent issue of TAC, a vote for Bush is a vote for Perle, Wolfowitz, and Feith. I personally would be disappointed if Buchanan did this. If he doesn't support Peroutka than his whole third-party thing was a sham and/or he is an egotistical jerk. If he does support Bush then I don't want to read any commentary by him in the next Bush term about the flawed Iraq policy, the endless out-sourcing, et al.[/QUOTE]
...not to mention that Peroutka's been dropping some big bucks on political ads in TAC lately. I don't expect publications to endorse candidates just because they spend advertising dollars there, but then again I haven't seen any outreach to TAC's readership by Bush, either (surprise, surprise).
I'll vote for Peroutka simply because his platform on immigration, foreign policy and gun control comports to my politics.
A vote for Bush is IMO an endorsement of the neocons' Iraq war, an endorsement of open borders, and an endorsement of a DOJ run amok prosecuting "gun crimes." Nor do I see anything to be gained for white paleo interests by voting for Kerry.
At least if Bush were to lose in some tight states to Kerry as a result of angry conservatives voting for Peroutka, the establishment would have a very clear reason why that happened. Look at how much farther to the left the Democratic Party has veered (especially in Congress) since Nader shut Gore out of the White House in 2000.
2004-10-18 16:37 | User Profile
[QUOTE]PJB: The cakewalk crowd cannot be permitted to get out from under this disaster that easily. They steered Bush into this war and should be made to see it through to the end and to preside over the withdrawal or retreat. Only thus can they be held accountable. Only thus can this neo-Jacobin ideology be discredited in Americaââ¬â¢s eyes. It is essential for the country and our cause that it be repudiated by the Republican Party formally and finally. The neocons must clean up the mess they have made, themselves, in full public view.[/QUOTE]
That's a watered down version of what I'm saying. The more forthright way of saying this is that the Empire has to die so that the Republic might live.
I suspect that Pat is pulling his punches here.
2004-10-18 16:41 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Kevin_O'Keeffe]...neoconservatism, the Arian heresy of the American Right
That's a good line.
The only compelling argument for endorsing Kerry is to punish Bush for Iraq.
I agree with this, but like Pat I find nothing in Kerry I could possibly support. Especially this:
Though a Catholic who professes to believe life begins at conception, he backs abortion on demand.
He has opposed the conservative judges Bush has named to the U.S. appellate courts. His plans for national health insurance and new spending would bankrupt America. He would raise taxes. He is a globalist and a multilateralist who would sign us on to the Kyoto Protocol and International Criminal Court.
True, but if push came to shove I believe Bush would do exactly the same. Bush had to play the lone cowboy because no one supported his misadventures in Iraq 'cept the jewish neo-cons in his administration, but at heart he is every bit the globalist and multilateralist that Kerry is.
With Kerry as president, William Rehnquist could be succeeded as chief justice by Hillary Clinton. Every associate justice Kerry named would be cut from the same bolt of cloth as Warren, Brennan, Douglas, Blackmun, and Ginsburg. Should Kerry win, the courts will remain a battering ram of social revolution and the conservative drive in Congress to restrict the jurisdiction of all federal courts, including the Supreme Court, will die an early death.
Every four years the GOP sycophants trot out this same, old tired line. I've seen nothing to reverse the trends of the last 50 years in this regard. In short, I don't buy this judges argument anymore.
I cannot endorse the candidate of Michael Moore, George Soros, and Barbra Streisand, nor endorse a course of action that would put this political windsurfer into the presidency, no matter how deep our disagreement with the fiscal, foreign, immigration, and trade policies of George W. Bush.
Something to be said for that. Moore, Soros and Streisand are all scumbags and I don't like being on the same side of things as them.
It is our only hope. If an authentic conservatism rooted in the values of faith, family, community, and country is ever again to become the guiding light of national policy, it will have to come through a Republican administration.
I've come more and more to this position, as well.
