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

Skip to comments.

Remember Buchanan's convention speech in Houston?

Posted on 07/12/2004 7:52:29 AM PDT by 1Old Pro

I clearly recall Buchanan's speech at the Houston GOP convention having watched it live and recoreded it on tape for future review.

I listened to it at least 3 times. This was when Pat was still a Republican and before he went off the deep end.

Personally, I thought this was one of the greatest speeched ever given at a convention. The media went NUTS. They talked about His hate filled, mean spirited speech for MONTHS on every single TV show and in every article written on the convention.

This year our convention will be full of moderates and boring speeches. Would you prefer conservative speeches that speak to many of our values AND the months of media criticism and labeling of the GOP as hateful? I would. Reagan spread the conservative word and I think the GOP of the 21st century should do the same and stop trying to run from our values.


TOPICS: Politics/Elections; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: patbuchanan; rncconvention
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-223 next last
To: 1Old Pro
Good oratory. Just read it again.

But, he says too many damned "my friends" in his speeches.

151 posted on 07/12/2004 2:22:13 PM PDT by AmericanInTokyo (***Since The Iraq War & Transition Period Began, NORTH KOREA HAS MANUFACTURED (8) NUCLEAR WEAPONS***)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
FWIW, the last 12 years in this country have utterly vindicated Pat Buchanan.

It was dead on. And imagine if they had let Alan Keyes give a keynote address.

The current regime is actually sorta embarrased to have us around.

152 posted on 07/12/2004 2:22:13 PM PDT by Tall_Texan (Ronald Reagan - Greatest President of the 20th Century.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Comment #153 Removed by Moderator

Comment #154 Removed by Moderator

To: SJackson

His opposition to integration was clear, the Negroes get their schools, we get ours, no harm, no foul, and there’s more of us than them. I'm not sure if the 15 points lower IQ (negroes, that's why you can't integrate them) memo was public yet.>>>>

The most polite way to say it is that you are in error. Pat B. went to one of the first high schools to be intergrated in Washington D.C. His high school basketball team had to travel all over the place to get games as the other schools in the area would not play against an integrated team.

He had suggested the Republican Party analyze David Dukes views and incorporate those “cultural” issues that were winners. His former employer, William Buckley had condemned him.>>>>

I think you made the first part of the above up. Pat certain was concerned about cultural issues, but he didn't need any advice from David Duke.

I think Buckley said that he had made some remarks that could possibly be constued to be anti-semite. Buckley said the same thing about Joseph Sobran and was wrong about him too. Plus I don't think Pat ever worked for National Revue.


155 posted on 07/12/2004 2:28:49 PM PDT by jmeagan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: FrankWild
Post 140...So do you support Racial quotas and affirmative action?

No, I'm not sure how you get there. Since you bring the topic up,

Do you support segregation?

Do you support separate but equal?

Do you oppose the concept of equal opportunity [not results], on the basis that blacks and poor whites are doomed to lower IQ levels?

Are women less successful in business because they're not endowed with ambition and the will to succeed?

156 posted on 07/12/2004 2:29:11 PM PDT by SJackson (Be careful -- with quotations, you can damn anything, Andre Malraux)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: 1Old Pro

Keyes would be good :)>>>>

I still prefer Pat on economic issues.


157 posted on 07/12/2004 2:30:34 PM PDT by jmeagan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

Comment #158 Removed by Moderator

To: jmeagan
She said that Pat's speech basically showed that the GOP was anti-semetic and that overrode the economic value of supporting them.

With all due respect to that "GOP delegate," I think she was full of sh!t. She may have had good reason to believe that Buchanan was an anti-semite, but nothing in the text of his speech would have given any indication of that.

In fact, I would make the case that this woman's reaction to his speech was anti-semitic at its root. When someone gives a speech calling for a preservation of our culture against the secular, nihilistic forces of abortion on demand, homosexual marriage, etc., anyone who calls that speech "anti-semitic" obviously holds a very dim view of Jewish people.

