Buchanan at his Best!

“March 14, 2005 Issue

Copyright © 2005 The American Conservative

The Stillborn Empire

by Patrick J. Buchanan
Did I miss something? Where did all the “not since Rome” bombast, talk of America’s “benevolent global hegemony,” “Pax Americana,” and the New World Order disappear to? Whatever happened to the “jodhpurs and pith helmets” crowd?
Just a year ago, in the Irving Kristol Lecture at the annual AEI dinner, columnist Charles Krauthammer rhapsodized about America’s “global dominion” and our having “acquired the largest seeming empire in the history of the world.”
We have “overwhelming global power,” said Krauthammer. We are history’s “designated custodians of the international system.” When the Soviet Union fell, “something new was born, something utterly new—a unipolar world dominated by a single superpower unchecked by any rival and with decisive reach in every corner of the globe. This is a staggering new development in history, not seen since the fall of Rome. ... Even Rome is no model for what America is today.”
Well, reality does have a way of intruding upon one’s fantasies, and, looking at our world today, it would seem multipolarism is making quite a comeback.
Castro, though literally on his last legs, yet defies the Americans and is about to be succeeded as the leading hemispheric Yankee-baiter by Hugo Chavez, the Venezuelan ruler who lately defeated a U.S.-backed recall. Chavez has just ordered Russian-built MIG-29s and purchased 100,000 AK-47s and, despite U.S. protests, Moscow appears ready to sell.
And as Chavez finds imitators in the Andean nations, the Mexican government instructs its citizens in how best to sneak across the border into the United States. Would Caesar Augustus have put up with such as this in mare nostrum?
Our NATO allies, Tony Blair included, are lifting their embargo on weapons sales to China over the protests of President Bush. Old Europe remains adamant in its refusal to send troops to Iraq, as the Ukrainians and Poles, following the Spanish, quietly depart the beleaguered nation.
Germany, France, and Britain are negotiating a deal by which Iran, if she will submit to regular IAEA inspections, will be permitted to enrich uranium for nuclear power, be granted security guarantees, and be brought into the WTO. America opposes the three allies’ concessions, but there is no NATO support for U.S. military action. Should Bush exercise that option, America will be alone in fighting insurgents from the eastern border of Syria to the western border of Pakistan. U.S. generals are advising the president that his legions are already stretched thin.
The Iraqi elections appear to have deposed our client Allawi and empowered Shia parties with ties to Iran and Kurds who covet Kirkuk and its oil and look to ultimate independence.
This has the Turks grumbling as well as the dispossessed Sunnis, among whom the newly reignited insurgency first arose. Whatever the neocons’ vision of Iraq—as strategic base camp for World War IV or crown jewel of Middle East empire—Americans seem to be looking for an exit.
As for the Bush Doctrine—no axis-of-evil nation will be allowed to acquire weapons of mass destruction—it is being tested by Tehran and defied by Kim Jong Il, who has crossed every red line Bush has put down and now claims to have nuclear weapons. America’s response? Please come back to the six-power talks.
Russia’s Putin is consolidating power in the czarist tradition, seeking to resurrect Moscow’s old sphere of influence, and is conducting military exercises jointly with Beijing.
And openly contemptuous China lectures us on our failure to rein in our voracious appetite for imports, which is sending the dollar the way of the peso. Beijing refuses to pressure North Korea to terminate its nuclear-weapons program, permits Pyongyang to use Chinese territory to transship missiles and nuclear materiel, and spends a goodly slice of its $160 billion trade surplus with America to build up air, naval, and missile forces for the showdown with Taiwan.
“Unchecked by any rival,” is how Krauthammer described the new Rome. Yet as one watches the Old Republic spend herself into bankruptcy, run up trade deficits that debauch her currency, decline to defend her own bleeding borders, permit rivals to loot her technology and cart off her manufacturing plants, America does in a way resemble Rome. But it is, unfortunately, the Rome of the late fourth century.
For America 2005, unlike the America we knew not long ago, has become a newly dependent nation, dependent on the Gulf for oil to run our economy, on imports for the necessities of our national life, on Beijing and Tokyo to buy the bonds to subsidize our self-indulgent lifestyles.
The Kipling of the late Victorian era was speaking of folks like us when he wrote in his poem “Recessional”: “For frantic boast and foolish word/Thy Mercy on Thy People, Lord!””

