A Conservative I Love!

[Nickdfresh]

Pat Buchanan debated Dubya's little Israeli sage philosopher, Natan Sharansky, on the American policy of "spreading democracy" and conclusively won the debate, showing where the "right went WRONG!"

Among the things he said was that the (Neo Con) policy of "democratization" was hypocritical (since we support many dictatorships around the world) and a "prescription for endless war."

He also confronted Sharansky on his blatantly self-(Israeli)serving policy avocation and basically told him the Palestinians have the right to live in Israel too and the settlers should get out of Gaza and the West Bank if they want real peace!

**COMMON SENSE!**

Wake up Neo COn right-wingers and stop listening to Rove, Dubya, Condi, Dick, Rummy, Wolfie, and the PNUTers!


Sunday, February 13th
Sen. Chuck Grassley, Rep. Charlie Rangel, Natan Sharansky and Patrick Buchanan
NBC News
Updated: 4:37 p.m. ET Feb. 11, 2005

As the Social Security debate heats up, we will have the senior member of the House Ways and Means Committee, Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) to discuss the state of the Social Security system and the president's proposals for reform on this Sunday's "Meet the Press with Tim Russert." They will also share their views on tax cuts and the president's budget.

advertisement
Travelzoo Have our Top 20 newsletter
delivered to your Inbox each week!
The Most "WOW!" Travel Dealson the
Internet - here's a sampling: Released
FEB 9, 2005
Independence Air $84-$114 Intro Fares on New Coast-to-Coast Flights
Aer Lingus $173 Ireland in April or May (each way)
Omni San Diego $99 San Diego 4-Star Hotel, over Half-OFF
Travelocity.com $217 Hawaii from Oakland, Roundtrip
Spirit Airlines $49 Florida from New York or D.C. (each way)
Click on any deal and check them out today!
*Fares listed may notinclude all taxes, charges and government fees. More information. © 2005 Travelzoo Inc.
Then, in an exclusive interview with the man that President Bush says reflects his views on foreign policy: Israeli Cabinet member and former Soviet dissident Natan Sharansky. Sharansky, the author of "The Case for Democracy" will debate Pat Buchanan, the author of "Where the Right Went Wrong," on preemptive war and American foreign policy in the Middle East.

All coming up on "Meet the Press."

Tim Russert is the moderator of "Meet the Press." Betsy Fischer is the executive producer. Erin Fogarty and Michelle Jaconi are producers.

"Meet the Press" is regularly seen from 9-10 a.m. ET, except in Washington, D.C. where the broadcast is seen from 10:30-11:30 a.m. ET. Please check local listings or the "Meet the Press" Web site for airtimes in your area.

Do you have a question you'd like to ask this week's Meet the Press guest? Send your e-mail to askmtp@nbc.com.
© 2005 MSNBC Interactive

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3898804/

[FORD]

What's truly frightening is that in 1992 at the GOP convention, Pat Buchanan was the guy who made the scary extremist speeches that scared people away from the Republican ticket and drove them to Clinton & Perot.

Thirteen years later and Pat sounds like a moderate, and makes far more sense than those who hijacked his party. What's wrong with that?

Pat Buchanan's positions haven't changed on anything. It's just that the neocons have out-extremed him to the point where even Pat is freaked out by the bastards.

My only problem with Buchanan is that he clings to the bullshit idea that Junior had good intentions when he took office and that the neocon shitbags tricked him after 9-11. Anybody who has read the PNAC agenda knows that simply isn't the case. This agenda was written in stone by 1998, and Cheney, Perle, Wolfie, Feith, and Jeb Bush all have their names on it. Not to mention that Ariel Sharon gave Junior a personally guided tour of Israel in 1998 - and no doubt used that time to fill Junior's empty head with a heavy dose of Likud propaganda.

Sorry Pat. Junior's been in on it since the beginning, and you shouldn't have endorsed or voted for the bastard.

[LoungeMachine]

I said it in another thread weeks ago....

Every day I find PB to be the Voice of Reason, which tells me just how far right this country has been dragged.

I always considered him an Isolationist nut job. Now I find myself watching MTP and yelling Go Pat GO

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by FORD
What's truly frightening is that in 1992 at the GOP convention, Pat Buchanan was the guy who made the scary extremist speeches that scared people away from the Republican ticket and drove them to Clinton & Perot.

Thirteen years later and Pat sounds like a moderate, and makes far more sense than those who hijacked his party. What's wrong with that?

Pat Buchanan's positions haven't changed on anything. It's just that the neocons have out-extremed him to the point where even Pat is freaked out by the bastards.

