Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The New Blacklist by Pat Buchanan (fired by MSNBC)
Creators.com ^ | 02/16/2012 | Pat Buchanan

Posted on 02/16/2012 11:53:12 PM PST by iowamark

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-77 last
To: allmendream

You obviously are too dense to discern the difference between the views of a traditional, constitutional republican such as Buchanan and the vast mushy Republicans that populate the National Review and the crappy GOP and too wimpy to stand up to the left. Just another worthless chump in this war.


51 posted on 02/18/2012 8:54:17 AM PST by iopscusa (El Vaquero. (SC Lowcountry Cowboy))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: stephenjohnbanker
Liberalism's philosophy or ideology is evil’s playground, for sure. Any degree of evil an be rationalized as good and just.
52 posted on 02/18/2012 9:40:52 AM PST by SaraJohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard

I’m sure he’ll keep his long-time gig at the McLaughlin Group.


53 posted on 02/18/2012 7:35:38 PM PST by llandres (Forget the "New America" - restore the original one!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: bruinbirdman

The McLaughlin Group is a panel show on pbs fri. night and Sun. morning, evenly divided between libs of varying degrees and conservatives likewise. I love their raucous 25 min. exchanges.


54 posted on 02/18/2012 7:44:06 PM PST by llandres (Forget the "New America" - restore the original one!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: iopscusa
Buchanan is not an effective or eloquent spokesman for Conservatism - that is why he is so popular as a hired talking head for media outlets who abhor conservatism.

He is a reactionary antisemite who can be counted upon to say favorable things about Hitler.

He is not a traditional constitutional Republican as much as he is a reflexively antiSemetic nationalist.

Moreover there was no 1st Amendment issues with his no longer being paid to disgrace conservatism by MSNBC.

Obviously you are too dense to discern that MSNBC didn't hire Buchanan to advance conservatism but to put him up as an ugly caricature of a Conservative.

55 posted on 02/20/2012 7:13:21 AM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: iowamark

Why do you give credence to leftwing smears?


56 posted on 02/20/2012 9:53:04 PM PST by Pelham (Vultures for Romney. We pluck your carcass)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: donna

In his dotage Bill Buckley developed a sad record of turning on his conservative friends. Buckley had socialized for years with liberals- wasn’t Galbraith one he often mentioned?- and some think that he was seeking to ingratiate himself with that society as the years went by. I’ve read a number of accounts from people who knew him well, I think it was Peter Brimelow’s that was one of the most insightful.


57 posted on 02/20/2012 10:01:47 PM PST by Pelham (Vultures for Romney. We pluck your carcass)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Happy Rain

“On Pres Nixon’s downfall:

“He paid the price for trying to help an old, dear and loyal friend.”

—that friend being AG Mitchell who was about to be crucified by the Liberal Democrat Watergate Witch Trials. “

If you have never read “Silent Coup” by Colodny and Gettlin you should try to find a copy. It describes in detail how Nixon believed that Mitchell had organized the break in, and Nixon was trying to protect him. Mitchell thought that Nixon had ordered the break in, and Mitchell was trying to protect Nixon. They didn’t discuss Watergate with each other so they never learned that neither had organized the burglary.

Colodny and Gettlin believe that the man who actually conceived the break in was none other than John Dean, whose fiancee had been a high priced call girl operating out of the DNC offices that were the target of the burglary. Dean managed to bring down the Nixon administration in his successful effort to save his own hide from going to jail.


58 posted on 02/20/2012 10:17:52 PM PST by Pelham (Vultures for Romney. We pluck your carcass)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: donna; Vendome; Twink; Pelham; Travis McGee
There are some here who are indeed reverse bigots and Christians who envy Jews and by extension Israel...it is absolutely bizarre Glen Beck style behavior

and one simply cannot criticize Israel

Israel is like Sarah Palin

infallible

the truths about Israel, Jews, Jewish envying Goyim and yes even Sarah Palin

is not so simple

I applaud you and Vendome

bravery in the face of the smear bomb

I own Suicide of a Superpower and think everyone should read it even anti-Semite baiters here