“"Those of us in childhood during the war years were introduced to Hitler only as caricature. ... Though Hitler was indeed racist and anti-Semitic to the core, a man who without compunction could commit murder and genocide, he was also an individual of great courage, a soldier's soldier in the Great War, a political organizer of the first rank, a leader steeped in the history of Europe, who possessed oratorical powers that could awe even those who despised him."

-PatBuchanan”

“"If U.S. Jewry takes the clucking appeasement of the Catholic cardinalate as indicative of our submission, it is mistaken. When Cardinal O'Connor of New York seeks to soothe the always irate Elie Wiesel by reassuring him, 'there are many Catholics who are anti-Semitic...it's deep within them,' when he declares this 'is not a fight between Catholics and Jews,' he speaks for himself. Be not afraid, Your Eminence; just step aside, there are bishops and priests ready to assume role of defender of the faith."

-Pat Buchanan”

“"Women are simply not endowed with the same measure of single-minded ambition and the will to succeed in the fiercely competitive world of Western capitalism."

- Pat Buchanan”

“"We are in the process of destroying the one working economy [in lower Africa -- South Africa] -- because it doesn't adopt an idiotic 'One man, one vote' regimen."

- Pat Buchanan”

“"If correct, then all our efforts and expenditures not only for 'compensatory education' but to provide an 'equal chance at the starting line' are guaranteeing that we wind up with the intelligent ones coming in first. And every study shows blacks 15 I.Q. points below whites on average. . . . If there is no refutation, then it seems to me that a lot of what we are doing in terms of integration of blacks and whites -- but even more so, poor and well-to-do -- is less likely to result in accomodation than it is in perpetual friction -- as the incapable are played consciously by government side by side with the capable."

- Pat Buchanan”

“"If we had to take a million immigrants in, say Zulus, next year, or Englishmen, and put them up in Virginia, what group would be easier to assimilate and would cause less problems for the people of Virginia?"

- Pat Buchanan”

“"Our culture is superior. Our culture is superior because our religion is Christianity and that is the truth that makes men free."

-- Pat Buchanan”

“"We're going to bring back God and the Bible and drive the gods of secular humanism right out of the public schools of America."

-- Pat Buchanan”

“"The poor homosexuals -- they have declared war upon nature, and now nature is extracting an awful retribution."

-- Pat Buchanan”

“"[For President Nixon to visit King's widow on the anniversary of King's assassination because it would] outrage many, many people who believe Dr. King was a fraud and a demagogue and perhaps worse.... Others consider him the Devil incarnate. Dr. King is one of the most divisive men in contemporary history."

-- Pat Buchanan”

“"Take a hard look at [KKK leader David] Duke's portfolio of winning issues and expropriate those not in conflict with GOP principles [such as] reverse discrimination against white folks."

-- Pat Buchanan”

“"The real liberators of American women were not the feminist noise-makers, they were the automobile, the supermarket, the shopping center, the dishwasher, the washer-dryer, the freezer."

-- Pat Buchanan”

“And he's an ugly smirking hack, too.”

“I don’t trust men who color their hair either.”

““I don’t trust men who color their hair either.”
Nigal
12:54:01 PM
3/17/05

Dang, that is so right on!!!

Isn't Buchannan the one who was a street-fighter on the streets of Washington?

He's still a punk.”

“"Dang, that is so right on!!"

Of course this line of my thinking only came about with the death Ronny Reagan. He was the last Greesian Man I trusted. LOL!”

“Reagan was an actor.

His greatest performance was that of President.”