The Democratic Party of Kerry, Edwards, Clinton & Clinton is a lost cause: secularist, socialist, and statist to the core.
Well, the GOP on the national level is every bit as secularist, socialist and statist, so I think the Democratic party is just as recoverable as the GOP if one wanted to go that route. Thinking of the South here mainly.
For this election has come down to Bush or Kerry, and on life, guns, judges, taxes, sovereignty, and defense, Bush is far better. Moreover, inside the Republican Party, a rebellion is stirring. Tom Tancredo is leading the battle for defense of our borders. While only a handful of Republicans stood with us against the war in Iraq, many now concede that we were right. As Franklin Foer writes in the New York Times, our America First foreign policy is now being given a second look by a conservative movement disillusioned with neoconservative warmongering and Wilsonian interventionism.
I think Pat hits the nail on the head as to where we should be focusing our political energy -- Tancredo's immigration lobby and as many republican congressmen that may support our isolationist foreign policy views. There may be more of the latter than what we think, especially with the disaster of Iraq going on right now.
Prodigal Republicans now understand that their cohabitation with Big Government has brought their country to the brink of ruin and bought them nothing. But if we wish to be involved in the struggle for the soul of the GOP—and we intend to be there—we cannot be AWOL from the battle where the fate of that party is decided.
Maybe, maybe not. But I do agree that this is really the only real shot we have.
Should that bring about a debacle, neocons will indict Democrats for losing Iraq. The cakewalk crowd cannot be permitted to get out from under this disaster that easily...The neocons must clean up the mess they have made, themselves, in full public view.
If Bush wins they will take it as America's endorsement of their foreign adventures on behalf of israel. There will be no clean up, I'm sure. They're way too arrogant for that kind of thing.
It’s time to come home.[/QUOTE]
Well, I'm still a registered Republican and Texas is safely Bush's. I'll probably just stay home, truth be told.
2004-10-18 17:02 | User Profile
If Pat Buchanan endores Bush through the American Conservative, I'll definitely [B]not[/B] renew my subscription to that magazine. Pat, more or less, knows fully well who his constituents are, and to offend them by endorsing a detestable, reckless, idiotic, shape-shifting, dry drunk, frat boy, draft-dodging, war mongering, smirking, liar, puppet, freak like George W Bush would be the final straw with me in ever supporting anything Pat Buchanan does in the future.
I agree with Walter, however, in that the death of the Empire is the only to restore the Republic. We'll get that with Bush or Kerry. It's just that I can't vote for Bush again. I did in 2000. That's once too much. He's one of the most disgraceful figures in American political history.
What a sad state of affairs.
2004-10-18 17:20 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Maybe, maybe not. But I do agree that this is really the only real shot we have.
The only good things I can think of about having Kerry in the White House are maybe--just maybe--Republicans in Congress won't feel a need anymore to lick the President's ass on every issue out of party loyalty and might finally grow some balls.
And it will effectively negate a Hillary run in 2008...though the devil we know may not be as bad as the devil we don't.
2004-10-18 19:40 | User Profile
Go Pat Go!!! I love it!
Bush '04
..in the contest between Bush and Kerry, I am compelled to endorse the president of the United States. Why? Because, while Bush and Kerry are both wrong on Iraq, Sharon, NAFTA, the WTO, open borders, affirmative action, amnesty, free trade, foreign aid, and Big Government, Bush is right on taxes, judges, sovereignty, and values. Kerry is right on nothing.
Let's face it guys, it's down to the old ugly jew or the white cowboy!
2004-10-18 19:54 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Gabrielle]Let's face it guys, it's down to the old ugly jew or the white cowboy![/QUOTE]
That's why I'm for Nader....
2004-10-18 19:59 | User Profile
I just read (most of) PJB's latest book.
He sure does take the IRA of Michael Collins to task. He lumps them in together with al queda.
For an Irishman and a Catholic he sure thinks like an English Victorian.