(did they get bored with Ron Paul maybe?)

anyhow...does that mean I share Pat's views on Israel..no

but do I agree with him on the Culture War and Race and the loss of a White or Christian majority here in my country where my ancestors have been long before the whiners folks came?

you betcha

they don't like it...that's too bad...I don't care what PC freepers have to say anymore...they are part of the problem far more than Pat Buchanan is

59 posted on 02/20/2012 10:24:14 PM PST by wardaddy (I am a social conservative. My political party left me(again). They can go to hell in a bucket.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SharpRightTurn

nice post...I’m with ya


60 posted on 02/20/2012 10:25:57 PM PST by wardaddy (I am a social conservative. My political party left me(again). They can go to hell in a bucket.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

“Yes, he was the go to “Conservative” for MSNBC. Not because he was an eloquent and effective spokesman for our cause - but to discredit us with his clumsy thinking and reflexive antisemitism.”

I’m curious- are you old enough to have watched Buchanan versus Tom Braden on the original Crossfire? Or Buchanan versus Michael Kinsley?

I’m always curious to know just how much the Buchanan haters know about his history. Ronald Reagan certainly didn’t share your opinion of Pat Buchanan seeing as Reagan hired him as a speechwriter.

In fact the majority of Buchanan’s political opponents never even made the sort of charges I see routinely at this website. The first time I ever saw this sort of vitriol was in a Commentary article written by the former president of a socialist youth league.


61 posted on 02/20/2012 10:35:10 PM PST by Pelham (Vultures for Romney. We pluck your carcass)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Pelham

I wrote a big rant and deleted it but it comes down to this:

Because of the Holocaust which many perceive as Jews being murdered en masse at the hands of RIGHT WING nuts...by the millions

that today in America ..no matter how openly and disproportionately Jewish progressives and leftists work to destroy our culture and replace it with something they would prefer

that we cannot criticisze them as Jews for being pretty much decidely anti Christian traditional culture

because of the horrors of the Holocaust...

and political correctness...they have been given one big blanket pass for being our cultural enemies and cannot be named as such

and if one does then he will go the route of Buchanan and others

that pretty much sums it up I think

one caveat...folks won’t be so cowed forever

and only whites are polite about it for the most part

blacks are already openly hostile to Jews as a rule when it suits them and they get a pass easier

I do not for the life of me understand why even Jewish leftists have such antipathy for the predominate culture in a a nation which has been more welcoming and prosperous for them than any they have ever inhabited as a distinct minority

just look at this thread...smears galore...all over little old mostly irrelevant Pat

yet never ever ever a thread on the reverse side of the same coin..

do folks ignore the obvious or have they been brainwashed or browbeaten into denial?


62 posted on 02/20/2012 11:08:51 PM PST by wardaddy (I am a social conservative. My political party left me(again). They can go to hell in a bucket.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy

I suspect that people don’t discuss the subject because they don’t want to be vilified. Particularly people in the public eye who can have their ability to earn a living ruined.

Voting patterns and complaints about average America are pretty obvious to anyone who follows politics, but you’re not allowed to speak about it. So like any number of issues it will simmer in the background.

Out here in Socal we have seen the rise of a sizable Muslim population and occasionally I overhear real antisemitism. I’d like to see some of the Buchanan haters get a load of the real thing for a change. Oddly enough I think that in a number of ways they and the muzzies both share a contempt for the old American culture that we wistfully remember.


63 posted on 02/20/2012 11:31:35 PM PST by Pelham (Vultures for Romney. We pluck your carcass)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: iowamark

Sigh. Lie down with dogs, Pat, and you know the rest.

Haven’t heard from him in a long time. Is he in the Ron Paul camp these days?


64 posted on 02/21/2012 2:36:37 AM PST by dontgivein
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pelham
I remember years ago G Gordon Liddy talking about Silent Coup on his radio show.

He believes the book and he was there—in fact he echoed the book's accusations against John Dean and Dean filed a defamation lawsuit against the G Man.
A suit he later dropped when it looked like the publicity from the litigation would not be in his favor—Liddy and the Silent Coup authors were ready and eager to have the treacherous John Dean in court and he knew it.

