[quote]Varqanir wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
being a rank bigot of the worst sort
Now, I think that’s a bit of an overstatement. Have we really already forgotten the campaigns of David Duke and Pat Buchanan?[/quote]
I suspect they are both Paul supporters…
Hey, I have to admit some ignorance on Buchanan here. I’ve only paid attention to some of his more recent articles-having for whatever reason in the past ignored him-and am unaware of why he’s labeled a racist. Anyone have documented examples? I mean, he’s definitely not PC, but I’ve not come across actual racism. But again, we’re talking about me having only read 3 or 4 of his articles over at Townhall.com.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Of all posters here, you easily get first prize for condescension. [/quote]
I’m inconsolable.
Besides, you are confusing “condescension” - which is attempting to make someone feel stupid from a superior position - with pointing out someone’s stupidity. Not the same.
Get comfortable with the latter, and not the former.
[quote]orion wrote:
And we kind of wonder where he is condescending from?
Came he down the mountain, with wisdom carved in stone by the Gods themselves, that would be one thing… [/quote]
Hilarious. I am compiling a new T-Nation Politics Forum dictionary so we can all keep up:
condescension: when a poster has the nerve to disagree with me and has the audacity to tell me so
If only old Thunderbolt would fall in line with the pocketed groupthink around here and quit debating the issues - then maybe we wouldn’t think him so “condescending”.
Thanks for a good chuckle.
Paul’s campaign has been a success to a large degree because he has shown that their is a substantial appetite for libertarian-leaning policies and candidates. Most of the people who professed some degree of support for Paul probably didn’t support most of his actual proposed policies but supported him instead to send a message that they lean in his direction relative to other more viable politicians. That he was able to generate noticeable percentages of the vote, gain significant national exposure, and raise tremendous amounts of cash while advocating the gold standard, and all manner of other out there stuff, puts future candidates on notice that there is a block of the electorate available for the right combination of policy and message. The political buyers have shown their desire and the political market should be expected to respond with some options that though watered down are still close enough to get those peoples support.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
What do you think about the Constitution Party Gdollars? I think I may support their candidates whenever available. Them, and proably RLC candidates.[/quote]
I don’t know a ton about them, only stuff I know is a brief bit from Michael Lewis’ Losers, very entertaining book about the 1996 primaries. Same guy who wrote Liars’ Poker and Moneyball.
I’m actually pretty much OK with McCain. I have loads of problems with some of his positions (mainly immigration, foreign policy to a large degree), but he’s more honest than most of them, and his stand on torture is something that would almost let me vote for him by itself.
If the nominee was Romney or (ha) Giuliani, I’d vote third party. McCain I’m more or less OK with.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Hey, I have to admit some ignorance on Buchanan here. I’ve only paid attention to some of his more recent articles-having for whatever reason in the past ignored him-and am unaware of why he’s labeled a racist. Anyone have documented examples? I mean, he’s definitely not PC, but I’ve not come across actual racism. But again, we’re talking about me having only read 3 or 4 of his articles over at Townhall.com.[/quote]
I don’t think Buchanan’s an outright racist. I think he’s a bit too anti-immigrant, but I’ve never seen real evidence of racism.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
And I’m perfectly aware that the American electorate is probably not buying what Paul’s selling. If you think that’s a good thing, well, enjoy the direction of our country.
Let’s see - gold standard economics in a modern economy, isolationism in fact, blaming America for totalitarian violence (essentially stealing the cape of Marxists), flirting with discredited conspiracy theories, and either (a) being a rank bigot of the worst sort, or (b) not having the intelligence or character to dissociate himself from such foul nonsense?
[/quote]
Leaving aside the enormous differences between isolationism and non-interventionism, and between “blaming America” and simply stating that actions have consequences, let’s look at where we’re headed: an economic house of cards, on the way to losing two wars, massive new entitlements, torture becoming American policy…do I need to go on?
What “demagogues” are you talking about? This isn’t the Weimar Republic, adding more viable parties would not be putting neo-Nazis or anarchists in Congress. And the closest thing to a demagogue I can see in American politics today is Rudy Giuliani, and I think you were pretty OK with him.
[quote]
Do you have some more baseless condescension to contribute?