159 posted on 07/12/2004 2:33:10 PM PDT by Alberta's Child ("Ego numquam pronunciare mendacium . . . sed ego sum homo indomitus")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: jmeagan
On top of that the Jewish people are about 5% of the population and are generally clustered in heavily democratic states. So any loss of Jewish voters, who vote overwhelmingly for demos already, is no great loss to the GOP. This is just another example of the propensity for some Jewish people to raise issues of anti-semitism where none exist. It has been so over used that it has lost most of its meaning. To borrow a line from Pat, the Jewish people are just upset with Pat because he does toe the line to the wishes of the Israeli Lobby and its Amen Corner.

About 2.2% of the population, though if you only count Jews who respond I'm Jewish the first time they're asked in a survey, it's about 1.3% There's no reason the Republican party needs to worry about that.

I take it from your comment you believe that Gulf War I was supported by no one other than American Jews and those nasty "Amen Corner" Christian dudes.

Regarding Gulf War 2, do you believe in the ZOG? Did they start it? Do Jews control the world, or just the US?

160 posted on 07/12/2004 2:35:06 PM PDT by SJackson (Be careful -- with quotations, you can damn anything, Andre Malraux)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
With all due respect to that "GOP delegate," I think she was full of sh!t. She may have had good reason to believe that Buchanan was an anti-semite, but nothing in the text of his speech would have given any indication of that.

Gosh, we agree on something.

161 posted on 07/12/2004 2:36:03 PM PDT by SJackson (Be careful -- with quotations, you can damn anything, Andre Malraux)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: jmeagan

Ironically, the worst aspect of segregation was that it was usually government-mandated. The integrated school that Pat Buchanan attended was a Catholic school, which is simply one more reason why anyone with any sense of religious values should have a deep-rooted mistrust of public education.


162 posted on 07/12/2004 2:36:06 PM PDT by Alberta's Child ("Ego numquam pronunciare mendacium . . . sed ego sum homo indomitus")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: KC_Conspirator

I look at his speech and I don't see anything that would be overtly racist or bigoted. Maybe it he delivered it with his usual mean face and lecturing voice. However, I think that the difference is in the way the biased liberal media reported and how much influence they had in 92'. It is not the same today as there are different voices that can break through the liberal din.>>>>>

You obviously have not seen Pat give very many speeches. For the most part he is humorous and good natured. Somebody once did a study on one of those political panel shows and surprise they found Pat was the politest one of the bunch.


163 posted on 07/12/2004 2:37:34 PM PDT by jmeagan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

Of course we do. Are you surprised? LOL.


164 posted on 07/12/2004 2:37:52 PM PDT by Alberta's Child ("Ego numquam pronunciare mendacium . . . sed ego sum homo indomitus")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

Comment #165 Removed by Moderator

To: jmeagan

To this day, Don Imus still calls Pat Buchanan one of his favorite radio guests. Anyone who has heard a Buchanan address or interview will tell you that he is remarkably bright and very entertaining (which is a big plus on a morning radio show).


166 posted on 07/12/2004 2:39:33 PM PDT by Alberta's Child ("Ego numquam pronunciare mendacium . . . sed ego sum homo indomitus")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: jmeagan
I don't have time to post links now, but a few minutes on Google will find you links to his memos to Nixon on integration, segregation, the I-Q memo, irrespective of the high school he went to. The same with the Duke comment, you'll find plenty of citations. He wanted the Republican party to incorporate the Duke constituency. To his credit he fired William Carter from his campaign, but kept several other Dukesters, including several from Louisiana.

I don't know what Buckley said about Sobran. I do know Sobran is obsessed with Jews, because he's said so.

167 posted on 07/12/2004 2:42:46 PM PDT by SJackson (Be careful -- with quotations, you can damn anything, Andre Malraux)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

Though he’s padded his resume a bit since then, Hillary working for the Mossad, a second Jewish war, his association with Lenora Fulani, that type of stuff, essentially his views on Jews, blacks, women and homosexuals, as well as his affinity for fascists were well known by 1992. True, if you weren’t a member of those groups, or a hater of those groups, you probably weren’t aware of them. But plenty of people were.>>>>

You are full of unmitagated B.S. and are defaming a very great man. About the only thing you have correct is his view on the homosexual movement, but that is shared by a lot of people in this country on moral grounds.