65 posted on 02/21/2012 5:08:50 AM PST by Happy Rain ("Better add another wing to The White House cause the Santorum clan is coming.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: iowamark

The fact he worked for MSNBC shows he was pretty much worthless. Now he is fired and the reality is shown

He was (is) the scum at the bottom of the barrel


66 posted on 02/21/2012 5:12:55 AM PST by bert (K.E. N.P. +12 ..... Crucifixion is coming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bert

Tom Woods interviews Pat:

http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/msnbc-fires-pat-buchanan/


67 posted on 02/21/2012 9:00:57 AM PST by Pelham (Vultures for Romney. We pluck your carcass)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Pelham

Wow, I had never read Peter Brimelow’s writing of Bill Buckley’ passing before now. All my vague impressions were in fact true! That was interesting.


68 posted on 02/21/2012 10:25:24 AM PST by donna (I want to live in a Judeo/Christian country where we know that, before God, men & women are equal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy

Thanks wardaddy. I share your position regarding Buchanan on Israel and the culture war. And PC followers on FR make me yearn for the good old days.


69 posted on 02/21/2012 10:42:40 AM PST by donna (We live in this fog of political correctness, where everything is perpetual deception.-John Hagee)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: donna

Yes, Peter Brimelow’s account reveals a lesser known side of Bill Buckley.

Brimelow’s remark “ It was his personal failings that ultimately accounted for the four-decade fizzle of his once-brilliant career—and for the fact that, regularly credited with the making of the modern conservative movement, he must also be indicted for its breaking” especially sums up why the National Review, and maybe conservatism generally, is a sad shell of its former self.

I don’t know if we can link to that site but anyone curious can google “William F. Buckley, Jr., RIP—Sort Of by Peter Brimelow”


70 posted on 02/21/2012 1:46:52 PM PST by Pelham (Vultures for Romney. We pluck your carcass)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: SaraJohnson; wideawake; x
It was not his anti-semitism. The people who fired him hate Israel as much as he does.

True. That doesn't make Pat any less of an anti-Semite, but it's true. Unfortunately, the "palaeos" still see "Zionists" as in control of absolutely everything. Some people in the Ukraine are now complaining about the "Zionist" influence of (wait for it . . . ) George Soros!

It was his expression as a member of a forbidden race - whitey - concerning the current the status of white Americans and the country their ancestors built in light of the Left’s multicultural scheme of diversity racism. It’s not pretty. And no one white is supposed to mention it. Whitey does not get a tribal voice or point of view in socialist multiculturalism. That’s raaaacis! Pat was okay as long as he just targeted Republicans.

I'm got some things I'm going to comment on at length but before I do I just want to say that there are white groups whose ethnic identity is indeed celebrated and encouraged by the Left; the Quebec French, the Irish, the Scots, the Welsh, the Cornish, the Manx, the Bretons, the Basques, and most of the local groups in Spain all have a left wing nationalisms (even the Castilians, who have historically run the place). Then there's the fact that Arabs from the Arabian Peninsula and North African Berbers are lily white, as are most 'Ashkenazi Jews. And I believe were it not for the fact that the Cajuns are implicated in Southerness they'd probably get a "Cajun National Liberation Army" demanding the entire original area of the Louisiana Purchase (all the way to the Canadian border) as their "ancient ancestral socialist motherland." And certainly Irish-Americans get a pass, being the only whites who have been historically allowed (and even encouraged) to celebrate their ethnicity.

Now for my monologue.

I have literally been trying to figure out this "left wing ethnic pride" business for decades. It has never made any sense to me, because logically there should be nothing to hold the Great Left Wing Coalition together. Moslems should not get along with militant homosexuals, nor Hispanic Catholics with radical Reform Jews nor Black Baptists with secularists at war with chrstianity. Yet there is, so far as I have been able to see, not the slightest crack anywhere in the whole gang. In fact, there doesn't even appear to be any fault lines among all these groups.