I think that PJB is a crypto-Tory, at least he has tendencies toward that. He really is something of an establishmentarian.
I believe that the time for all of that is long gone and we need to identify far more with Michael Collins and less with those Englishmen of his day who were trying to arrange an ordered retreat of their beloved Empire, in Ireland and elsewhere. It seems that PJB doesn't fully understand that we're now the submerged nation fighting for independence against a wholly alien Empire, and not the other way around.
One would have thought that the Buckley debacle of ten years ago would have convinced him that he's been ousted from all real power and influence.
We're all just shanty micks now, Pat.
Walter
2004-10-18 20:05 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Kevin_O'Keeffe]That's why I'm for Nader....[/QUOTE]
LOL... another jew!
2004-10-18 20:09 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]I just read (most of) PJB's latest book.
He sure does take the IRA of Michael Collins to task. He lumps them in together with al queda.
For an Irishman and a Catholic he sure thinks like an English Victorian.[/QUOTE]
Contrary to popular misconceptions based on his name, Buchanan's primary ethnic identification is Bavarian, rather than Irish. But please don't tell the Jews; they'd have a ***FIELD DAY[/B][/I] with that (Munich and such).
2004-10-18 20:11 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Gabrielle]LOL... another jew![/QUOTE]
Wrong as usual. He's a descendant of Maronite Christians from Lebanon. He probably has cousins who are Falangists.
2004-10-18 20:20 | User Profile
Folks,
[I]I'm shocked![/I] Well, not really, just terribly disappointed.
As most known, BATR is a strong supporter of Pat Buchanan. But more important, a consistent advocate of true conservative principles.
An editorial will be posted this week on our sites.
When the election day comes, our boycott will end and a new series with be available - Inherent Autonomy.
Our position is definite. We will not vote for any candidate for a NATIONAL office.
We respect anyone who casts a ballot for a third party aspirant. However, a vote for ANY RepubLIKUDemocrat is insanity.
Fear there are no more better days ahead . . .
SARTRE
2004-10-18 20:29 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Kevin_O'Keeffe]Wrong as usual. He's a descendant of Maronite Christians from Lebanon. He probably has cousins who are Falangists.[/QUOTE]
Wrong again, old chap. Peroutka and Nader are no more Christian than Kerry is a Catholicââ¬Â¦ they are all Jews! I am sorry, but there it is...
2004-10-18 20:32 | User Profile
[COLOR=Navy] - "Wrong again, old chap. Peroutka and Nader are no more Christian than Kerry is a Catholic… they are all Jews! "[/COLOR]
I hope you mean this only metaphorically, because Nader (I don't know much about Peroutka) is not a biological Jew, and you will only look foolish if you keep insisting this kind of nonsense.
Petr
2004-10-18 20:35 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr][COLOR=Navy] - "Wrong again, old chap. Peroutka and Nader are no more Christian than Kerry is a Catholicââ¬Â¦ they are all Jews! "[/COLOR]
I hope you mean this only metaphorically, because Nader (I don't know much about Peroutka) is not a biological Jew, and you will only look foolish if you keep insisting this kind of nonsense.
Petr[/QUOTE]
I will find you the proof... it may take awhile.
2004-10-18 20:36 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Gabrielle]Wrong again, old chap. Peroutka and Nader are no more Christian than Kerry is a Catholicââ¬Â¦ they are all Jews! I am sorry, but there it is...[/QUOTE]
Nader is a Lebanese Arab of Christian background. I don't know how to make it any more plain to you. Since you are a Bush supporter, I suppose you are capable of believing even the most outrageous of lies. After all, how else could you maintain the necessary level of self-deception that would permit one to believe he is even a decent President? If you have any evidence (and you don't, because none exists) that Nader is a Jew, then please post it. Otherwise, please stop polluting this thread with your slanderous lies. I can't vouch for Peroutka, but since you're lying about Nader, you're probably lying about him too.
2004-10-18 20:42 | User Profile
Gabrielle,
Good friend from high school and college is related to Nader. (mother was a Lebanese Catholic and a cousin of Ralph).
Where's the beef?
SARTRE
2004-10-18 20:49 | User Profile
Kevin and Petr, why waste valuable time arguing with a detestable and lying troll like Gabrielle.
Any adult person who's blindly supporting George W Bush on such a high sycophantic level as Gabrielle, has serious mental problems and should be a nut house.
It's one thing to say that 'Bush sucks but he's better than Kerry', but this chick wants to get on her knees and mouth-salute President Bush's flagpole.
Give us f*king break already.
2004-10-18 20:57 | User Profile
[QUOTE=xmetalhead]Kevin and Petr, why waste valuable time arguing with a detestable and lying troll like Gabrielle.
Any adult person who's blindly supporting George W Bush on such a high sycophantic level as Gabrielle, has serious mental problems and should be a nut house.
It's one thing to say that 'Bush sucks but he's better than Kerry', but this chick wants to get on her knees and mouth-salute President Bush's flagpole.
Give us f*king break already.[/QUOTE]
I can't remember where I read it... I am trying to contact someone who may be able to help me.
Mental head, you have a nice mouth... try closing it...
2004-10-18 21:27 | User Profile
Gabrielle,
I hate to break up this lovely flame war you've started, but either put up or get off this thread if you find it too hard to carry on an intelligent converstion with the others here.
2004-10-18 21:33 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]Gabrielle,
I hate to break up this lovely flame war you've started, but either put up or get off this thread if you find it too hard to carry on an intelligent converstion with the others here.[/QUOTE]
That's what I am trying to do... and I never started any flame war. Maybe, you should reread the thread and see who started what...
2004-10-18 21:51 | User Profile
One time is enough. Now either back up your claim or stop making idiotic statements you can't back up.
2004-10-19 01:06 | User Profile
In my opinion Bush is a bigger jew than Kerry...:caiphas:
Btw, there are jew genealogists who claim that Bush has jew roots...seriously.
2004-10-19 13:33 | User Profile
[QUOTE=xmetalhead]Kevin and Petr, why waste valuable time arguing with a detestable and lying troll like Gabrielle.[/QUOTE]
Point well taken.
2004-10-19 15:09 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Kevin_O'Keeffe]Moreover, inside the Republican Party, a rebellion is stirring. Tom Tancredo is leading the battle for defense of our borders. While only a handful of Republicans stood with us against the war in Iraq, many now concede that we were right. As Franklin Foer writes in the New York Times, our America First foreign policy is now being given a second look by a conservative movement disillusioned with neoconservative warmongering and Wilsonian interventionism.
There is a rumbling of dissent inside the GOP to the free-trade fanaticism of the Wall Street Journal that is denuding the nation of manufacturing and alienating Reagan Democrats. The celebrants of outsourcing in the White House have gone into cloister. The Bush amnesty for illegal aliens has been rejected. Prodigal Republicans now understand that their cohabitation with Big Government has brought their country to the brink of ruin and bought them nothing.[/QUOTE]
Can anyone identify by name these organizations and/or congressmen that Pat is presenting here?
2004-10-19 16:28 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Can anyone identify by name these organizations and/or congressmen that Pat is presenting here?[/QUOTE]
I'd start with the [url=http://www.thelibertycommittee.org/]The Liberty Committee[/url] and its roster of Congressmen who comprise the Liberty Caucus.
You might check some of PCR's writings for trade-related stuff.
2004-10-19 17:32 | User Profile
So far Pat hasn't endorsed Bush...
2004-10-19 20:10 | User Profile
Check out the last pages or so of his new book.
2004-10-19 20:28 | User Profile
I just got our absentee ballots (Wisconsin) in the mail.