So odd - you invoke a response from me with a patronizing post when we hadn’t been trading posts prior (“please lecture us on the benefits of the two-party system”), and then you suddenly want to complain about me returning in kind?[/quote]
No, just an observation given the ongoing tone of what you write here. But by all means, knock yourself out.
Q. A plane with Huckabee, McCain, and Romney crashes. Who’s saved?
A. The United States.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Hey, I have to admit some ignorance on Buchanan here. I’ve only paid attention to some of his more recent articles-having for whatever reason in the past ignored him-and am unaware of why he’s labeled a racist. Anyone have documented examples? I mean, he’s definitely not PC, but I’ve not come across actual racism. But again, we’re talking about me having only read 3 or 4 of his articles over at Townhall.com.
I don’t think Buchanan’s an outright racist. I think he’s a bit too anti-immigrant, but I’ve never seen real evidence of racism.[/quote]
Google Buchanan and racism and read up on him. I am not sure if this is all legit but I always thought he was a bit of a Nazi kook myself. He gives conservatives a bad name.
[i]
Here is just a small sampling of Buchanan’s racist, fascist,
and anti-Semitic comments and actions:
Buchanan has publicly criticized Harvard University for
having too high a percentage of students who are Jewish.
Buchanan referred to Capitol Hill as “Israeli-occupied
territory.”
During the Gulf Crisis, Buchanan argued against fighting
Sadam Hussein. “There are only two groups that are beating
the drums for war in the Middle East – the Israeli defense
ministry and its ‘amen corner’ in the United States.” That
was a clear lie meant solely to stir up hatred against Jews.
In one of his newspaper columns sympathetic to Nazi and
ex-Klansman David Duke, Buchanan scolded the Republican
Party for overreacting to Duke and his Nazi “costume”: “Take
a hard look at Duke’s portfolio of winning issues and
expropriate those not in conflict with GOP principles, [such
as] reverse discrimination against white folks.”
In a 1977 column in The Guardian, Buchanan wrote that Hitler
was “an individual of great courage, a soldier’s soldier in
the Great War” and “a leader steeped in the history of
Europe.” He praised Hitler=92s “extraordinary gifts” and
“genus.”
In his writings, Buchanan =92has challenged the fact that
thousands of Jews were gassed to death at Treblinka. These
Holocaust revisionist screeds have been republished in
Neo-Nazi publications.
Buchanan called for closing the U.S. Justice Department’s
Office of Special Investigations, which prosecuted Nazi war
criminals. And he has protested against the deportation of
Nazi war criminals who illegally entered the US.
Buchanan was the one who urged President Reagan to honor SS
troops buried in the Bitburg cemetery. He is credited with
writing the speech in which Reagan described SS murderers as
“victims just as surely as the victims in the concentration
camps.”
Shortly before Buchanan announced his candidacy for
president in 1995: he boasted, “You just wait until 1996,
then you’ll see a real right-wing tyrant.”
Echoes of Hitler=92s Brown Shirts: At his presidential
campaign rally in New Hampshire in 1995, Buchanan=92s aids
beat, kicked, and threw three rabbinical student protesters
down stairs. The police had to threaten Buchanan=92s campaign
director with arrest to get him to call off Buchanan=92s
goons. Buchanan stood there and did nothing to stop the
beating.
Buchanan has often spoken out in favor of fascism and
fascist dictators. In a January, 1991 column, Buchanan
suggested that “quasi-dictatorial rule” might be the
solution to the problems of big municipalities and the
federal fiscal crisis: “If the people are corrupt, the more
democracy, the worse the government.” In his autobiography,
he calls Spanish dictator and Hitler ally Francisco Franco a
“Catholic savior.” He called both Franco and Chile’s Gen.
Pinochet (who is now fighting deportation to Spain where he
would stand trial for torture and murder)
“soldier-patriots.” =
Sounding too much like a member of the KKK, Buchanan argues
that the US Civil War was not fought overly slavery. “The
War Between the States was about independence, about
self-determination, about the right of a people to break
free of a government to which they could no longer give
allegiance.”
Contrary to the US Supreme Court ruling that the racist
policy of “separate but equal” was inherently unequal,
Buchanan seems to think otherwise. Back in the late 1940s
and early 1950s, he argues in his autobiography, “There were
no politics to polarize us then, to magnify every slight.