168 posted on 07/12/2004 2:45:01 PM PDT by jmeagan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: jmeagan
"You are full of unmitagated B.S. and are defaming a very great man. "

It's expected because Pat only sees American Red, White and Blue. He puts America first in Trade and War. He doesn't make too many friends that way among those who think their favorite country or multi-national company has been slighted. [Kosovo, Kuwait, Korea, Israel, England, China, Formosa and everyone on our trade or arms dole.]

169 posted on 07/12/2004 3:10:52 PM PDT by ex-snook ("Above all Things Truth Beareth Away the Victory")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: FrankWild
Thanks for posting the text of the speech. Over years of lurking here on Free Republic, I have always been fascinated by the hatred aroused by Buchanan.

I fault his critics here not so much for disagreeing with him, but for employing the same smear & guilt by association tactics the Left uses to villify without having to bother with intelligent debate.

A lazy (& dangerous) but sadly increasingly popular way to conduct political discourse.

170 posted on 07/12/2004 3:14:55 PM PDT by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: cajungirl

>>>
why explain? ...
<<<<

Kind of like the "I hate George Bush" crowd.


171 posted on 07/12/2004 3:46:44 PM PDT by evilC (This space left intentionally blank)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Josh in PA
Rove picking NYC was stroke of genius.

We're going to see a compare & contrast of moderate heroes like Rudy Guiliani speaking at the convention, while all the left wing kooks are raising hell outside.

The toughest part of history class for young students is remembering all the "moderate heroes" who made such a great impact on the direction of the nation (provided they can even find a footnote of reference).

172 posted on 07/12/2004 4:01:20 PM PDT by meadsjn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: shanscom

I agree with you on the scheduling of Buchanan's and Reagan's speeches.

>>>
Just Pat Buchanan himself, who Jews intensely dislike, for good reason.
<<<

Have Jews ever voted for Republicans in any significant amounts? In any case I have to wonder what is wrong with taking the concerns of a group (blue-collar rural workers), who have supported the party, and make up about 30 percent of voters versus worrying about two percent of the voters who never really supported the party in the first place (not that the speech had anything in it to concern any rational Jew).

Buchanan had nothing to do with Bush's loss. Bush had everything to do with Bush's loss. He came across as an insipid blue-blood. He renounced Reagan's legacy with his "kinder gentler, thousand points of light" nonsense. We read his lips, but he still raised taxes.

It is interesting that Ross Perot won 20 percent of the vote addressing the concerns that Buchanan raised.

BTW, I am not a "Patsie" or "brigadier", but I see no "hate" in that speech. At one time, it might even have been considered mainstream conservative.

So let's see, in the name of "inclusion", Republicans have banished the social conservatives, rid themselves of the economic nationalists, and have removed the small-government types. So what is left?


173 posted on 07/12/2004 4:16:14 PM PDT by evilC (This space left intentionally blank)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: jmeagan
You are full of unmitagated B.S. and are defaming a very great man. About the only thing you have correct is his view on the homosexual movement, but that is shared by a lot of people in this country on moral grounds.

Exactly, you've done your research, and ole Pat's never said anything derogatory about blacks, Jews, Dukesters or women, only homosexuals. It's all BS.

Go, Pat, Go.

Since he's long gone from the Republican party, I don't much care. If the Greens get matching money, look for him to turn up there.

174 posted on 07/12/2004 4:24:06 PM PDT by SJackson (Be careful -- with quotations, you can damn anything, Andre Malraux)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: ex-snook
It's expected because Pat only sees American Red, White and Blue. He puts America first in Trade and War. He doesn't make too many friends that way among those who think their favorite country or multi-national company has been slighted. [Kosovo, Kuwait, Korea, Israel, England, China, Formosa and everyone on our trade or arms dole.]

Next time leave England off the list. I believe he's on record as prefering immigration from England over Zulu's.

175 posted on 07/12/2004 4:25:15 PM PDT by SJackson (Be careful -- with quotations, you can damn anything, Andre Malraux)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: evilC
Have Jews ever voted for Republicans in any significant amounts? In any case I have to wonder what is wrong with taking the concerns of a group (blue-collar rural workers), who have supported the party, and make up about 30 percent of voters versus worrying about two percent of the voters who never really supported the party in the first place (not that the speech had anything in it to concern any rational Jew).

I was about to ask you what on earth Jews had to do with the speech, which had nothing to do with Jews.

Of course you answered my first question, you noted not that the speech had anything in it to concern any rational Jew

I admit to being puzzled as to the conflict you perceive between blue collar workers and Jews. Pat talks about Jews (or Zionists, or Likudniks, or Israel or whatever you want to call them) a lot, but not in an economic context which is often used, mostly in the context of Jewish control of our government.

Do you believe that?

176 posted on 07/12/2004 4:29:13 PM PDT by SJackson (Be careful -- with quotations, you can damn anything, Andre Malraux)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
Right, the Zionist Occupied Government thing, for both wars, that has nothing to do with Jews, just Zionists. Thanks for clarifying that.

Actually you're simplifying things to make PB's position as radical/anti-semetic as possible (and I'll admit PB's given you some pretty good ammo over the years), but even "The Forward" is advising abandoning that kind of tactic, and I'll leave my arguements regarding that issue for another time as I appreciate the time you took to reply to my points, as well as your civility.

I'm not feigning offense, I think Pats a bigot who has no place in the Republican party. Needless to say he thinks he has no place in the Republican party either.

I don't think Buchanan's a bigot, but he certainly can be as delicate as a bull in a china shop, and his brawling style of arguement is a bad sell in today's society. But he has a better sense of humor than most pundits, is quicker on his feet than most pundits, has insider WH experience most pundits don't, and perhaps most importantly.....is loyal to and fights bare knuckles for the issues that matter to social conservatives.

Pat knows he has no place in the GOP, but he's still a voice that plays well on many topics with social conservatives ( who last time I checked...Bush can't win without).

Now even if he had not carpet bombed his bridges back to the party in 2000, I would not want PB on this years stage (it's time to move forward), but tossing a bone to the social conservatives might have been a smart move. Rick Santorum might have been a fine choice IMO, even at the risk of losing 1% of the gay vote.

Maybe Pat will come back.

Hopefully not, sometimes it's best to part ways.
177 posted on 07/12/2004 4:59:53 PM PDT by mr.pink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: mr.pink; Alberta's Child
Maybe Pat will come back...Hopefully not, sometimes it's best to part ways.

I'm not simplifying things, Pat is, but I think I'll leave the thread at that. Pat's not a Republican, he's not really a politician, he's a rabble rouser, a wonderful trait for a media type. And Pat's good in that role, where the totality of one's beliefs aren't an issue.

Gosh, Pat knows he has no place in the GOP, leave out the knows he and I agree with you and alberta on the same thread, odd.

178 posted on 07/12/2004 5:12:18 PM PDT by SJackson (Be careful -- with quotations, you can damn anything, Andre Malraux)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
Say what you want about Pat Buchanan, but I have some real nostalgia for the days when a presidential candidate would show up at a campaign appearance, notice a group of reporters from a Chinese media outlet in the front row, and tell them to "go back and tell yer boss in Beijing that he won't be selling any more chopsticks in Chinese restaurants here in the U.S. if I'm elected."
179 posted on 07/12/2004 5:22:15 PM PDT by Alberta's Child ("Ego numquam pronunciare mendacium . . . sed ego sum homo indomitus")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
Say what you want about Pat Buchanan, but I have some real nostalgia for the days when a presidential candidate would show up at a campaign appearance, notice a group of reporters from a Chinese media outlet in the front row, and tell them to "go back and tell yer boss in Beijing that he won't be selling any more chopsticks in Chinese restaurants here in the U.S. if I'm elected."

Sounds great. Pat could say it better than you.

He's a good columnist, I love him on TV, perhaps not a Carville or a Morris as a political advisor, but that's about it, he's not Presidential material, nor a national spokesman.

Populism is just that, populism, a tactic, not a world view, and certainly not a system of governance.

I wouldn't consider him for dogcatcher, the cat's are probably receiving matching funds.

180 posted on 07/12/2004 5:39:15 PM PDT by SJackson (Be careful -- with quotations, you can damn anything, Andre Malraux)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

Ross Perot was nothing more than a "populist" himself, and yet his campaign was very effective.


181 posted on 07/12/2004 5:43:17 PM PDT by Alberta's Child ("Ego numquam pronunciare mendacium . . . sed ego sum homo indomitus")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

>>>
I was about to ask you what on earth Jews had to do with the speech, which had nothing to do with Jews.
<<<

That was my point. Your earlier comments (#141), seemed to imply that Buchanan cost Republicans the support of Jewish people. I doubted that there was any significant Jewish support to begin with.

>>>
I admit to being puzzled as to the conflict you perceive between blue collar workers and Jews.
<<<

I see no inherent conflict between Jews and blue-collar workers. My point was that you seemed to believe it was a bad idea to raise the concerns of these workers (who often support Republicans) at the same time as worrying ("...Buchanan himself, who Jews intensely dislike...") about a group the does not support the Republicans.

Regarding Israel, I believe that conservatives spend far too much political capital on supporting Israel, for which they get no thanks from Jewish Americans. I am a small government, non-interventionist type of conservative. I still like Ron Paul (he has fallen out of favor with most FReepers). I have no love for the Neo-Cons (my definition warfare/welfare state supporters). However, I see no "Jewish plot".

Zio-cons (conservatives, of any stripe who view support of Israel as important) are mostly Christian and there are probably as many prominent Catholic neo-cons as Jewish neo-cons.

Israel and Jewish interests barely register on my radar except when the "anti-Semite" charge is used to smack down conservatives (sadly that comes as much from the right as the left). I get tired of seeing good guys like Ron Paul get bashed because he questions our involvement in the Middle-East.

It says a lot about FreeRepublic and the "conservative" movement, that I am nervous that posting the above will get me put on the "kooks list". So again, for the record: there is no "Jewish plot", we do not live under ZOG (we may live under LOG - Leftist Occupied Government - though :>).


182 posted on 07/12/2004 5:46:41 PM PDT by evilC (This space left intentionally blank)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur

I was moved by his words. All the Hate stuff is mostly myth from the left. Pat has said things that need to be said--for that he has suffered. Like some Shakespearian Tragedy in which the Fool is the wisest one at court, so too with Pat B. He would have been a great President. Maybe he see the old America--the un-PC America that was long ago---and not the People's Republic of America we have today. Time will show that his was the right path all along--lets hope there is an America when that time comes.


183 posted on 07/12/2004 5:47:41 PM PDT by Hollywoodghost (Let he who would be free strike the first blow)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
This speech...was probably the single biggest event in getting Clinton elected.

That's the way I remember it, too. It was raw steak for the sharks in the media and DNC.

184 posted on 07/12/2004 5:51:23 PM PDT by giotto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
Ross Perot was nothing more than a "populist" himself, and yet his campaign was very effective.

The best. He lost, I don't think he would have been much of a President, but he sure changed the focus of the deficit issue.

185 posted on 07/12/2004 5:51:26 PM PDT by SJackson (Be careful -- with quotations, you can damn anything, Andre Malraux)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: 1Old Pro
Well the speech was given and the result was a Clinton/Gore landslide.
186 posted on 07/12/2004 5:53:34 PM PDT by SamAdams76 (I never had the makings of a varsity athlete)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Piers-the-Ploughman
if we're going to have a decadent liberal society, might as well let Democrats run it.

Defeatist and disgusting. No wonder we can't get rid of the Democrats.

187 posted on 07/12/2004 5:57:53 PM PDT by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: evilC
I was about to ask you what on earth Jews had to do with the speech, which had nothing to do with Jews….That was my point. Your earlier comments (#141), seemed to imply that Buchanan cost Republicans the support of Jewish people. I doubted that there was any significant Jewish support to begin with.

You must have misunderstood me. Whatever Jewish support Reagan might have developed Bush Sr. dealt with, he didn’t need Pat’s help

I admit to being puzzled as to the conflict you perceive between blue collar workers and Jews. …I see no inherent conflict between Jews and blue-collar workers. My point was that you seemed to believe it was a bad idea to raise the concerns of these workers (who often support Republicans) at the same time as worrying ("...Buchanan himself, who Jews intensely dislike...") about a group the does not support the Republicans.