I mean, Blacks may not be white, but they are chrstian. 'Ashkenazi Jews (who make up the bulk of all Jews in the west, very much including the liberal non-Orthodox "branches") aren't chrstians, but they're white. Yet radical Blacks treat radical Reform Jews as if they were honorary chrstians and radical Reform Jews treat Black Baptists as if they were also radical Reform Jews.

Does anyone know what is going on here? I mean, the closest thing I can find to compare this bizarre alliance to is the "heels" of professional wrestling, each and every single one of whom claimed to be "the greatest" and "the prettiest" of all time, yet never, ever, ever feuded amongst themselves.

You suppose this whole thing is a work? Maybe we could get someone to break kayfabe. If any Illuminati members out there may be reading this, please feel welcome to send me a private Freepmail. I can't share something told me in confidence without explicit permission, you know! (It's the Halakhah!).

Another aspect of this thing that I don't get is the contradictory attitudes towards various rural and traditional communities. If a Brazilian headhunter kills a monkey for food, he's just being One With The Universe. But if Cletus or Clem kill a squirrel, they're the Enemies of Nature. Similarly the Left celebrates what it sees as the "authentic" spirituality of various exotic groups while doing a sudden about-face when it comes to America's counterpart, the snake-handling hillbillies. Suddenly "authenticity" isn't wanted any more. Instead out come the shrines to Voltaire, Comte, Darwin, Hegel, and Marx. Suddenly tradition is bad and something to be liberated from. Suddenly The Past was evil and best forgotten while The Future is Arcadia . . . until another "indigenous activist" shows up to denounce "western civilization," when all the icons and holy pictures of modernist saints disappear and European philosophy is bemoaned as a stain on the Earth's otherwise virgin spirituality.

I have so often wondered this. Just what is it that the haters of religion so identify with in "our contemporary ancestors?" Do they see the Australian aborigines as somehow scientific materialists who have not yet been corrupted by religion? If so, then what do you call the "dreamtime?" Is that just another name for "natural selection?"

Perhaps it's because hyper-modern materialists and mystic shamans, however far apart their praxis, somehow both believe that "nature is all there is." The "indigenous" shaman represents what is allegedly mankind's original naturalism before the "fall" into religion while the materialist scientist represents naturalism restored after the "corruption" of religion has been wiped off. But both essentially (in different ways) "worship" nature. Thoughts, anyone?

One thing I think we all well know: Western leftists are absolutely convinced that "indigenous pipples" have absolutely no sexual taboos whatsoever. Everyone from Margaret Mead on down has insisted that the indigenii (if I may coin a new word) have not yet been corrupted by sexual guilt and possess no non-rational taboos whatsoever, sexual or otherwise. Maybe this is the connection. The shaman and the scientist both dismiss the old social taboo against homosexuality. One has allegedly never known it, the other has "gotten over" it.

Ironically, one thing both white bigots and white liberals believe about traditional Black American culture is that it is "dirty." The Klucker was horrified by the alleged animalistic sexuality of Blacks and lynched them; the liberal actually celebrates this alleged trait and apparently sees its attribution to Black America as a compliment. After all, right in the belly of the beast, the E--vil South, right amidst all those Bible-thumping racist puritans, was this "beautiful" community of rebels (an ironic label) against uptightness, singing dirty blues songs in barrel houses while couples danced naughtily in a way no upstanding white person ever would. Is this perhaps why Fundamentalist-haters love Fundamentalist Blacks? Do they actually create in their imaginations a mirror image of the old white racist stereotype of uncontrolled sexual animals and think that's what makes Black beautiful?

We all know that for some thirty five years now Black culture has been reduced to "hip hop." Never mind that the original "hip hop" was just about having fun, with no ideological axe to grind (people making rhymes about how good they were at making rhymes). Now the only "authentic" Black culture is not just "hip hop" but "gangsta" hip hop. How did the "urban gangsta" become the embodiment of a people that had existed for almost four hundred years? What happened to the spirituals? Dixieland jazz? Country blues? Duke Ellington? Nat "King" Cole? Now you're not "Black" unless you're "bad."

