Buchanan bashes neo-conservative war-mongering

[pinkeye]

pat buchanan, champion of the "old right" (as he describes it), wrote an interesting and harsh critique of neo-conservative foreign policy, using the recent frum-perle book as a starting point. buchanan attacks everything from israeli policy to the hypocrisy of american foreign policy. whether you agree with him or not, it's an interesting read:

http://www.amconmag.com/3_1_04/cover.html

[hank]

It is especially interesting if you 1) can't think for yourself 2) don't question his assumptions. If you can get through those two difficulties you are home free. No problem.

hank

[George W. Bush]

It is especially interesting if you 1) can't think for yourself 2) don't question his assumptions. If you can get through those two difficulties you are home free. No problem.

hank

I take it you're not a fan of Buchanan? Go read some Michael Moore or Molly Ivins.

[George W. Bush]

I don't agree with Buchanan BTW. Arrogant asshole that doesn't realize we are at war.

Dirty bombs, stolen uranium, Saddam weapons of mass destruction, militant Islam, and hidden terror cells. This guy just doesn't get it! rofl rofl

[pinkeye]

according to your logic, we should never bother to read anything because doing so would merely influence one's thought process, thereby eliminating independent thought. i stated that the article is interesting. are you familiar with the definition of "interesting"? apparently you are not. i did not state that i subscribed to the views espoused, although buchanan does raise some "interesting" (that damn term again!) points.

you criticise the article yet fail to explain what you find problematic with it. since you bothered to make an erroneous assumption regarding my views on foreign policy, i guess i am entitled to the same flawed response. one could thus surmise by your message that you whole-heartedly embrace the neo-conservative views of perle et al. and reject all other views. in other words, you fail to question the assumptions of the neo-cons because you have a flawed understanding of international relations.

however, since i am not privy to the specifics of your particular world view, i will refrain from making conjectures and i suggest you do the same from now on.

[George W. Bush]

Man I can't believe asshole Pearl wrote this in his book...

For us, terrorism remains the great evil of our time, and the war against this evil, our generation’s great cause. We do not believe that Americans are fighting this evil to minimize it or to manage it. We believe they are fighting to win—to end this evil before it kills again and on a genocidal scale. There is no middle way for Americans: It is victory or holocaust.

What a moron!

[George W. Bush]

according to your logic, we should never bother to read anything because doing so would merely influence one's thought process, thereby eliminating independent thought. i stated that the article is interesting. are you familiar with the definition of "interesting"? apparently you are not. i did not state that i subscribed to the views espoused, although buchanan does raise some "interesting" (that damn term again!) points.

you criticise the article yet fail to explain what you find problematic with it. since you bothered to make an erroneous assumption regarding my views on foreign policy, i guess i am entitled to the same flawed response. one could thus surmise by your message that you whole-heartedly embrace the neo-conservative views of perle et al. and reject all other views. in other words, you fail to question the assumptions of the neo-cons because you have a flawed understanding of international relations.

however, since i am not privy to the specifics of your particular world view, i will refrain from making conjectures and i suggest you do the same from now on.

nah he just thinks all conservatives are redneck hicks because that's what mikey moore told him.

[Trident-za]

OMG....what is Sixgun gonna do? His hero has just come out against the neo-conservtive war? This might be a good thing, though - questioning and thinking about stuff you read is good. Of course, Buchanan might just be joining the list of traitors with Bennedict Arnold :roll:

[WARPIG]

Funny how hank only posted once and you two dip****s keep talking for him.

I am far from liberal but I think Pat has too much time on his hands. Even by consevative standards this dolt has a sheltered view of things.
Some of us actually can form opinions without having to conform to one side or the other. Sort of odd how thinking for yourself seems to work out that way.

[George W. Bush]

Funny how hank only posted once and you two dip****s keep talking for him.

I am far from liberal but I think Pat has too much time on his hands. Even by consevative standards this dolt has a sheltered view of things.
Some of us actually can form opinions without having to conform to one side or the other. Sort of odd how thinking for yourself seems to work out that way.

So you believe the United States should rid the world of evil ?

[Trident-za]

I don't think ANYONE can "rid the world of evil". If you think they can, you been watching too many movies, mate.

[George W. Bush]

I agree with Buchanan on some things. I think we should focus attention to our own country. Getting rid of the socialist elements - welfare, affirmative action, the myriad of social programs, repeal all unconstitutional gun control, lower taxes, etc. instead of invading countries who have WMD.

Let's wait until they use WMD on us before nuking the **** out of them!

[Kitsune]

Flame all you want. But I must say I actually agree with many things P.B. writes in this article.

[California Joe]

But does Pat eat or f*ck animals?

[SOG]

he f•cking eats them! rofl

[hank]

It is especially interesting if you 1) can't think for yourself 2) don't question his assumptions. If you can get through those two difficulties you are home free. No problem.

hank

I take it you're not a fan of Buchanan? Go read some Michael Moore or Molly Ivins.