The ‘negroes’ of Washington had their public schools,
restaurants, bars, movie houses, playgrounds and churches;
and we had ours.”
Buchanan has opposed virtually every civil rights law and
court decision in the past 30 years. He published libelous
FBI-fed smears of Martin Luther King ,Jr., as his own
editorials in the St. Louis Globe Democrat in the mid-1960s.
As advisor to Nixon, Buchanan warned the President not to
visit Martin Luther King=92s widow on the first anniversary of
the civil rights leader=92s assassination. Buchanan told Nixon
that people consider Dr. King “the Devil incarnate. Dr. King
is one of the most divisive men in contemporary history.”
Buchanan was an admirer and defender of South Africa
apartheid. He denounced the US support of United Nations
sanctions against the South African apartheid government…
In a 1977 column in New Republic, Buchanan urged a
“thrashing” of gay groups. He wrote: “Homosexuality is not a
civil right. Its rise almost always is accompanied, as in
the Weimar Republic, with a decay of society and a collapse
of its basic cinder block, the family.” =
[/i]
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
This is also a good way for Paul to save up for his retirement. Did you know that he can keep every dollar donated to his failed presidential bid?
This explains much. His campaign was calculated to raise money from fringe people, not sway the debate or get votes.
So…I guess he really is a genius after all.[/quote]
Smart enough to separate people from their money.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Hey, I have to admit some ignorance on Buchanan here. I’ve only paid attention to some of his more recent articles-having for whatever reason in the past ignored him-and am unaware of why he’s labeled a racist. Anyone have documented examples? I mean, he’s definitely not PC, but I’ve not come across actual racism. But again, we’re talking about me having only read 3 or 4 of his articles over at Townhall.com.
I don’t think Buchanan’s an outright racist. I think he’s a bit too anti-immigrant, but I’ve never seen real evidence of racism.
Google Buchanan and racism and read up on him. I am not sure if this is all legit but I always thought he was a bit of a Nazi kook myself. He gives conservatives a bad name.
[i]
Here is just a small sampling of Buchanan’s racist, fascist,
and anti-Semitic comments and actions:
Buchanan has publicly criticized Harvard University for
having too high a percentage of students who are Jewish.
Buchanan referred to Capitol Hill as “Israeli-occupied
territory.”
During the Gulf Crisis, Buchanan argued against fighting
Sadam Hussein. “There are only two groups that are beating
the drums for war in the Middle East – the Israeli defense
ministry and its ‘amen corner’ in the United States.” That
was a clear lie meant solely to stir up hatred against Jews.
In one of his newspaper columns sympathetic to Nazi and
ex-Klansman David Duke, Buchanan scolded the Republican
Party for overreacting to Duke and his Nazi “costume”: “Take
a hard look at Duke’s portfolio of winning issues and
expropriate those not in conflict with GOP principles, [such
as] reverse discrimination against white folks.”
In a 1977 column in The Guardian, Buchanan wrote that Hitler
was “an individual of great courage, a soldier’s soldier in
the Great War” and “a leader steeped in the history of
Europe.” He praised Hitler=92s “extraordinary gifts” and
“genus.”
In his writings, Buchanan =92has challenged the fact that
thousands of Jews were gassed to death at Treblinka. These
Holocaust revisionist screeds have been republished in
Neo-Nazi publications.
Buchanan called for closing the U.S. Justice Department’s
Office of Special Investigations, which prosecuted Nazi war
criminals. And he has protested against the deportation of
Nazi war criminals who illegally entered the US.
Buchanan was the one who urged President Reagan to honor SS
troops buried in the Bitburg cemetery. He is credited with
writing the speech in which Reagan described SS murderers as
“victims just as surely as the victims in the concentration
camps.”
Shortly before Buchanan announced his candidacy for
president in 1995: he boasted, “You just wait until 1996,
then you’ll see a real right-wing tyrant.”
Echoes of Hitler=92s Brown Shirts: At his presidential
campaign rally in New Hampshire in 1995, Buchanan=92s aids
beat, kicked, and threw three rabbinical student protesters
down stairs. The police had to threaten Buchanan=92s campaign
director with arrest to get him to call off Buchanan=92s
goons. Buchanan stood there and did nothing to stop the
beating.
Buchanan has often spoken out in favor of fascism and
fascist dictators. In a January, 1991 column, Buchanan
suggested that “quasi-dictatorial rule” might be the
solution to the problems of big municipalities and the
federal fiscal crisis: “If the people are corrupt, the more
democracy, the worse the government.” In his autobiography,
he calls Spanish dictator and Hitler ally Francisco Franco a
“Catholic savior.” He called both Franco and Chile’s Gen.
Pinochet (who is now fighting deportation to Spain where he
would stand trial for torture and murder)
“soldier-patriots.” =
Sounding too much like a member of the KKK, Buchanan argues
that the US Civil War was not fought overly slavery. “The
War Between the States was about independence, about
self-determination, about the right of a people to break
free of a government to which they could no longer give
allegiance.”
Contrary to the US Supreme Court ruling that the racist
policy of “separate but equal” was inherently unequal,
Buchanan seems to think otherwise. Back in the late 1940s
and early 1950s, he argues in his autobiography, “There were
no politics to polarize us then, to magnify every slight.
The ‘negroes’ of Washington had their public schools,
restaurants, bars, movie houses, playgrounds and churches;
and we had ours.”
Buchanan has opposed virtually every civil rights law and
court decision in the past 30 years. He published libelous
FBI-fed smears of Martin Luther King ,Jr., as his own
editorials in the St. Louis Globe Democrat in the mid-1960s.
As advisor to Nixon, Buchanan warned the President not to
visit Martin Luther King=92s widow on the first anniversary of
the civil rights leader=92s assassination. Buchanan told Nixon
that people consider Dr. King “the Devil incarnate. Dr. King
is one of the most divisive men in contemporary history.”
Buchanan was an admirer and defender of South Africa
apartheid. He denounced the US support of United Nations
sanctions against the South African apartheid government…
In a 1977 column in New Republic, Buchanan urged a
“thrashing” of gay groups. He wrote: “Homosexuality is not a
civil right. Its rise almost always is accompanied, as in
the Weimar Republic, with a decay of society and a collapse
of its basic cinder block, the family.” =
[/i][/quote]
At the risk of being an apologist for Buchanan, a couple of those things are troubling, but many aren’t. Support for Franco and Pinochet, as wrong as it may be, was very common in Cold War conservatism, see National Review, for one. Buchanan’s far from a Holocaust denier, see any number of statements there. The stuff about Hitler being a “great man” is true, in the same sense that Stalin or Osama were great men. Evil and great are not opposites, I don’t think. It’s like how Bill Maher was fired for saying the 9/11 hijakcers weren’t cowards, whatever else they might have been. Not the most politic thing to say, but it’s true.
Buchanan does walk pretty close to the line of being what you’d call a “white nationalist,” but I think just dismissing him as a racist crank is pretty ignorant.
And calling Capitol Hill “Israeli-occupied territory” is about as accurate as it gets.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Leaving aside the enormous differences between isolationism and non-interventionism,[/quote]
You’ll note I said “isolationism in fact” - which I believe is Paul’s brand of “non-interventionism” amounts to, regardless of how he tries to package the idea or distinguish the two.
We all know actions have consequences - what I am referring to, and what you keep ignoring, is the “blowback” nonsense Paul peddles: that but for America’s actions, Islamists would leave us alone. It’s hogwash, always has been. It is Paul’s main foreign policy approach - and it is nothing but rewarmed Marxism. Not surprisingly, Paul appeals to a very small contingent of followers.
Every candidate on the stage is essentially warning of consequences if we don’t change our ways - that is in every candidate’s playbook - it is meaningless unless you address the substance of the “change” they are proposing.
Well, what then exactly are you complaining about? You want to “add more parties” - the American system can handle as many parties as people can think of. Go for it. Crack the rotation. It has happened before.
Oh, and by demagogues, I mean the textbook definition of one: Ron Paul. Giuliani is not a demagogue - he might be a politician you don’t like, but he is no demagogue.
Let’s see - the only thing I did was elucidate the value of the winner-take-all system on its merits, which I prefer, and you engaged me with snark, instead of actually engaging me on the merits of a better system.
No problem - doesn’t bother me. You are a bright guy, Gdollars - but seriously, if you can’t take, don’t dish.