Is this what liberals see in a group they should otherwise hate for their Fundamentalist chrstianity? A whole race of "bad boys" and "bad girls" rebelling not only against whitey, but against morality itself?

I suppose if liberals can see Southern Blacks as self-conscious sexual rebels in the midst of religious puritanism, it doesn't take much thinking to also see Blacks as enlightened materialistic scientists surrounded by obscurantist rednecks. So does that mean that Blacks are more European than superstitious "crackers?"

I know I've taken this post a long way from Buchanan (whom I'm not a big fan of), but all this has really been on my mind lately, and it seemed as good a place as any to ruminate about everything.

I'll close by going back to Buchanan now. It seems to me that Buchanan, like Black leftists, places his ethno-cultural identity ahead of his religious identity. Honestly, he seems to identify more with Nordic Protestants than with Mexican Catholics who are supposed to be his co-religionists (just as Al Sharpton would never consider himself a co-religionist of Pat Robertson). In this area chrstianity has a problem that other religions don't, and has had it for a very long time. Before there were the Blacks and the whites there were the Latins and the Greeks (and the Copts and the Assyrians and the Ethiopians and the Syrians and the Armenians and the Jacobites). Because of its incarnationism, its insistence that G-d became a human being, chrstianity is susceptible to a radical localization. Not only does G-d become a human being, he becomes a Black human being, or a white human being, or a Spaniard, or a Georgian, or a Ukrainian. In chrstianity every people becomes "the chosen people" and every traditional chrstian country becomes "the holy land."

Well . . . I'll stop now. I guess that's enough for everyone to misunderstand for now.

71 posted on 02/21/2012 2:57:12 PM PST by Zionist Conspirator (Ki-hagoy vehamamlakhah 'asher lo'-ya`avdukh yove'du; vehagoyim charov yecheravu!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator
Because of its incarnationism, its insistence that G-d became a human being, chrstianity is susceptible to a radical localization. Not only does G-d become a human being, he becomes a Black human being, or a white human being, or a Spaniard, or a Georgian, or a Ukrainian. In chrstianity every people becomes "the chosen people" and every traditional chrstian country becomes "the holy land."

As opposed to Judaism? Or Islam? Or paganism? Perhaps some Eastern religions are immune to this sort of ethnocentrism? Japanese Shinto certainly wasn't. Nor apparently is Hinduism. That's not necessarily to say that they see God as a person of their own ethnicity, but certainly a lot of religions produce "holy lands" or "chosen peoples."

I don't think Christians actually see God or Christ or Jesus in that way either. Of course Black and White artists have different ways of depicting Jesus and of course churches reflect the thinking of local populations, but few Christians would seriously argue that Jesus was Ukrainian or Irish or Spanish.

If you're willing to repudiate ideas of "chosenness" you can go after those ethnocentric traces, but you seem to be hung up on them, while willing to excuse other forms in other peoples which may be stronger.

I have literally been trying to figure out this "left wing ethnic pride" business for decades. It has never made any sense to me, because logically there should be nothing to hold the Great Left Wing Coalition together. Moslems should not get along with militant homosexuals, nor Hispanic Catholics with radical Reform Jews nor Black Baptists with secularists at war with chrstianity. Yet there is, so far as I have been able to see, not the slightest crack anywhere in the whole gang. In fact, there doesn't even appear to be any fault lines among all these groups.

Any coalition has more to do with what what it opposes than with what it supports. I'm not at all sure all these groups actually get along at all. They just tend to vote together.

Think of 19th century America. The old evangelical Protestant groups (many of whom have now become the "Mainstream Protestants") voted together as a bloc as Whigs or Republicans. Everybody who wasn't in the bloc voted together against them. There were some exceptions, the most notable being African-Americans.

Many German Jews voted Republican with German Protestants before FDR, and many Italians, fed up with Irish control of the Democrats, also voted with the GOP, but by and large you had this alliance of Irish and German Catholics, New York Dutchmen, and troubled Western farmers with White Southerners, rich and poor, against the dominant Northern White Protestant group.