What makes you think I like Michael Moore? He's even worse. Think for yourself and you don't need Pat or Michael. Try it, you might like it.

hank

[hank]

Well now that I am back I will speak for myself. Pat, Michael, Rush, Bill O'Reilly, you name the politic-speaker and I'll show you someone who is most interested in selling you something. To do so, they feel the need to be extreme or tell you what is WRONG, even when there is nothing wrong. I say no, I think for myself. I look for objective news accounts and I make up my mind. When I read stuff that is non-work or school related I typically read good literature fiction or historical non-fiction.

Example. Last night I am driving home and O'Reilly is on the radio. He is running has GD mouth about how schools don't do this and don't do that - same old tired BS. Never mind that Bill hasn't set foot in a school in years and that even when he did he taught in the worst possible school. He tells a story to appall the listener b/c he is only interested in getting . . . you guessed it . . . LISTENERS! Anyway the dialogue degenerates into how the moral fabric of America is gone. Then a commercial.

Guess the advertiser. Go ahead guess. A male enhancement drug! This is on WKOX talk radio Knoxville in TN. Bill O'Reilly has a **** growth cream advertising dollar in his pocket. Moral fabric? Get a f--king mirror you f--king hypocrite. They are all the same, liberal or conservative. They just want you to buy their books. Want to read about conservatives? Get a John Adams biography. Want to find out about liberal idology. Read John Rawls. Everything Pat and those boys say comes from somebody else who did the thinking.

Not me, I got my eyes open and I take it all witha grain fo salt. If I like what they say, fine, if I don't fine. But I think the way I do b/c I have a brain and I use it EVERYDAY. F--k Pat Buchanan.

Pat wants to be a conservative. Ever hear of the OSU history professor who thinks that Pat was deepthroat? Do a google, maybe you'll find it. It was on 60 minutes, and I don't necessarily believe it, but the irony is so strong I would love it to be true. Wanna be conservative tells on the last true conservative great mind in the 20th Century and gets him impeached leading to resignation. It would be great if it were true, but alas the Washington Post boys won't tell.

OK, rant over.

hank

[hank]

I agree with Buchanan on some things. I think we should focus attention to our own country. Getting rid of the socialist elements - welfare, affirmative action, the myriad of social programs, repeal all unconstitutional gun control, lower taxes, etc. instead of invading countries who have WMD.

Let's wait until they use WMD on us before nuking the f*** out of them!

wingnut - there is a document that I think you should check out. These really old guys wrote it, they called it the constitution. In it is an idea that all people should have equal protection under the law. Equal protection is not socialism, it is f--king democracy in action. Think!

hank

[George W. Bush]

I agree with Buchanan on some things. I think we should focus attention to our own country. Getting rid of the socialist elements - welfare, affirmative action, the myriad of social programs, repeal all unconstitutional gun control, lower taxes, etc. instead of invading countries who have WMD.

Let's wait until they use WMD on us before nuking the f*** out of them!

wingnut - there is a document that I think you should check out. These really old guys wrote it, they called it the constitution. In it is an idea that all people should have equal protection under the law. Equal protection is not socialism, it is f--king democracy in action. Think!

hank

The Bill of Rights is not the Bill of Needs.

[duck]

Buchanan and Perle are both old world guys.Could imagine them sharing a duck ;) confit dinner near Perle's villa in France and then arguing into the night with some cohibas and scotch. Buchanan is also one of the few politicians who dares to express critical views of Israel, however distorted some of them might be.

[George W. Bush]

You seem to be very fond of the Democratic Party.

This is where the liberals are leading us..

(1) That has eliminated the institution of marriage as we know it. Instead, there will be "civil unions." Marriage will be disocurage, outlawed, and abandoned as an intolerant, religious institution.

(2) The Republican party will be abolished as "extremist," because it is intolerant of liberal views and viewed therefore as another Nazi party.

(3) All public religious expressions will be outlawed, as intolerant of those who disagree. Churches will no longer have tax exempt status.

(4) Gun ownership or possession will be illegal, except for those in the government, or to whom the government has issued permits.

(5) The United States of America will be renamed, because the name "America" is derived from a colonial cartographer, Amerigo Vespucci, whose maps assisted colonialization of the Natives by white Europeans.

(6) There will be full employment, and the government will provide jobs to citizens, each according to his own means. Exemptions from work will be given to those whom it would be unfair to require work.

(7) The government will no longer tax income. Rather, all income will be given to the State. In return, the government will provide income to citizens according to their needs and means.

(8) Discrimination between men and women will be made illegal. Separate but equal bathrooms and other facilities will be outlawed. Chauvenistic sports, such as football will be modified, so that women can fairly compete with men.

(9) White men will be closely watched by the government, because of their historical propensity towards slavery, racism, violence, and sexism. The government will tag them with electronical monitoring devices.

[hank]

(1) - Nothing has happened to marriage as we know it. Mass dealt only with the license. Read the opinion instead of Pat mand the boys. There is no factual basis in this calim with regard to what happened in Mass. Waht is happening in Cal is illegal and will be stopped eventually. Churches will not have to marry gays under the Mass or Cal actions. Anyone who says otherwise is misinformed. I will email you the opinion form MAss if you want it. What actually happened and what has been reported are not the same.

(2) Pat is not the Republican party. Pat = extreme stupidity.

(3) public expression of religion is explicitly protected in the first amendment, establishment of religion is not. Check out the first amendment instead of taking Pat's word for it. I will email you the first amendment if you need it. Read it and then comment. Dont' take Pat's word.