Nader is on the ballot after a big fight in the courts. I note that Peroutka isn't on the ballot, I wonder what the story is on that.
There are two whacked out socialist parties on the ballot. Also, the "Wisconsin Greens."
I even know one of the guys running for the state senate.
I'm voting straight party GOP.
I'm casting two votes, too. Mrs. Yannis doesn't care about politics and she always lets me cast her vote.
Walter
2004-10-19 23:35 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]I just got our absentee ballots (Wisconsin) in the mail.
Nader is on the ballot after a big fight in the courts. I note that Peroutka isn't on the ballot, I wonder what the story is on that.
There are two whacked out socialist parties on the ballot. Also, the "Wisconsin Greens."
I even know one of the guys running for the state senate.
I'm voting straight party GOP.
I'm casting two votes, too. Mrs. Yannis doesn't care about politics and she always lets me cast her vote.
Walter[/QUOTE] Well Walter, "mega dittos to you" and "G_d bless you" for your "Hannitized vote". Sharon, Perle, Wolfowitz, and Feith thank you.
2004-10-20 02:26 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Can anyone identify by name these organizations and/or congressmen that Pat is presenting here?[/QUOTE]
Apparently the House Immigration Reform caucus has over 60 Republican members these days....
2004-10-20 02:38 | User Profile
At the very least, those who subscribe to "The Worse is Better" theory will have a chance to see how their thesis plays out.
I can not think of two worse examples than what the electorate is being offered with the Boosh/Kohn ticket.
2004-10-20 13:50 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Blond Knight]At the very least, those who subscribe to "The Worse is Better" theory will have a chance to see how their thesis plays out.
I can not think of two worse examples than what the electorate is being offered with the Boosh/Kohn ticket.[/QUOTE]
Exactly. Bring it on.
I personally think that we came closer to major upheavels during the tense post-election shenanigans four years ago. SCOTUS intervened and that settled the matter because the sheeple will thus far accept anything a person in black robes says.
With Shrub in office, we stand a good chance of a draft and a war with Iran.
Encouraging your enemy to make a suicidal blunder is a perfectly acceptable tactic in war, and we are at war.
Four more years, and hopefully by then our people will have pulled their heads from their arses and taken a look around at their kids dying in the Middle East. And once they're looking around, they might even ask why this was all planned by guys with names like Feith and Perle.
It's gotta hurt for it to help.
Walter
2004-10-21 09:08 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Jack Cassidy]Well Walter, "mega dittos to you" and "G_d bless you" for your "Hannitized vote". Sharon, Perle, Wolfowitz, and Feith thank you.[/QUOTE]
Let's roll!!!!
2004-10-21 10:38 | User Profile
Walter,
Here's a possible scenario to consider. There are a group of people who effectively can exercise a veto on any neocon plan to invade anymore countries and that is the bankers and governments of the far east who are financing the U.S. debt along with the comsumer side of things. Countries like Red China and Japan might pull the rug out from under Bush with this threat to their economies. After all, they get a lot more oil from Iran (Sudan too), etc. than we do and while China doesn't bear us any love at the same time they can accomplish their strategic objective of weakening us via all the borrowing. Having thier economies suffer by a neocon inspired invasion is something I don't think they relish. I can imagine them telling Bush in private to knock off the crap.
True, the Bush gang of idiots could try to bomb but that really wouldn't accomplish anything other than get a lot of Iranian Revolutionary guardsmen sent into Iraq in retaliation. The neocons would want to follow any air strikes up with a ground attack and if there isn't any money there isn't any invasion, in my opinion.
2004-10-21 11:07 | User Profile
Sertorius,
Plausible! Events have taken over, outside our ability to shape a favorable outcome.
An implosion will always have a money focus. The question is where to park your capital to save what can be salvaged. A case can be argued to own some Chinese Yuan.
It only goes to demonstrate just how sick world globalism has perverted our future.