Not at all, but I don’t see any conflict (or necessarily similarity) between “blue collar” issues and “Jewish” issues. Don’t let Pat define the terms.

Regarding Israel, I believe that conservatives spend far too much political capital on supporting Israel, for which they get no thanks from Jewish Americans. I am a small government, non-interventionist type of conservative. I still like Ron Paul (he has fallen out of favor with most FReepers). I have no love for the Neo-Cons (my definition warfare/welfare state supporters). However, I see no "Jewish plot".

Presuming you consider Pat and Ron Paul conservatives, they spend no time on it at all. IMO, it’s more of a values thing, at least in the case of GWB, he doesn’t think about “Jewish voters” in formulating policy much, he might consider the “Amen Corner” folks a bit.

Zio-cons (conservatives, of any stripe who view support of Israel as important) are mostly Christian and there are probably as many prominent Catholic neo-cons as Jewish neo-cons…Israel and Jewish interests barely register on my radar except when the "anti-Semite" charge is used to smack down conservatives (sadly that comes as much from the right as the left). I get tired of seeing good guys like Ron Paul get bashed because he questions our involvement in the Middle-East.

Zio-cons is a stupid term (which I haven’t heard much before). My opinions about Pat are clear, I think he’s a bigot. I think Ron Paul’s a bit naïve when it comes to isolationism, that’s a different thing.

It says a lot about FreeRepublic and the "conservative" movement, that I am nervous that posting the above will get me put on the "kooks list". So again, for the record: there is no "Jewish plot", we do not live under ZOG (we may live under LOG - Leftist Occupied Government - though :>).

You’re still here. I bet I get attacked as a kook, a terrorist, a radical leftist, a radical rightist, a satin worshiper, and a bunch of other things more than you do. I’m still here, get over it :>)

188 posted on 07/12/2004 6:02:05 PM PDT by SJackson (Be careful -- with quotations, you can damn anything, Andre Malraux)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: saradippity
McCain is pro-life? I have never even heard hints of that,could you provide anything to support that statement?

McCAIN: "I am proud of my pro-life record in public life, and I will continue to maintain it. I will not draw my children into this discussion. As a leader of a pro-life party with a pro-life position, I will persuade young Americans [to] understand the importance of the preservation of the rights of the unborn. "

Source: (X-ref from Keyes) GOP Debate in Manchester NH Jan 26, 2000

189 posted on 07/12/2004 6:02:29 PM PDT by mac_truck (Aide toi et dieu l’aidera)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: tkathy
Ahnold? You've got to be kidding. "Books! Zie childrens need zie Books!" "I want to be zie governor for all of zie peoples"

Brillant!

190 posted on 07/12/2004 6:05:58 PM PDT by novacation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: FrankWild

You aren't looking for an answer. You are looking to intimidate and demand I agree with you. Therefore it seems pretty silly to respond. I don't think theere is going to be any meeting of the minds here so I shall defer to someone else. You know if you really were interested we could talk but interest isn't shown by insulting the person you are attempting to engage.


191 posted on 07/12/2004 6:24:35 PM PDT by cajungirl (wi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

>>>
Zio-cons is a stupid term (which I haven’t heard much before).
<<<

Probably because I made it up :). The description "neo-con" has been so abused that it is pretty much worthless now. I needed a term for a conservative who supports Israel (as opposed to a conservative who does not worry about Israel). Of course, using "neo" to describe a movement that is more than 40 years old is a bit stupid as well.

>>>
Presuming you consider Pat and Ron Paul conservatives
<<<

Yeah! I am a "big-tent" conservative :)


>>>
You’re still here.
<<<

And intend to stay.


192 posted on 07/12/2004 6:27:55 PM PDT by evilC (This space left intentionally blank)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: FrankWild

correctomundo, Mr. Wild.

Given the activist judicial tyrrany, we are less a republic and more a nation of judges.

if our masters (er, public servants) in Washington can not see this, what is the point?