(4) so long as NRA exists this will never happen

(5) I don't even know how to respond to this - who has even asked for this?

(6) Maybe you are right. One problem, full employment is a statistical impossibility. Ask an economist. Don't forget that private industry is a potent lobby and a powerful force in American politics, Democrat and Republican. I don't agree with you on this but if you get facts we'll talk. Facts, not Pat's opinion.

(7) Where does this come from? Facts would help - I have never heard of anybody ask for this, ever.

(8) Why? Where is this coming from. Again, facts would help.

(9) Everybody is watched by the government, what is your point. I want less government also.

Where do you get this stuff? Most of this has no factual basis, and the parts that do have been distorted to promote your agenda.

I have voted for more than 10 years now. 3 presidential elections and countless local elections in TN, MS, TX, FL, and TN again. I have never voted for a Democrat. I repeat, never. Another baseless and uncredited allegation. Back it up. How many Republicans have you voted for? Name them.

I voted for Bush Sr. against Clinton, Dole and GWB (last Tuesday in the Republican primary b/c I am aregisterd Republican). I voted for Senator Frist and Congressman Duncan. Hell I have met Duncan, my republican congressman, several times. I happen to not care for him much, but I vote for him anyway. He is a pork barrel looking for a place to land IMHO.

Bush invioted me to a rally when he came to Knoxville, b/c I am a registereed Republican and I have written checks, not big ones mind you. I could not go, unfortunately.

Liberals don't lead me anywhere and neither do conservatives. Think for yourself.

hank

[California Joe]

Hank rules.

[farmgirl]

Hank rules.

Long live Hank woot

[hank]

Well, I try, anyway. It is quiet. I think wingnut went to buy Bill O'Reilly's new book.

hank

[George W. Bush]

How stupid of you to think that. Bill O'Reilly is nothing but a right leaning left winger moderate.

A couple of months ago I saw his stupid show where he was saying how we the unconstitutional "Assault Weapons" Ban needs to be renewed. He said that he doesn't think any American needs a "bazooka." (I guess that's his idea of sarcasm.)

Obviously, I haven't watched his show since.

[Truthsayer]

You seem to be very fond of the Democratic Party.

This is where the liberals are leading us..

(1) That has eliminated the institution of marriage as we know it. Instead, there will be "civil unions." Marriage will be disocurage, outlawed, and abandoned as an intolerant, religious institution.

Dunno about the US, but allowing gays to have the same rights as married couples doesn't lessen your rights or feelings. Or do you need this to feel special? Superior?



(2) The Republican party will be abolished as "extremist," because it is intolerant of liberal views and viewed therefore as another Nazi party.


Is it ok if only the gun-nuts, the moral-majority-nuts and some other groups are outlawed as extreme groups? ;)
(Mind you, I'm not anywhere near a lefty...always voted very-right.)



(3) All public religious expressions will be outlawed, as intolerant of those who disagree. Churches will no longer have tax exempt status.

A liberal doesn't wanna ban the church. Only limit it to itself. No-one should have to be oppressed or bothered by any church (or company).

I myself hate the ****ing jehovas witness that came around once a month to get more people to give them money. I usually try to sick the dog at them if the are about to take one step into my hallway. They are worse then door-sellers...wich is bad considering they are the very same.



(4) Gun ownership or possession will be illegal, except for those in the government, or to whom the government has issued permits.

Anyone that is oppose to Gun-permits has something to hide.



(5) The United States of America will be renamed, because the name "America" is derived from a colonial cartographer, Amerigo Vespucci, whose maps assisted colonialization of the Natives by white Europeans.

"ok" - don't know nothing about this. Doubt any majority want to rename your country. =)



(6) There will be full employment, and the government will provide jobs to citizens, each according to his own means. Exemptions from work will be given to those whom it would be unfair to require work.

No...



(7) The government will no longer tax income. Rather, all income will be given to the State. In return, the government will provide income to citizens according to their needs and means.

This isn't liberal ideas, this is communist. If you don't know the difference, then...

Communism is on the far left. Nazism on the far right. Conservatism (as an political term) is right, liberal slightly right, socialism left, most green partys left, most christian partys right, and so on...



(8) Discrimination between men and women will be made illegal. Separate but equal bathrooms and other facilities will be outlawed. Chauvenistic sports, such as football will be modified, so that women can fairly compete with men.

"Right". =)



(9) White men will be closely watched by the government, because of their historical propensity towards slavery, racism, violence, and sexism. The government will tag them with electronical monitoring devices.


It's funny to read these posts if from an satirical view, but once you gras the fact that the poster really think this way...it gets scarry. Real scarry.

[hank]

So I guess that means that you don't have anything substantive to offer in response to my pasting of your dim-witted nine points. Too bad, it was just getting fun.

Haven't voted have you? If you don't vote can you still be conservative? If a conservative voter in the line to vote laughed at you and nobody saw it, did it happen? These are the questions you need to be figuring out, longdong.

hank

[duck]

Hank,

What is your view on people with close connections to the Mossad and the Israeli cabinet (Perle, Ledeen, Wolfowitz etc.) having influential positions either in the Bush administration or in semi-official think thanks (American Enterprise Institute...). Could some of them have shared loyalties? Is Buchanan (and me) just nuts in pointing out Israeli influence over US foreign policy?