SARTRE
2004-10-21 12:20 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]Walter,
Here's a possible scenario to consider. There are a group of people who effectively can exercise a veto on any neocon plan to invade anymore countries and that is the bankers and governments of the far east who are financing the U.S. debt along with the comsumer side of things. Countries like Red China and Japan might pull the rug out from under Bush with this threat to their economies. After all, they get a lot more oil from Iran (Sudan too), etc. than we do and while China doesn't bear us any love at the same time they can accomplish their strategic objective of weakening us via all the borrowing. Having thier economies suffer by a neocon inspired invasion is something I don't think they relish. I can imagine them telling Bush in private to knock off the crap.
True, the Bush gang of idiots could try to bomb but that really wouldn't accomplish anything other than get a lot of Iranian Revolutionary guardsmen sent into Iraq in retaliation. The neocons would want to follow any air strikes up with a ground attack and if there isn't any money there isn't any invasion, in my opinion.[/QUOTE]
Great stuff, Sert.
Yes, well, China is certainly a very powerful player now. That said, they have Muslim problems of their own, and probably wouldn't shed many tears at the downfall of the Iranian Mullahs. So long as the oil keeps flowing, I think our Asian brothers don't care all that much about what happens there.
And we have no choice but to keep the oil flowing (not that there are any guarantees that we can execute, as Iraq shows). So it's a side issue for the Chinese.
But it's a matter of life and death for the Izzies. They simply cannot allow the Mullahs the nuclear trump card. At least, that's how they're preceiving the issue.
So it's a major issue for Uncle Izzy, and a small deal for the Chinese. I think that some sort of accommodation will be made.
Walter
2004-10-21 16:23 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Yes, well, China is certainly a very powerful player now. That said, they have Muslim problems of their own, and probably wouldn't shed many tears at the downfall of the Iranian Mullahs.
But isn't Iran a customer for Chinese miltary hardware? Silkworm missiles come to mind, at least.
2004-10-21 17:50 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Centinel]But isn't Iran a customer for Chinese miltary hardware? Silkworm missiles come to mind, at least.[/QUOTE]
To be sure, but that's actually a reason China would like a war between the Empire and Iran.
More military orders.
Walter
2004-10-23 06:56 | User Profile
Here is Buchanan's formal endorsement of Dubya and the lesser of two evils principle. I don't think I will be amongst those holding my breath and crossing my fingers waiting for the 'struggle for the soul of the GOP' to break out.
[url]http://www.amconmag.com/2004_11_08/cover.html[/url]
In the fall of 2002, the editors of this magazine moved up its launch date to make the conservative case against invading Iraq. Such a war, we warned, on a country that did not attack us, did not threaten us, did not want war with us, and had no role in 9/11, would be ââ¬Åa tragedy and a disaster.ââ¬Â Invade and we inherit our own West Bank of 23 million Iraqis, unite Islam against us, and incite imams from Morocco to Malaysia to preach jihad against America. So we wrote, again and again.
In a 6,000-word article entitled ââ¬ÅWhose War?ââ¬Â we warned President Bush that he was ââ¬Åbeing lured into a trap baited for him by neocons that could cost him his office and cause America to forfeit years of peace won for us by the sacrifices of two generations . . . ââ¬Å
Everything we predicted has come to pass. Iraq is the worst strategic blunder in our lifetime. And for it, George W. Bush, his War Cabinet, and the neoconservatives who plotted and planned this war for a decade bear full responsibility. Should Bush lose on Nov. 2, it will be because he heeded their siren songââ¬âthat the world was pining for American Empire; that ââ¬ÅBig Government Conservatismââ¬Â is a political philosophy, not an opportunistic sellout of principle; that free-trade globalism is the path to prosperity, not the serial killer of U.S. manufacturing; that amnesty for illegal aliens is compassionate conservatism, not an abdication of constitutional duty.