My only problem with Buchanan is that he clings to the bullshit idea that Junior had good intentions when he took office and that the neocon shitbags tricked him after 9-11. Anybody who has read the PNAC agenda knows that simply isn't the case. This agenda was written in stone by 1998, and Cheney, Perle, Wolfie, Feith, and Jeb Bush all have their names on it. Not to mention that Ariel Sharon gave Junior a personally guided tour of Israel in 1998 - and no doubt used that time to fill Junior's empty head with a heavy dose of Likud propaganda.

Sorry Pat. Junior's been in on it since the beginning, and you shouldn't have endorsed or voted for the bastard.

I remember in the 80's when Pat was considered to be cryptically-anti-Semitic, and as Lounge said, an extremist isolationist.

But he makes a great deal of sense, although I wish Republicans would get off of the Dubya Kool-Aid and realize what a shill this guy is. I am glad to see that at least someone is capable of calling out the Israeli lobby and knows that Israeli security must reside in their agreement with the Palestinians, and not our "pacifying" the Middle East for them.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
I said it in another thread weeks ago....

Every day I find PB to be the Voice of Reason, which tells me just how far right this country has been dragged.

I always considered him an Isolationist nut job. Now I find myself watching MTP and yelling Go Pat GO

Yeah. Uh huh. :rolleyes:

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Yeah. Uh huh. :rolleyes:

You seriously have nothing left......

Poor Brie....:rolleyes:

[Big Train]

Interesting...I'm sitting here watching the Sunday News programs and Isreal is doing EXACTLY what your advocating to help the peace process. They are returning jailed militants and dead bodies of attackers as I write this.

"Sensible" Pat (who let's face it, is B-a-r-e-l-y hanging on to being a conservative) responsible for all this Mid East sunshine?

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Big Train


"Sensible" Pat (who let's face it, is B-a-r-e-l-y hanging on to being a conservative)

Interesting.

I've asked this before, but Brie and Co. have no answer...

Just what is a "conservative" these days BT ?

[academic punk]

Originally posted by FORD

My only problem with Buchanan is that he clings to the bullshit idea that Junior had good intentions when he took office and that the neocon shitbags tricked him after 9-11. .



That's your only problem with him? Really? From you?

My chief problem is that he didn't do more to stand up in 2000 and say, "Hey, all these little Jewish ladies down here in Florida, collecting social security? I don't think they really voted for me. As adorable as I am, I don't think so. If we're going to maintain democracy, we should fix this."

then again, that butterfly ballot mishap, the police blockades in certain distrcist down there, Katherine Harris, maybe it is all proof that God appoints our presidents. 'Cause it sure wasn't the democratic process that did it in 2000.

[Big Train]

Simple. Don't be a liberal...Pat is a reactionary, who is a bit disgruntled after being basically ostracized for years. He is generally out there, too extreme for someone all the time. I would counter Ford's claim that he is the sane one and all Repubs are extremists. I would say Pat has become so extreme that he is almost a liberal.

[academic punk]

Originally posted by Big Train
Simple. Don't be a liberal...Pat is a reactionary, who is a bit disgruntled after being basically ostracized for years. He is generally out there, too extreme for someone all the time. I would counter Ford's claim that he is the sane one and all Repubs are extremists. I would say Pat has become so extreme that he is almost a liberal.


I'm too hungover and dehydrated to follow this logic.

Let me see...

PB=R
P-W=D
P-S=R
P-S+E=L

nope. I'm lost. somehow get matt damon.

[academic punk]

Okay...wait...Pat is such an extreme neo-con that he's almost a liberal?

That's like saying Kristie Alley is so fat she's almost skinny.

Back up.

I'm having a hard enough day accepting that christina aguillera has gotten engaged.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Big Train
Simple. Don't be a liberal...Pat is a reactionary, who is a bit disgruntled after being basically ostracized for years. He is generally out there, too extreme for someone all the time. I would counter Ford's claim that he is the sane one and all Repubs are extremists. I would say Pat has become so extreme that he is almost a liberal.

Pat has consistently held the same political positions for years. Because he opposed Bush's interventionist (on behalf of Israel) philosophy doesn't make him a Liberal. It's the Neo Con's that have become the neo-Liberal, Wilsonian globalists. Buchanan is a traditional populist conservative that rejects the Neo Con cancer. I don't agree with him on much, but I sure as hell agree that our current foreign policy is dangerous and self-destructive. You really trust an Israeli theorist to want what's best for America?