193 posted on 07/12/2004 6:46:35 PM PDT by Piers-the-Ploughman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: evilC
Probably because I made it up :). The description "neo-con" has been so abused that it is pretty much worthless now. I needed a term for a conservative who supports Israel (as opposed to a conservative who does not worry about Israel). Of course, using "neo" to describe a movement that is more than 40 years old is a bit stupid as well.

Presuming you mean an accurate, non-offensive term, you can’t. Israel isn’t an issue sufficiently detatched from other issues, other than to those for whom the “controversy” relates to the faith of Israel’s residents. If you oppose foreign aid, that’s not an “Israel” issue. Oppose foreign wars, that’s not about Israel. Support the Egyptioan-Saudi alliance, that’s not about Israel, it’s pro Arab.

I agree you about neocon, it’s now morphed to mean a Jew “foolish” enough to support Republicans. Also not a term worth defining.

Since you bring up neocons, earlier in the thread I’ve alluded to Pat’s memos to Nixon regarding the infeasibility of integration given negros 15 point I-Q deficit. Of course I was accused of making it, but if you believe me (and it’s easy to verify), Pat wasn’t completely certain. Who did he suggest the administration look into the issue?

Irving Kristol. Go figure.

194 posted on 07/12/2004 6:49:38 PM PDT by SJackson (Be careful -- with quotations, you can damn anything, Andre Malraux)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
Next time leave England off the list. I believe he's on record as prefering immigration from England over Zulu's.

I remember that specific arguement, and while your very brief synopsis paints a picture of racial bigotry, his arguement was in fact one of culutural adaptability and speed of cultural assimilation. His arguement was framed relative to the non-assimilation of some recent immigrant groups and how it would bode badly for the furture of a cohesive nation.

The exact same truths of his arguement would hold just as well if the comparative groups involved were say...Jamaican blacks as opposed to Tibetans.

His arguement was also an indictment of an educational system that is deluded enough to think that herding spanish speaking youngsters into a spanish only educational environment is somehow benficial to both the students themselves...and the nation itself.

A mexican friend of mine, who immigrated to America at age 13 and speaking no english, thanks god every day that her family moved to a small town where she was thrown immediately into an english only school and forced to learn the language quickly. She's done rather well in life as a result and is smart enough to realize how limited her opportunities would have been if she had ended up in say, the enlightened and compassionate NYC system.
195 posted on 07/12/2004 7:03:05 PM PDT by mr.pink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
...I've alluded to Pat?s memos to Nixon regarding the infeasibility of integration given negros 15 point I-Q deficit.

Geez, you're making it sound like Buchanan ghost wrote "The Bell Curve" (some 30 years after the Nixon admin).

I can't recall the author's names, but I'm sure you could google up the identities of the men who ushered that scientific study to academia.
196 posted on 07/12/2004 7:08:30 PM PDT by mr.pink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: cajungirl
First of all, you are too quick to mistake disagreement with an attack on you. Second of all, an "ad hominem" statement means a statement about the person, which your statement that Buchanan was "pompous" and "hateful" was. I said nothing inaccurate.

By the way, like you, I dislike Buchanan because of his anti-Israeli and isolationist views (neither of which was reflected in the 1992 speech). However, he is preferable to the liberal garbage that will be showcased in the 2004 Republican convention.

197 posted on 07/12/2004 7:16:50 PM PDT by Texas Federalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: skeeter
I fault his critics here not so much for disagreeing with him, but for employing the same smear & guilt by association tactics the Left uses to villify without having to bother with intelligent debate.

Exactly. It is amazing how much the terms "hate-filled" and "racist" have been thrown around on this thread without any factual support. Some of his speeches and commentaries enrage me and some inspire me, depending on the topic. But all are well delivered and supported, and none leave any basis for calling him a bigot.

198 posted on 07/12/2004 7:23:08 PM PDT by Texas Federalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: SamAdams76
Well the speech was given and the result was a Clinton/Gore landslide.

Perhaps you might try to come up with some factual support for the statement that the Buchanan speech "caused" the Clinton landslide.

199 posted on 07/12/2004 7:25:14 PM PDT by Texas Federalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
a satin worshiper

Beats corduroy.

200 posted on 07/12/2004 7:28:48 PM PDT by k2blader (It is neither compassionate nor conservative to support the expansion of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-223 next 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