Mr. Bush was led up the garden path. And the returns from his mid-life conversion to neoconservatism are now in:
ââ¬Â¢ A guerrilla war in Iraq is dividing and bleeding America with no end in sight. It carries the potential for chaos, civil war, and the dissolution of that country.
ââ¬Â¢ Balkanization of America and the looming bankruptcy of California as poverty and crime rates soar from an annual invasion of indigent illegals is forcing native-born Californians to flee the state for the first time since gold was found at Sutterââ¬â¢s Mill.
ââ¬Â¢ A fiscal deficit of 4 percent of GDP and merchandise trade deficit of 6 percent of GDP have produced a falling dollar, the highest level of foreign indebtedness in U.S. history, and the loss of one of every six manufacturing jobs since Bush took office.
If Bush loses, his conversion to neoconservatism, the Arian heresy of the American Right, will have killed his presidency. Yet, in the contest between Bush and Kerry, I am compelled to endorse the president of the United States. Why? Because, while Bush and Kerry are both wrong on Iraq, Sharon, NAFTA, the WTO, open borders, affirmative action, amnesty, free trade, foreign aid, and Big Government, Bush is right on taxes, judges, sovereignty, and values. Kerry is right on nothing. . .
2004-10-23 16:29 | User Profile
Like Pat, I will be voting for Bush also, but only because Kerry is worse!
2004-11-01 05:13 | User Profile
Walter,
China Lays Into 'Bush Doctrine' Ahead of U.S. Poll
BEIJING (Reuters) - On the eve of the U.S. election, China laid into what it called the "Bush doctrine," said the Iraq war has destroyed the global anti-terror coalition and blamed arrogance for the problems dogging the United States worldwide.
The searing article was as close to a position on the U.S. presidential election as China has come, but it made no mention of Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, the Democratic Party's challenger to President Bush in Tuesday's presidential contest.
The United States was dreaming if it thought the 21st century was the American century, wrote Qian Qichen, one of the main architects of China's foreign policy, in a commentary in the English-language China Daily newspaper.
"The current U.S. predicament in Iraq serves as another example that when a country's superiority psychology inflates beyond its real capability, a lot of trouble can be caused," Qian wrote.
"But the troubles and disasters the United States has met do not stem from the threats by others, but from its own cocksureness and arrogance."
Qian is a former foreign minister credited with breaking China out of diplomatic isolation after the crackdown on the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests.
The invasion of Iraq "has made the United States even more unpopular in the international community than its war in Vietnam," he said.
"The Iraq war has also destroyed the hard-won global anti-terror coalition," Qian added, saying it had caused a rise in terrorist activity around the globe and widened a rift between the United States and Europe.
"END OF EMPIRE"
The U.S. strategy of pre-emptive strikes would bring insecurity and ultimately the demise of the "American empire," Qian said.
Analysts have said China has a slight preference for the incumbent in the U.S. election, realising that U.S. policy toward China has changed little from administration to administration.
But China, growing in economic and political influence on the world stage, has expressed its aversion to Bush's unilateralist tendencies and sided with France and Germany in opposition to the Iraq war.
"It is now time to give up the illusion that Europeans and Americans are living in the same world, as some Europeans would like to believe," Qian said.
The United States had not changed its Cold War mentality, Qian said.
"The 21st century is not the 'American century'. That does not mean that the United States does not want the dream. Rather it is incapable of realizing the goal," he said.
After the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States, the "Bush doctrine" created "axes of evil" and pre-emptive strategies.
"It linked counter-terrorism and the prevention of proliferation of so-called rogue states and failed states ... It all testifies that Washington's anti-terror campaign has already gone beyond the scope of self-defense."
é Copyright Reuters Ltd. All rights reserved. The information contained In this news report may not be published, broadcast or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of Reuters Ltd.
10/31/2004 22:07 RTR
[url]http://channels.netscape.com/ns/news/story.jsp?id=2004103122070002462667&dt=20041031220700&w=RTR&coview=[/url]