[FORD]

Originally posted by academic punk
That's your only problem with him? Really? From you?

My chief problem is that he didn't do more to stand up in 2000 and say, "Hey, all these little Jewish ladies down here in Florida, collecting social security? I don't think they really voted for me. As adorable as I am, I don't think so. If we're going to maintain democracy, we should fix this."

then again, that butterfly ballot mishap, the police blockades in certain distrcist down there, Katherine Harris, maybe it is all proof that God appoints our presidents. 'Cause it sure wasn't the democratic process that did it in 2000.

Actually he did just that. Pat's never been far from the media in the last decade & a half or so, first working for CNN (in between presidential campaigns) and then for MSRNC. And he said, during the 2000 election theft, that he was flatterred to recieve such a high percentage of the vote in Palm Beach, but he knew they intended to vote for Gore, not him. But Theresa LeWhore's deliberately misleading "butterfly ballot" was such a small part of that coup. Most of the votes were stolen before election day by Cruella Harris' ethnic cleansing of the voter rolls.

[academic punk]

Originally posted by FORD
Actually he did just that. Pat's never been far from the media in the last decade & a half or so, first working for CNN (in between presidential campaigns) and then for MSRNC. And he said, during the 2000 election theft, that he was flatterred to recieve such a high percentage of the vote in Palm Beach, but he knew they intended to vote for Gore, not him. But Theresa LeWhore's deliberately misleading "butterfly ballot" was such a small part of that coup. Most of the votes were stolen before election day by Cruella Harris' ethnic cleansing of the voter rolls.


He initially DID cop to the obvious confusion.

Then in the following days he reversed his position adn asserted that those votes were rightfully his. Absolutely unforgiveable.

My theory? A carrot was dangled in front of him by the RNC to shut the fuck up and play along, he reached for it, and then they yanked that thing away, and he's been a bitter little boy since with a chip on his shoulder and wants to chip the administrations' armor any way he can.

On one side, it's nice that the administration provided such a wide target. On the other, no one seems to give a proper shit.

[Warham]

Pat worked for CNN. That explains everything.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Big Train
. I would say Pat has become so extreme that he is almost a liberal.

THANKS BT:D

I just laughed harder than I have in months.

God DAMN that's classic:D

I may need to change my sig for this one.


What a strange time we live in where the CONS are calling PB a Left Wing Extremist...........


Am I on Candid Camera?

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
I don't agree with him on much, but I sure as hell agree that our current foreign policy is dangerous and self-destructive. You really trust an Israeli theorist to want what's best for America?

This is why I LOVE NickyD:D

If our education system had MORE of his ilk, instead of running them off to better paying jobs........

[Warham]

I trust Americans to know what's best for America.

It's worked fine for 228 years.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham
I trust Americans to know what's best for America.

It's worked fine for 228 years.

Hmmmm..

So America was RIGHT when it elected Clinton TWICE ???

I'm only asking because you tend to BLAME the guy for everything short of VH breaking up.....

[Warham]

Americans wanted Clinton, they got him.

Clinton didn't destroy the United States. Bush won't destroy the United States.

As far as I'm concerned, Clinton is just as dirty as Bush, who you all claim is Satan himself.

I'm a Republican. Off course I don't like Clinton. Personally or politically. Damn smart guy though, and very charismatic. Like I said before, if the Democrats ever wise up and listen to the guy, they might win again.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham
Americans wanted Clinton, they got him.

Clinton didn't destroy the United States. Bush won't destroy the United States.

As far as I'm concerned, Clinton is just as dirty as Bush, who you all claim is Satan himself.

I'm a Republican. Off course I don't like Clinton. Personally or politically. Damn smart guy though, and very charismatic. Like I said before, if the Democrats ever wise up and listen to the guy, they might win again.

great post.

I hope you're right though. I honestly think he could bring us down. Not out mind you, but down low enough to take a generation or two to recover.

[madraoul]

Originally posted by Warham
I'm a Republican. Off course I don't like Clinton. Personally or politically. Damn smart guy though, and very charismatic.

Funny, I'm hearing this type of talk a lot out in the world. "I'm a Republican. Off (sic) course I don't like Clinton."

Despite all of the harm he has done to this country, I have never said I don't like "W" personally. I could really care less if he is an alcoholic coke head, as long as he's doing right by the country. He hasn't.

Bill Clinton may have gotten the infamous blow job, but he did right by this country. This is a difference our Southern friends need to comprehend before it's too late for all of us.

[Nickdfresh]

I'm a Republican and I thought Clinton was grate'!

