Whose War? Patrick J. Buchanan - The American Conservative

Asmodeus wrote:
Ken Smith wrote in :

He's closer to the Goldwater ideal

You really are quite stupid. Buchanan is a protectionist;
Goldwater was the opposite.

Which is hell and gone from the neo-con Zionists.

Buchanan wants an in loco parentis government;

Cite?

Buchanan loved great big government;

Cite?

Somebody here's not reading,

Like you.

Ken Smith wrote in :

Buchanan wants an in loco parentis government;

Cite?

Buchanan loved great big government;

Cite?

All of Buchanan's "culture wars" bull****, his demands for enforced
and legislated "morality" and his protectionism. That's big fat
intrusive in loco parentis government--you *do* understand what
in loco parentis means, I assume.




--
"I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more
efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote
welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws,
but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel
old ones that do violence to the Constitution or that have failed their
purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden.
I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is 'needed' before I
have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And
if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents
'interests,' I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest
is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can."
--Barry Goldwater

Asmodeus wrote:
Ken Smith wrote in :

Buchanan wants an in loco parentis government;

Cite?

Buchanan loved great big government;

Cite?

All of Buchanan's "culture wars" bull****, his demands for enforced
and legislated "morality" and his protectionism.

Sounds like the mainstream Republican agenda here in Colorado --
which I'm trying to fight. The difference is that Pat was more of an
advocate for a more voluntary adoption of that brand of "morality," as
opposed to using the sledgehammer of the law to require us to follow it
like modern mainstream Republicans. At least, that is what I gather
from tomes like "Death of the West," and the article now under
consideration. (Advocacy and persuasion are favored by us old-line
'Pubs, because the decision is invariably left with the individual.)

And as for "culture wars," why in the hell *ARE* we fighting in Iraq?

With respect to protectionism, it is always a function of who throws
enough money around. The drug companies enjoy the immense benefits of
protectionism, which is why Jack Nicklaus and Bob Dole are drug pushers,
and we pay twice what the rest of the civilzed world pays for the bulk
of our prescriptions. No different from the Zionists buying our foreign
policy.

That's big fat
intrusive in loco parentis government--you *do* understand what
in loco parentis means, I assume.

Of course, and the word "loco" is somehow fitting, don't you think?
The question here is how far the two groups -- the Zionists and Pat B.
-- deviate from traditional Goldwater Republicanism (of which I have
been a consistent advocate, and know well). On foreign policy, we're
generally isolationist, and don't relish the concept of fighting wars
for Israel.

"George Z. Bush" wrote
I thought my point was fairly clear; it's eminently unfair to blame 90% of
the
Muslim population for the depravations of the fundamentalist 10%. If you
did
that, you'd be condemning over a billion Muslims for the wrongdoings of
just a
fraction of them.

If the billion of them stood up and denounced the minority, that might be a
consideration- but they don't. Muslims are enjoined by their religion to
always take the part of another muslim in any dispute with a non-muslim. You
won't find any but the most academic disagreement with the fundamentalists-
never a direct confrontation. The mild exception is when their Royalty gets
worried about their privilege and power, and kills a bunch of 'dissidents'.
And 'fairness' has got to run two ways. Expecting us to continue to treat
them as if they were civilized, and overlooking their conduct of conquering
and war, is naive at best. They despise us as weak, ingenuous, confused,
without character; their natural slaves as for the last thousand years.

Chas

"Ken Smith" wrote in message ...
Asmodeus wrote:

All of Buchanan's "culture wars" bull****, his demands for enforced
and legislated "morality" and his protectionism.

Sounds like the mainstream Republican agenda here in Colorado --
which I'm trying to fight.

Actually, it is the demorats who are pushing the most "legislsated
morality". Folk like Joe Lieberman want to be Americas "moral compass".
They want to control everything we see, hear or read.

-*MORT*-

Ken Smith wrote:
Asmodeus wrote:
Ken Smith wrote in :

Buchanan wants an in loco parentis government;

Cite?

Buchanan loved great big government;

Cite?

All of Buchanan's "culture wars" bull****, his demands for enforced
and legislated "morality" and his protectionism.

Sounds like the mainstream Republican agenda here in Colorado --
which I'm trying to fight. The difference is that Pat was more of an
advocate for a more voluntary adoption of that brand of "morality," as
opposed to using the sledgehammer of the law to require us to follow it
like modern mainstream Republicans. At least, that is what I gather
from tomes like "Death of the West," and the article now under
consideration. (Advocacy and persuasion are favored by us old-line
'Pubs, because the decision is invariably left with the individual.)

And as for "culture wars," why in the hell *ARE* we fighting in Iraq?

With respect to protectionism, it is always a function of who throws
enough money around. The drug companies enjoy the immense benefits of
protectionism, which is why Jack Nicklaus and Bob Dole are drug pushers,
and we pay twice what the rest of the civilzed world pays for the bulk
of our prescriptions. No different from the Zionists buying our foreign
policy.

That's big fat
intrusive in loco parentis government--you *do* understand what
in loco parentis means, I assume.

Of course, and the word "loco" is somehow fitting, don't you think?
The question here is how far the two groups -- the Zionists and Pat B.
-- deviate from traditional Goldwater Republicanism (of which I have
been a consistent advocate, and know well). On foreign policy, we're
generally isolationist, and don't relish the concept of fighting wars
for Israel.

The concept of international isolationism in a world where oceans can be crossed
in a matter of hours instead of days, weeks or months is truly mind boggling.
It amounts to little more than sticking one's head in the sand thinking that
one's backside will be protected by an ocean's vastness, and all within the
confines of a global economy. Like I said, mind boggling!!!

George Z.

Chas wrote:
"George Z. Bush" wrote
I thought my point was fairly clear; it's eminently unfair to blame 90% of
the Muslim population for the depravations of the fundamentalist 10%. If
you did that, you'd be condemning over a billion Muslims for the wrongdoings
of just a fraction of them.

If the billion of them stood up and denounced the minority, that might be a
consideration- but they don't. Muslims are enjoined by their religion to
always take the part of another muslim in any dispute with a non-muslim. You
won't find any but the most academic disagreement with the fundamentalists-
never a direct confrontation. The mild exception is when their Royalty gets
worried about their privilege and power, and kills a bunch of 'dissidents'.
And 'fairness' has got to run two ways. Expecting us to continue to treat
them as if they were civilized, and overlooking their conduct of conquering
and war, is naive at best. They despise us as weak, ingenuous, confused,
without character; their natural slaves as for the last thousand years.


I gather that you think the world's 3 billion some odd Christians all speak with
one voice, since you apparently expect the Moslem world to behave that way. If
you really think the world is that way, I'm not going to bother taking
exception. I don't have enough time left in my life to fritter it away on
projects of that magnitude.

George Z.

"George Z. Bush" wrote
I gather that you think the world's 3 billion some odd Christians all
speak with
one voice, since you apparently expect the Moslem world to behave that
way.

If a basic tenet of Christianity commanded us to go conquer the world,
require everyone to Submit to our Religion and Recite an Oath to our god,
one might well worry about what voice was being heard.

If
you really think the world is that way, I'm not going to bother taking
exception. I don't have enough time left in my life to fritter it away on
projects of that magnitude.

It doesn't even matter whether you are tolerant of them or not, because
they're not tolerant of you.
They *hope* you're 'fair'; just makes you that much more vulnerable.
They hope you're reticent to fight; makes conquering you that much easier.
They hope you're divided amongst yourselves; fragmenting makes you easier to
kill.
They hope you abide by your own Geneva Convention- they aren't bound by it
at all.
If you want to see the Muslims as they are, look at East Africa.

Chas

"George Z. Bush" wrote
The concept of international isolationism in a world where oceans can be
crossed
in a matter of hours instead of days, weeks or months is truly mind
boggling.
It amounts to little more than sticking one's head in the sand thinking
that
one's backside will be protected by an ocean's vastness, and all within
the
confines of a global economy. Like I said, mind boggling!!!

Then get used to trying to fight wars on *their* soil instead of our own.
Islam is a warrior faith with the command to require everyone in the world
to Submit to their religion and Recite the Oath of Allegiance to their god
and their prophet. Submitting to the Peace of Conquest, they'd set a ruler
over you with the absolute right to treat you any way he cares to- the
Sultanate system is a bench-mark for despotism and decadence in government.
They have 160,000,000 fanatic warriors committed to destroying everything
about you. They don't care about your economics, except as loot. They don't
care about your tolerance, fairness, democracy, compassion- they think
you're stupid, and of less worth than a good goat.

Chas

George Z. Bush wrote:
Ken Smith wrote:
Asmodeus wrote:
Ken Smith wrote in :


Buchanan wants an in loco parentis government;

Cite?

Buchanan loved great big government;

Cite?

All of Buchanan's "culture wars" bull****, his demands for enforced
and legislated "morality" and his protectionism.

Sounds like the mainstream Republican agenda here in Colorado --
which I'm trying to fight. The difference is that Pat was more of an
advocate for a more voluntary adoption of that brand of "morality," as
opposed to using the sledgehammer of the law to require us to follow it
like modern mainstream Republicans. At least, that is what I gather
from tomes like "Death of the West," and the article now under
consideration. (Advocacy and persuasion are favored by us old-line
'Pubs, because the decision is invariably left with the individual.)

And as for "culture wars," why in the hell *ARE* we fighting in Iraq?

With respect to protectionism, it is always a function of who throws
enough money around. The drug companies enjoy the immense benefits of
protectionism, which is why Jack Nicklaus and Bob Dole are drug pushers,
and we pay twice what the rest of the civilzed world pays for the bulk
of our prescriptions. No different from the Zionists buying our foreign
policy.

That's big fat
intrusive in loco parentis government--you *do* understand what
in loco parentis means, I assume.

Of course, and the word "loco" is somehow fitting, don't you think?
The question here is how far the two groups -- the Zionists and Pat B.
-- deviate from traditional Goldwater Republicanism (of which I have
been a consistent advocate, and know well). On foreign policy, we're
generally isolationist, and don't relish the concept of fighting wars
for Israel.

The concept of international isolationism in a world where oceans can be crossed
in a matter of hours instead of days, weeks or months is truly mind boggling.

"Isolationism" in the modern sense is the adoption of a laissez-faire
attitude toward how other countries govern their affairs, as opposed to
engineering a seemingly endless procession of coups in virtually every
Third World country on the friggin' globe. If we *can* trust democracy
and self-determination, then let's trust them.

It amounts to little more than sticking one's head in the sand thinking that
one's backside will be protected by an ocean's vastness, and all within the
confines of a global economy. Like I said, mind boggling!!!

One's backside is better-protected by a fair, consistent, and
credible foreign policy, which keeps us from being a global hemorrhoid.
We'd be in a lot better position to broker a settlement between the
Israelis and Palestinians, for instance, if we could be seen as an
honest broker.