[George W. Bush]

I can understand a non U.S. citizen disagreeing but as a U.S. citizen you should be ashamed of yourself!

[hank]

No, there is some truth to it. Israel has always had too much influence on US policy. But the point that Pat misses is that no president, for any reason, would do anything for anybody that did not serve his political needs.

Jews make up less than 3% of the American population. The vast majority of Americans never meet a Jew in their whole life and are aware of it. The conspiracy sells books, pure and simple. That and we have backed Israel so long that we feel compelled even when we disagree. There is no vast conspiracy and American Presidents, Democrat and Republican, do whatever is politically expedient. Always. You want to complain, complain about political expediency. That I will listen to. But Israel pulling the strings - get real.

Don't forget that we've been backing Israel since 1948 - staunchly. That support is grounded in our desire to correct our error and the resulting guilt created by not acting on teh holocaust better/sooner.

Pat, and the rest of the mindless conservatives, want me to believe some sinister forces are at work. They are - reelection pressure is sinister as hell.

Do you not believe that we have legitimate interests in the Middle East? Why not? Who else should we turn to? Should we just quit after 50 years? What did Pat think about Israel when he worked for Nixon? Do you know? Neo? If the shoe fits wear it Pat.

hank

[duck]

The nation that has really understood how American politics can be influenced through power brokers is not Israel but China. Just my opinion.

[George W. Bush]

(4) Gun ownership or possession will be illegal, except for those in the government, or to whom the government has issued permits.

Anyone that is oppose to Gun-permits has something to hide.



Maybe in Eurotrash land if someone wants to come into your house and kill you/rob you at gunpoint you agree to it but in the United States, we have this thing called the Second Amendment.

[Truthsayer]

Maybe in Eurotrash land if someone wants to come into your house and kill you/rob you at gunpoint you agree to it but in the United States, we have this thing called the Second Amendment.

I wouldn't mind having an assualt-rifle to guard the house, but I sure as hell would mind if my drunk finnish neighbours would get it.

So who should decide who gets it? The law based on the countries moral and etic stance, or you?

Generally speaking, anyone that is most likely to use the weapons, should be dis-allowed to get them. ^_^

About the second amendment: So...iis it ok if I buy a nuke then? A small 'dirty' 10Kton one from russia...
Can keep it in my basement if it makes you feel safer.

[hank]

I can defend my positions you can't or more precisely won't. You can't because you don't think. Disagree with me if you want, but unless you bbck it up your a fraud. Ashamed? Grow up. More like amused.

Still haven't mentioned voting. Why not? Can't vote can you? I see through you losers everytime. Go see what Pat says and try again. I'll be waiting.

If a non-voter wants to rail on a registered republican, should the republican care? numbnuts

hank

[George W. Bush]

Maybe in Eurotrash land if someone wants to come into your house and kill you/rob you at gunpoint you agree to it but in the United States, we have this thing called the Second Amendment.

I wouldn't mind having an assualt-rifle to guard the house, but I sure as hell would mind if my drunk finnish neighbours would get it.

So who should decide who gets it? The law based on the countries moral and etic stance, or you?

Generally speaking, anyone that is most likely to use the weapons, should be dis-allowed to get them. ^_^

About the second amendment: So...iis it ok if I buy a nuke then? A small 'dirty' 10Kton one from russia...
Can keep it in my basement if it makes you feel safer.

A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the rights of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

To my understanding, it means I can have the rifle issued to the National Guard. If someone decides to take an M249 and shoot up a kindergarten, why should the entire able-bodied population have to pay?

[hank]

wingwong - you have several tendencies that remind me of nutpistol sycophant. You never answer direct questions. Here it is again:

Are you old enough to vote?

hank

[George W. Bush]

wingwong - you have several tendencies that remind me of nutpistol sycophant. You never answer direct questions. Here it is again:

Are you old enough to vote?

hank

Yes! :lol:

[Truthsayer]

(Anyone that puts their hero as their avatar creeps me out...)


You didn't answer my question about the nuke, since the 2nd amendment mentions Arms, not Weapons nor Guns.


Militia...*shudders*

[George W. Bush]

Does the U.S. Army issue nukes to every combat job?

[hank]

The whole second amendment thing is really not clear cut at all. One argument is that the 2nd Amendment only deals with state militia. I don't really buy that one. The founding fathers all owned personal firearms and it seems logical to me that they meant teh individual right to have a firearm.

Teh problem is the bear arms is just damned ambiguous. Should have said own guns, or possess firearms or something clear like that. Alas, it does not.

Another argument is that the militia was the intention b/c the founding fathers took it for granted that people would own guns. Don't like that one either.

The fact is that the 2nd Amendment is what it is - an explicit protection of the people's right to bear arms. Try as I might I just can't think of a logical reason to come to any other conclusion. Bear meant own and use in 1770 so it should mean own and use today.