Fault lines appear when the coalition wins power and wields it for an extended period, or when one group becomes much more powerful than the others. And of course, groups have moved from one coalition to another. Orthodox Jews, once heavily Democrat, have moved to the Republicans. Muslims have gone the other way: Bush swept the Muslim vote in 2000.

One thing I think we all well know: Western leftists are absolutely convinced that "indigenous pipples" have absolutely no sexual taboos whatsoever. Everyone from Margaret Mead on down has insisted that the indigenii (if I may coin a new word) have not yet been corrupted by sexual guilt and possess no non-rational taboos whatsoever, sexual or otherwise. Maybe this is the connection. The shaman and the scientist both dismiss the old social taboo against homosexuality. One has allegedly never known it, the other has "gotten over" it.

You heard a lot about that in the 1960s. Since Mead died you don't hear it so much. Now the idea is that indigenous peoples are "greener" than Westerners, which isn't necessarily true: whatever damage they did was just on a smaller scale.

The idea of sexual liberation and the absence of taboos as natural and the association of them with "primitive tribes" is probably there in the background, but except for where homosexuality is concerned you don't hear it expressed much nowadays.

72 posted on 02/21/2012 5:35:30 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator

You did a great job in running through the complexity and of much of the human race, lol!

With American multiculturalism - their tribal ideology and it’s power structure, is very simple (and dishonest) and built around defeating or cleansing the constitutional and Judeo-Christian influences in public education, government, law, culture and politics. The race target is called “white.” The feminists (homosexuals) go after Christian culture which pleases religious minorities (atheists, Jews and Muslims) and females too stupid to understand what is happening. The object is to create a socialist, humanist, power structure and Nation.


73 posted on 02/21/2012 7:34:30 PM PST by SaraJohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: x
Because of its incarnationism, its insistence that G-d became a human being, chrstianity is susceptible to a radical localization. Not only does G-d become a human being, he becomes a Black human being, or a white human being, or a Spaniard, or a Georgian, or a Ukrainian. In chrstianity every people becomes "the chosen people" and every traditional chrstian country becomes "the holy land."

As opposed to Judaism? Or Islam? Or paganism? Perhaps some Eastern religions are immune to this sort of ethnocentrism? Japanese Shinto certainly wasn't. Nor apparently is Hinduism. That's not necessarily to say that they see God as a person of their own ethnicity, but certainly a lot of religions produce "holy lands" or "chosen peoples."

Apparently I didn't quite make myself clear. My point was not that chrstianity is different from these other religions (Judaism and islam excepted) in its localism and ethnocentrism, but that it is like them. Incarnationism is a step back from an Objective Universal G-d back to the local "gxds" of the Japanese, hindus, etc.

Islam is indeed less localized and less "rooted" than chrstianity. Its worldwide aspirations (such as a restored caliphate) are very different from localist religions.

Judaism of course is different from everything. The universal hatred of the Jews by the "nations of the earth" is precisely because they are not a nation of the earth at all, and all the attacks about "rootlessness" and "having no G-d" (as though G-d were a local spirit who lived in a well somewhere) spell this out quite explicitly. Unfortunately, since the "enlightenment" decided to pick the Jews as the poster children for religious subjectivism, this is no longer so clear to everyone. Now anti-Semitism is simply a (if the worst and most distinctive) ethnic prejudice which will be done away with when we all learn that all gods are equally valid (and invalid).

Of course, that was actually quite clever of the enlightenment. It not only removed the greatest historical proof for the existence of G-d but turned that proof into an indictment of religious belief.

74 posted on 02/21/2012 8:41:09 PM PST by Zionist Conspirator (Ki-hagoy vehamamlakhah 'asher lo'-ya`avdukh yove'du; vehagoyim charov yecheravu!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy

Thanks for the ping. As usual, I agree with your post on this issue.


75 posted on 02/22/2012 8:40:02 PM PST by Twink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: SaraJohnson

2nd paragraph

well done.


76 posted on 02/22/2012 9:11:05 PM PST by wardaddy (I am a social conservative. My political party left me(again). They can go to hell in a bucket.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy

Thank you. :)


77 posted on 02/22/2012 9:54:29 PM PST by SaraJohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-77 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson