Posted on 11/07/2017 1:37:37 PM PST by advance_copy
Speaking of Donna Brazile, "She's gone and dynamited the outhouse at the DNC," says Buchanan.
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
That sounds like Pat.
PJB is top shelf.
Too bad he’s not part of this administration. He’s knowledgeable and tells it like it is.
local radio show host: fragging the democrat party.
I wish PJB had been elected President. His knowledge of history is so non-mainstream and so rational. I agree with you. President Trump would do well to have PJB on the WH staff. I suspect he would, even at his age, be very good at identifying the swampthings who still dwell there.
I said about 1.5 yrs ago (if not longer) that then candidate Trump is running on Savage's Borders, Language and Culture as well as Pat's America 1st (anti NAFTA), and "culture war" themes.
If you look @ what Sarah Palin stood for and the Tea Party, he is the Tea Party President as well.
What a combo, he embodies the best of Savage, Buchanan, Palin, & the Tea Party. No wonder all the snow-flake-Progs are melting! and why I am not tired of winning!
What is the word of the day!
Pat suffered the slings and arrows of the left—Being called an Anti-Semite and a Nazi. He has no love of the Media. He was Trump before there was a Trump! He would be an excellent ally. I hope that a new Cable News Channel will be born—to the Right of FOX. Liberty News (or Trump News) that would tell the American people—THE TRUTH. On That fantasy station I would have Pat! (Rush, Levin, Drudge, etc...). I would watch such a thing. The voice of the New GOP (The Trumpocratic Wing of the Republican Party)
One America News does an excellent job and only costs $5.95 per month on Roku. Well worth it.
Pat was pilloried here as well. No Buchanan allowed.
Buchanan is a dangerous anti-Semite. (I don't think I've ever said that about anyone else who isn't a Muslim.)
ML/NJ
>> Buchanan is a dangerous anti-Semite. (I don’t think I’ve ever said that about anyone else who isn’t a Muslim.)<<
Details?
Details?
Google Buchanan Buckley and look around.
ML/NJ
Pat Buchanan isn't a rabid Zionist; therefore he must be a "dangerous anti-Semite"?
That apparently is what passes for in-depth analysis in some circles...
ML/NJ
William F. Buckley is not the final authority on Patrick Buchanan. It'll take more then Buckley's smears to make an accusation like that.
Pat Buchanan has a lengthy public record regarding his opinions of Israel, and I haven't seen any convincing proof that makes him a "dangerous anti-Semite"—William F. Buckley's whimsical pronouncements notwithstanding. Buckley's "evidence" is certainly not conclusive on the point.
I'm all ears, though...
>>Google Buchanan Buckley and look around.<<
I am well acquainted with Buckley’s criticisms and those of others who dislike PB. However, I think their attacks are scurrilous because his criticisms of Israel and its foreign relations and international political policies, in my view, are not indicative of anti-Semitism. And to say that they are is analogous to saying that Israel itself can never be criticized, which of course is nonsense.
All of a sudden, Mr. Buchanan is for quotas, or is something else going on here? There were lots of reasons to oppose Kagen. Don't you think Mr. Buchanan could have found a better one? Or do you think this was some veiled criticism of little Israel?
ML/NJ
All of a sudden, Mr. Buchanan is for quotas, or is something else going on here? There were lots of reasons to oppose Kagen. Don't you think Mr. Buchanan could have found a better one? Or do you think this was some veiled criticism of little Israel?
It's a statement of which I disapprove. I believe that Mr. Buchanan subsequently went on to give those comments some additional context.
On the previous note: a person being critical of Zionism or Zionist impulses is not tantamount to being an anti-Semite—much less a dangerous one. In toto, Pat Buchanan's comments on Israel and Jews simply don't rise to the level of anti-Semitism, and it's disingenuous—even borderline hysterical—to frame them as such, IMHO. Buchanan certainly wouldn't be published as often as he is, or in the publications he is published in, if he was truly a "dangerous anti-Semite".
Having said that, it seems like Pat has been a little more careful in his use of anti-Zionist rhetoric in the years since William F. Buckley's rather extreme accusation was made. I was simply pointing out that an appeal to Buckley's authority was insufficient to establish the charge against Mr. Buchanan.
Although I am clearly more sympathetic than Mr. Buchanan with respect to Israel and its "Zionist" worldview, I sincerely don't believe for a moment that Pat Buchanan is an anti-Semite of any flavor. I believe him to be a bona fide conservative whose critiques of Israel have merit, at least on occasion.
Indeed, there seems to be a strong current of political correctness associated with conservative views on Israel. Virtually no deviation from the "party line" is tolerated, and I think this does a disservice to the entire debate. It's certainly the case that both sides can be wrong at the same time, for instance—even if we're all well aware of the fact that the Palestinian position is the most egregious by several orders of magnitude.
I haven't delved too deeply into this whole area of politics lately, but my experience with the topic in general is that almost every criticism of Israel is immediately conflated with anti-Semitism—a characterization which I categorically reject...
Why not?
Who were the Zionists? They were a bunch of people, Jewish people, who bought land in Palestine, under the laws of the Turks, and then under the laws of the British; and they had the temerity to want to live on and develop that land. Do we get upset when Japanese do that here?
No. But the Arabs did get upset and attacked those vicious Zionists; and the Zionists had the temerity to fight back. When it became a full fledged war, those mean Zionists cleaned out (i.e. conquered) enclaves of Arab attackers. Just about all land everywhere is conquered land. Probably the Zionists were the only ones who thought they could just purchase it.
People who only get excited when it is Jews who fight back DO have a problem.
ML/NJ
>>Pat Buchanan: “If Kagan is confirmed, Jews, who represent less than 2 percent of the U.S. population, will have 33 percent of the Supreme Court seats.”<<
I think Mr. Buchanan dislikes the predominant political ideology of Jews in America, and was therefore distressed over the the prospect of having that ideology shaping future Court decisions. That, in my view, is no different than the distress many women and blacks have expressed in the past concerning the Court’s predominantly white male composition.
What many people, primarily utopian-minded liberals, greatly disdain is the simple fact that people always have and always will dislike other people and other groups of people for a whole host of reasons, rational and irrational, including race, politics, religion, history, personal appearance, sex, sexual orientation, etc., etc. ad infinitum. And, of course, it’s irrational to label everyone who expresses criticism of blacks (or whites) or Jews (or Christians) as racists, anti-Semites, or bigots. Nevertheless, if you don’t like Pat Buchanan, enjoy yourself and have at it!
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.