That being said the govt still can regulate ownership to protect the public. That was within the bounds of the original intent. The constitution has to adapt to the times and machine guns and assault rifles were unheard of in the 1770's. But more laws is not the answer, more enforcement maybe, but not more laws.

hank

[Truthsayer]

(Just funny how many gun-nuts say there shouldn't be any permits, gun-laws and so on...but often defend the rules that a fellon cannot vote and own a gun...maybe because they fear the Big Black man? ;) )

[Truthsayer]

Does the U.S. Army issue nukes to every combat job?

That is not the question:

Does the 2nd amendment allow me to OWN a nuke.

The question wasn't about me using it and killing people - that would make me an murderer.

Please don't answer my question with an question [that doesn't even apply]?

[George W. Bush]

What a bunch of morons!!!

Are you saying that all black people are felons? Your idiotic arguments embarrass me!

[hank]

wow, wongspam, love the name change. I'll just call you sh--head instead.

hank

[cut]

Isn't impersonating the president a crime? I've heard something like that before. Anyway I suppose it's better than wankchunk :D

[hank]

wangchunk = wingnut = whipspunk = GWB impersonator = pat buchanan . . .

I think you get the point.

hank

[cut]

another pat buchanan lemming?! :(

[sethen]

First let me say this, Hank do you temporarily lose your mind before you log online? And why does every single thought I have have read drip with drivel that is pro zionist slop? Are you a Baptist, Episcopalian and/or a Feemason?

Second let me state that I have read both Michael Moore AND Buchanan, and I find at least a few similar thoughts. They both despise Bush. The moron and his neo-con(federates) are pulling the contry into a quagmire of endless interventions in strategically pointless areas, that is unless you are trying to double envelope Iran for the NEXT invasion. Yes this is the long term strategy of the neo-confederates.

I have been a been a Republican since I was eligable to vote. Although I came from a Democratic family. I married into a Republican family. I am anti abortion, pro gun etc. etc. Yet after the first term in office for Longshanks Jr, (George W.) I can't vote for some as corrupt and incompetent as he. I recently left the Army after ten years. I am registering as a Democrat. I belive "my" country has sold its soul to England and Israel. And that I have NO represention in congress. We are quickly falling behind ALL of western Europe in Health care, education etc. etc. Oh by the way, these several little wars not only serve Israels strategic interests, but also help the British swine to re-establish themselves in Afghanistan, Kuwait and Iraq. These were all British colonies
as was IRAN!!!!!!! Does it interest anyone that Bush is allegedly desecended from Longshanks? The Brtish tyrant that William Walace so heroically fought against? Is America stricken with the "Loyalist plague?"
I cant be certain but it seem that whats going on isnt about terrorim, but has everything to do with English and Israeli criminals! :fork:

[hank]

First let me say this, Hank do you temporarily lose your mind before you log online? And why does every single thought I have have read drip with drivel that is pro zionist slop? Are you a Baptist, Episcopalian and/or a Feemason?

Second let me state that I have read both Michael Moore AND Buchanan, and I find at least a few similar thoughts. They both despise Bush. The moron and his neo-con(federates) are pulling the control into a quagmire of endless interventions in strategically pointless areas, that is unless you are trying to double envelope Iran for the NEXT invasion. Yes this is the long term strategy of the neo-confederates.

I have been a been a Republican since I was eligable to vote. Although I came from a Democratic family. I married into a Republican family. I am anti abortion, pro gun etc. etc. Yet after the first term in office for Longshanks Jr, (George W.) I can't vote for some as corrupt and incompetent as he. I recently left the Army after ten years. I am registering as a Democrat. I belive "my" country has sold its soul to England and Israel. And that I have NO represention in congress. We are quickly falling behind ALL of western Europe in Health care, education etc. etc. Oh by the way, these several little wars not only serve Israels strategicin interests, but also help the British swine to re-establish themselves in Afghanistan, Kuwait and Iraq. These were all British colonies
as was IRAN!!!!!!! Does it interest anyone that Bush is allegedly desecended from Longshanks? The Brtish tyrant that William Walace so heroically fought against? Is America stricken with the "Loyalist plague?"
I cant be certain but it seem that whats going on isnt about terrorim, but has everything to do with English and Israeli criminals! :fork:

Well, let's start at the top, shall we?

No, I take my brain everywhere and I think as much as possible. Good question though.

Pro-zionist slop? Nice try, but not accurate. I disagree with a great deal of what Israel does and our policies towards Israel, but refute and challenge any conspiracy crap.

Baptist/Episcoplaean/Freemason - No, No, No - raised presbyterian but not very serious about it -converted to Catholic at 27 there ever since - Again, good question

Define this neo **** - and don't mention pat or any of those other guys that do your thinking for you - the lack of analysis and originality in your political opinions is sad - I am not a neo-conservative b/c I don't fit labels - I disagree with Bush when necessary and others as I see fit - I don't blindly follow any ideology - you should try it - it is liberating

Iran double envelopment - really no opinion, need to think about that one

no representation in congress - I would refer you to the constitution and tell you to act - you are represented - one congressman and 2 senators - its in there I promise -

Conspiracies - well give some facts

I have not paid attention to your crap until today, but I will from here on out. Think for yourself, Pat is not even really that smart. Moore certainly never lets the truth get in the way of his BS. Try to do that for yourself. i hope you fidn what you seek in the Democratic party. As much as i desagree with Republicans I have certainly considered it but any notion that Gore/Clinton/Kerry/Daschle/Kennedy/etc. are somehow better is distant. At least with Bush you get what you pay for. Kerry is a silk purse parading as a sow's ear. Vice versa I know. AFL-CIO endorsing Kerry is as ridiculous as anything I have heard in my life. Son in law of the Heinz fortune endorsin organized labor? Preposterous.

Well, for your last point - it certainly wasn't the English knocked down the WTC, now was it.

I don't really know what you take issue with, but I have tried to answer your allegations in turn. What that I have said in this thread do you disagree with? Seriously, why do you say I am pro-zionist? My stance against anti-semitism does not mean I blindly follow US policy re:Israel. My solution to that problem would shock all so I will keep it to myself.

I too am anti-abortion and pro gun. I do not think abortion should be illegal b/c I think the constitution protects a woman's right to deal with her body and I refuse to dictate that. That position does not mean I am pro choice - I just refuse to enter the fray except on a constitutional basis - b/c I read the 14A to include this right I think abortin is legal. That being said, I might support a con amendment in the right circumstances. I think the right to bear arms is the only logical reading of the 2A - but I think the NRA and the anti-gun people are equally irrational. Hell, I own 4 rifles and a pistol. These postitions are hardly radical.

I have never voted for a democrat, probably never will. I despise Clinton - on both a personal and political level.

What is your beef?

hank

[Sixgun Symphony]

Hank,

I know you hate the labels, but you do come close to being a neo-conservative. Maybe "Log Cabin Republican"?

Now you do know that the framers of the constitution has assumed that people would have their own small arms (rifles, pistols). So what is this "changing with the times" bit? You obviously don't like 2nd Amendment. So write your legislature to repeal it. That will legalize the gun controls you desire. Then you can the be the first to turn your guns over to Sarah Brady.

Actually, It would be better if you just turned your guns over to Sarah Brady and not mess with everyone else's RTKBA.

[Sixgun Symphony]

I have been a been a Republican since I was eligable to vote. Although I came from a Democratic family. I married into a Republican family. I am anti abortion, pro gun etc. etc. Yet after the first term in office for Longshanks Jr, (George W.) I can't vote for some as corrupt and incompetent as he. I recently left the Army after ten years. I am registering as a Democrat.


As bad as the GOP can get, the Democrats are worse. Do you remember NAFTA and GATT being passed? Jobs went over the border. That treason was passed in 1993 when Democrats controlled the White House and Congress.

[Cael]

Does it interest anyone that Bush is allegedly desecended from Longshanks?
Hell I wonder who I descend from, I wonder who all these muts descend from! (nothing personal for all you caucasians/muts :D )

Sethen if you're gonna bring up an argument, bring up a good case and an actual argument. You're just making hank look good. Which doesn't really matter, since I have hank thinking for me anyways. :D [/quote]

[martinexsquaddie]

rofl rofl rofl rofl
those american fools have rumbled are plan but there is nothing they can do rofl they will help us restablish colonies throughout the middle east we will then control the oil :lol: then with there army depleted and extended all over the world we can lauch our UN led armoured columns to seize there guns with only jim bob and bubba and ther friends in the milita rofl
to stop us rofl
this thread now beats the mad sniper poetry as the maddest thread yet
hows the medication sethan?

[George W. Bush]

Those blue helmets sure make a nice target.

[front]

"Pat buchanan, champion of the "old right" (as he describes it), wrote an interesting and harsh critique of neo-conservative"

"Rat deserting a sinking ship" comes to mind. It's pathethic.

cheers

front

[George W. Bush]

Wow, you have no idea what you're talking about. The Republican party is divided between Neo-cons and Conservatives.

[hank]

Hank,

I know you hate the labels, but you do come close to being a neo-conservative. Maybe "Log Cabin Republican"?

Now you do know that the framers of the constitution has assumed that people would have their own small arms (rifles, pistols). So what is this "changing with the times" bit? You obviously don't like 2nd Amendment. So write your legislature to repeal it. That will legalize the gun controls you desire. Then you can the be the first to turn your guns over to Sarah Brady.

Actually, It would be better if you just turned your guns over to Sarah Brady and not mess with everyone else's RTKBA.

hold on wingnut - why do you say I do not 2nd A? I love it. I agree that it protects your right and my right to own guns. Never said otherwise. It is the 2ndA for a reason - founding fathers OBVIOUSLY thight it was a big issue. I do not want new gun laws - repeat - do not. We have too many right now and that is the problem. Too many to enforce. If it were up to me, which it is not, I would repeal them all and start fresh with one sensible policy that deals strongly with importation, manufacture and less with distribution once they are made. See my point? 2nd A doesn't say anybody has a right to make guns - just to bear. Once guns are available on the market the limitations on ownership become moot and in violation of the 2nd A. I support the whole constitution even the parts I find inconvenient or burdensome.

My point about changing times is that the difference between military arms and personal arms in the 1770's was negligible. You had a long rifle and you used it to hunt and for your military service. Not so now. Did the founding father intend for me to won an M2HB just b/c the mil has it? I do not know the answer to that and neither does anybody else. What is clear is that other personal rights - even speech - can be limited when there is a compelling public interest in the limitation AND the limitation is strictly narrowed to promote the compelling interest. Under that rationale I can understand, even if I disagree with, the idea that not everybody needs an M2HB or should be able to get it.

Teh problem with teh current situation is the extreme position of the peopl who care. NRA says NO LIMITATIONS. Stupid liberals says NO GUNS. There is no possibility for compromise or reasonable solution. Any, even reasonable, limitation gets trashed by the NRA. All guns, even useful ones, get bashed by the liberals. No win situation.

Brady legislation is stupid b/c even stupid criminals figure out how to work around them. That is the very reason why I say scrap it all and start by restricting things you can control - manufacture and importation.

Even then, though, the default position should, and must, be that people have the right to get a particular firearm or class of firearms and the government should have a substantial burden to show otherwise.

As for Brady, I don't think she would be interested in my Remington 1100 12 ga. Why don't you come to Knoxvegas and try to take it from me? That will give me the opportunity to show you haw serious I am about "bearing" arms and make milphoto.net more fun. Til then I remain

hank

[California Joe]

I was thinking hank was more of a "double wide trailer Republican" than a "log cabin Republican" or maybe a "luxury condo Independent" but never a "silk stockings and garter Democrat".

[farmgirl]

I was thinking hank was more of a "double wide trailer Republican" than a "log cabin Republican" or maybe a "luxury condo Independent" but never a "silk stockings and garter Democrat".


"so I made him the king of my double wide trailer, with the polyester curtains and the redwood deck...."

oh... sorry.... just singing Hank's song.....

come on Joe.... I don't want to be a Democrat, but I'm all about the silk stockings and garters..... p-)

[California Joe]

*creating new label*

[Fox2]

I think ya'll need to take a cold shower.

[farmgirl]

I think ya'll need to take a cold shower.


Calm down Fox.... it was a comment on how silly it is to try to make people conform to certain labels. Why is it necessary? We are what we are..... :roll:

[Fox2]

Calm down Fox.... it was a comment on how silly it is to try to make people conform to certain labels. Why is it necessary? We are what we are..... :roll:

What makes you think I'm not calm? ;)

Sorry for being a party pooper, just trying to find an area of the forums where you and Joe aren't playing footsie. p-)


:hug:

[IDFM203]

*Putting captain obvious hat on*

gee some female is following some gentleman wherever said gentleman posts even if its in threads that are up from the off topic and humor section where they mostly reside p-)

Its become expected that wherever said gentleman posts, it will immediately be followed by said female.

Interesting……….. ;) :D


Hmm and there is no outright flirting section on this forum, why again? ;)

Shalom :D

[California Joe]

Serious posts most often fall on deaf ears around here.

[farmgirl]

*Putting captain obvious hat on*

gee some female is following some gentleman wherever said gentleman posts even if its in threads that are up from the off topic and humor section where they mostly reside p-)

Its become expected that wherever said gentleman posts, it will immediately be followed by said female.

Interesting……….. ;) :D


Hmm and there is no outright flirting section on this forum, why again? ;)

Shalom :D


give me a break. I don't "follow" anyone anywhere. I comment where I feel like commenting. In this case... it was an obvious poke at the tendancy some around here to label absolutely everyone.

I mostly read in the discussion forum, but don't make the mistake of thinking that I can't carry on an intelligent conversation on nearly any topic that you want to name. Bring it.

[IDFM203]

Serious posts most often fall on deaf ears around here.Unfortunately perhaps your right.

However at the same time by now we know who are serious posters and who are not and as such we ignore or listen to those opinions depending on which user posted.

I know for me I do ignore a lot of posts though if I see a post made by what I perceive to be a mature or a serious poster I will always read it or even respond even if its some thing that I don’t agree with per say.





give me a break. I don't "follow" anyone anywhere. I comment where I feel like commenting. In this case... it was an obvious poke at the tendancy some around here to label absolutely everyone.

I mostly read in the discussion forum, but don't make the mistake of thinking that I can't carry on an intelligent conversation on nearly any topic that you want to name. Bring it.ok I guess in a way I am glad you took what was supposed to be a tongue and cheek observation and took it seriously.

Yes I am fully aware and suspect that you are more then capable of conducting a serious conversation on many matters, though I must be honest with you in stating that I haven’t seen you post much other then in the off topic section and when you do "venture up", well its only after etc…. ;)

But anyways this wasn’t my intention to evoke any hostile tones for I do not harbour any and I do in fact enjoy reading up your comments in the off topic section for it’s a nice break of what I have to deal with "up above".


Shalom to you :D

[farmgirl]

Serious posts most often fall on deaf ears around here.Unfortunately perhaps your right.

However at the same time by now we know who are serious posters and who are not and as such we ignore or listen to those opinions depending on which user posted.

I know for me I do ignore a lot of posts though if I see a post made by what I perceive to be a mature or a serious poster I will always read it or even respond even if its some thing that I don’t agree with per say.





give me a break. I don't "follow" anyone anywhere. I comment where I feel like commenting. In this case... it was an obvious poke at the tendancy some around here to label absolutely everyone.