Ahhh...the good old days of budget surpluses.

[academic punk]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
I'm a Republican and I thought Clinton was grate'!

Ahhh...the good old days of budget surpluses.


I just long for the good old days because back then blowjobs weren't a mortal sin!!!!.

[Vivian Campbell]

Good thing I visited the Front Line today. Thanks Nick for the info, I missed it, but it can be seen again tonight on MSNBC @ 10PM EST.


Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Pat has consistently held the same political positions for years. Because he opposed Bush's interventionist (on behalf of Israel) philosophy doesn't make him a Liberal. It's the Neo Con's that have become the neo-Liberal, Wilsonian globalists. Buchanan is a traditional populist conservative that rejects the Neo Con cancer.

You're 100% right.

Anyone who classifies neo-cons (Bush especially) as right wingers are seriously delusional and lack any real access to a history book. Last time I checked, some one who supports a Wilsonian foreign policy and government growth was and is a LIBERAL.

Liberals hate Neo-cons because they are carpet baggers. They are opportunistic snakes that jump from movement to movement in the pursuit of power. As Pat said in his book, Where The Right Went Wrong (get it, its brilliant), the Neo-Cons were Trotsyites in the twenties, New Dealers in the 30s, 40s, and 50s, Great Society-ites in the 60s, but the minute Nixon and Reagan started racking up 49 State land slides, they became Republicans.

[Vivian Campbell]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Interesting.

I've asked this before, but Brie and Co. have no answer...

Just what is a "conservative" these days BT ?

To me, a Conservative is some who:

Is for small government to the point that he is nearly an anarchist. Yet, what saves him from crossing that line is his belief in strict law and order.

Believes in the STRICT interperatation of the Constitution.

Believes in LIMITED immigration.

Believes that Federal tax rates should be flat and approaching 0%

Believes in Moral values, but is against the government either imposing morality (faith based programs) or immorality (sex ed) through various agencies and programs

Is AGAINST free trade/Outsourcing. Why? Because he realizes free trade is income redistribution by any other name. We are taking cash and jobs from out white and blue collar workers and giving it away to third worlders.

Supports a Reaganite foreign policy that includes a large military, robust weaponry, and allotment of moral, material, and monetary support to "rebel groups" that seek to destabilize and overthrow regimes that seek to harm our position in the world. Example of the latter is aid to the Polish Solidarity movement.

[LoungeMachine]

Thanks VC

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Vivian Campbell
To me, a Conservative is some who:

Supports a Reaganite foreign policy that includes a large military, robust weaponry, and allotment of moral, material, and monetary support to "rebel groups" that seek to destabilize and overthrow regimes that seek to harm our position in the world. Example of the latter is aid to the Polish Solidarity movement.

And turning thy cheek and running the other way to bomb Libya when you know it was Iranian Agents that blew 300 of your Marines to high Heaven.

Let's not get caught up in our pseudo-Reagan Utopia BS.

Yes I respect Buchanan's views regarding Neo Con's, but I reject his over-simplifications and revisionist pigeon-holing of the ideological constructs he points too.

And make no mistake, Neo Con's are NOT liberals, though they embody a pseudo-idealism associated with liberalism.

Or I should say that Neo Cons are hypocritical radical conservatives that mask their true intentions and objectives into a liberalesque, phoney moral rational to justify death and mayhem on a grand scale. Wilson at least had a utopian view (though foolish and flawed) of progressive improvement of the world whereas pricks like Bush, Cheney, and Rummy could care less about the spreading of 'democracy' they pay lip service too.

[Warham]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
I'm a Republican and I thought Clinton was grate'!

Ahhh...the good old days of budget surpluses.

Yep, and our national debt kept rising through all 8 years.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Yep, and our national debt kept rising through all 8 years.

We were in the black dude. The deficit was falling sharply. You really like revising the Clinton years don't you.

[Warham]

No revision at all. Just check any national debt chart throughout the late 80's early 90's. It went up every year.

The deficit was falling, but it wasn't paying off any debt. If anything, the debt was probably going to be flatlined after a few more years at best. Or course, we would have all been taxed 40% to get there, but that's here nor there.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
No revision at all. Just check any national debt chart throughout the late 80's early 90's. It went up every year.

The deficit was falling, but it wasn't paying off any debt. If anything, the debt was probably going to be flatlined after a few more years at best. Or course, we would have all been taxed 40% to get there, but that's here nor there.

Thanks for the qualifiers.:rolleyes:

[Warham]

Your welcome.