I mostly read in the discussion forum, but don't make the mistake of thinking that I can't carry on an intelligent conversation on nearly any topic that you want to name. Bring it.ok I guess in a way I am glad you took what was supposed to be a tongue and cheek observation and took it seriously.

Yes I am fully aware and suspect that you are more then capable of conducting a serious conversation on many matters, though I must be honest with you in stating that I haven’t seen you post much other then in the off topic section and when you do "venture up", well its only after etc…. ;)

But anyways this wasn’t my intention to evoke any hostile tones for I do not harbour any and I do in fact enjoy reading up your comments in the off topic section for it’s a nice break of what I have to deal with "up above".


Shalom to you :D


I didn't take your comments as hostile, and as I'm a very clever person, read them as you had intended. However, I felt that they merited a response.
I do comment in the discussion forum, though not often. I make serious comments. I am quite capable of making only serious comments, but find that people are sometimes more receptive to serious comments delivered in a more light hearted tone.

If it seems that I "follow" Joe, that might be because I often find his comments funny and insightful. You might also notice that I often comment where Hank, Trigger, Tane, Argyll, Beowulf, Durandal and Budanski have commented. It has less to do with "playing footsie" (as Fox put it) than it does enjoying the intelligence and candor displayed by the aforementioned individuals.

I value intelligence, humor and open mindedness. One will often find me where those virtues are being displayed.

:D

[IDFM203]

Good response :D

Just note that I too enjoy their postings and the wit and humor that some of them show, which are truly deserving of special merit on this firm.

Even though I come to this military forum to discuss mainly military subjects as a former military soldier myself or even to dabble in world political discussions, I at the same time enjoy the respite of the wit and humor that some of the aforementioned individuals have displayed including yourself.

(I would show more wit and humor myself if my subject matter that I deal with mostly wasn’t so serious and personal to me but I guess each to their own ;) )


Anyways about my observation of you “following” a certain individual especially in other threads that are not in the off topic section, I guess what I said before was said already and no need to beat a dead horse on that so to speak.

You answered well on that and I am sorry if I perceived you to initially take offense to anything I said as that was not my intention and I can see you now didn’t take it that way.


Shalom :D

[Sixgun Symphony]

I value intelligence, humor and open mindedness. One will often find me where those virtues are being displayed.

:D

Translation: They think alike. Anyone who disagrees with them are not viewed as being intelligent, funny, or open minded.

[farmgirl]

I value intelligence, humor and open mindedness. One will often find me where those virtues are being displayed.

:D

Translation: They think alike. Anyone who disagrees with them are not viewed as being intelligent, funny, or open minded.

On the contrary, I don't think life would be very interesting if I chose to only associate with people who think exactly as I do. Naturally, I enjoy spending time with people who enjoy intelligent discourse and witty banter. Sometimes my friends and I agree to disagree, however, that does not keep us from remaining friends.

[Haiw]

I value intelligence, humor and open mindedness. One will often find me where those virtues are being displayed.

:D

Translation: They think alike. Anyone who disagrees with them are not viewed as being intelligent, funny, or open minded.
Another awardwinning falsehood by our favorite Klanmember...

Just admit it FG, you're following CJ like a caravan ;)

[Yard Ape]

I value intelligence, humor and open mindedness. One will often find me where those virtues are being displayed.

:D

Translation: They think alike. Anyone who disagrees with them are not viewed as being intelligent, funny, or open minded.Ironic observation when one considers all the labels you slap on anyone who does not agree with you.

[hank]

Same old story - you numbnuts post some inflamatory BS that tries to paint someone who disagrees with you, like me, as "liberal" or "neo-conservative". Then when I post my views, backed up with the constitution, you change the GD subject. Are any of you Pat lovers ever going to deal with facts, reality, our constitution, etc? NO!

Here is a label I will accept that will differentiate me from hexnut, sethen, wangchung (now GWB) - hell you are probably all the same 16 year old - THINKER - i actually read the cosntitution - think about what it means - read the different positions people take and disregard most b/c the motivation is all wrong - then come up with my own position - try it for yourself - but you won't b/c it is hard to do and it requires use of your brain

Thanks for any kind words that I got - CJ double-wide republican hits a little close to home but still made me laught out loud! Fox2 - cold shower + calm down = Bill Clinton as President so no thanks

If any of you sixpence sympathizers want to really talk about the con and/or the issues - meaning that you want to think and debate - then get back on topic - otherwise you can continue behind Pat with your blinders - at least in that position you are likely to vote Republican

hank

[Argyll]

Who is Pat Buchanan?........... ;)
Does he play soccer or something?

[hank]

Yeah, big soccer star. Never heard the term "bend it like Buchanan"? Just kidding. He is a "politician" who has never been elected to office so he writes a lot of books and other crap that is as far right as possible. Real thinker, Pat is. He was an underling for Nixon in the Whitehouse and has kind of assumed the position over the years of the resident ultra-conservative in US politics.

Interestingly, a professor at OSU has done a study of all the Whitehouse employees' datebooks and has determined that Buchanan is the only whiteshouse staffer that was in Washington for every day that the Washington Post boys met with Deep Throat. According to this OSU professor, who I don't necessarily believe, Pat is the anonymoust source for the Watergate scandal. Interesting if true.

hank