“It's very hard to argue with quotations taken out of context. Nevertheless I'll try. Buchanan is not an anti-Semite based on his observations of the historical Hitler. As the man stated;
>
Hitler was an individual of great courage in the sense that he had the singular vision to find a way to bring Germany out of the hyperinflation that gripped the Weimar Republic in the 20s and early 30s. Germany was a basket case after WWI and the Germans were not at fault. The U.S, the British, and the French were. The economic question for Germany and Hitler was how do you get out of what amounted to a mega-Depression when not many banks would finance any part of a German restoration. Hitler did it by basically rebuilding the country on “money” not based on fiat federal reserve notes or precious metals (they had none!). His paper money was based units of barter and labor. It worked because it took a leader with a courageous idea. The Germans trusted Hitler and they rebuilt the German economy in about 10 years. Roosevelt and all his New Deal BS never got the US out of the Depression. Only WWII did.
>
"Hitler was a soldier's soldier in the Great War." He was enlisted man, a Corporal, a common foot soldier. Read the quote again and you'll see that Buchanan is correct.
>
[Hitler was] "a political organizer of the first rank". If you even think otherwise you are either ignorant of the facts or a fool. Buchanan is correct.
>
[Hitler was] "a leader steeped in the history of Europe". Hitler knew the history of Western Civilization i.e. Europe. No stretch on Buchanan's part for this one.
>
[Hitler] "possessed oratorical powers that could awe even those who despised him." If ever Buchanan spoke the truth it was on this one. Hitler was an oratorical genius. No one who has ever watched a film of Hitler speaking could deny it. That's what made the man so dangerous. The man could speak.
>
"If U.S. Jewry takes the clucking appeasement of the Catholic cardinalate as indicative of our submission, it is mistaken. When Cardinal O'Connor of New York seeks to soothe the always irate Elie Wiesel by reassuring him, 'there are many Catholics who are anti-Semitic...it's deep within them,' when he declares this 'is not a fight between Catholics and Jews,' he speaks for himself. Be not afraid, Your Eminence; just step aside, there are bishops and priests ready to assume role of defender of the faith."
>
Another quote taken totally out of context.
Buchanan is defending his right to defend his Catholic Church and Christianity against the ever-present charges by Elie Wiesel et. al. that Christianity and particularly the Catholic Church were responsible for the Holocaust. That diatribe, endlessly repeated by people in the Shoah business, is not true and Buchanan, as a Catholic and a Christian, has the right to refute it and defend his faith. That is what makes the people whose site you obtained your quotes from so mad. He won’t tow the orthodox line even if the present “Catholic cardinalate” will.
>
"Women are simply not endowed with the same measure of single-minded ambition and the will to succeed in the fiercely competitive world of Western capitalism."
>
I think that if he looks at Hillary Clinton and some of her ilk he’ll see that there is plenty of feminine ambition. Still the numbers of women at the top of capitalism are few. Whether this is the nature of women or the nature of business is still a question to be answered. He’s stating a theory in the form of an opinion. Sorry Nigal, everyone has the right to an opinion, even unpopular ones.
>
“"The real liberators of American women were not the feminist noise-makers, they were the automobile, the supermarket, the shopping center, the dishwasher, the washer-dryer, the freezer."
>
True statement except he left out the part about men being liberated by labor saving devices also. So IMO, much ado about nothing unless you’re a hypersensitive little girl or girly-man.
>
"We are in the process of destroying the one working economy [in lower Africa -- South Africa] -- because it doesn't adopt an idiotic 'One man, one vote' regimen."
>
He’s dead wrong about the one-man one-vote part. But it just goes to show you that there are Straussians on both sides of the fence. What he was addressing was the fact that South Africa in the 80s was a capitalist country and a possible ally when the rest of sub-equatorial Africa was going Marxist-Leninist. So now South Africans have one-man and one vote and will still probably fall into the ditch of Marxism. And afterwards, when that goes all to hell, most likely tribal warfare and genocide. That is if AIDs doesn’t kill off half the population first. Buchanan was just lamenting the fact that Africans in general have not had much luck in running their countries any better than the white man did. And in many of those countries they’re actually running them into the ground. Would you like a list? I can do it from Z to A if you want.
>
“If we had to take a million immigrants in, say Zulus, next year, or Englishmen, and put them up in Virginia, what group would be easier to assimilate and would cause less problems for the people of Virginia?"
>
Buchanan is addressing the issue of immigration from 3rd world countries. The statement is true. It is harder to assimilate people from non-English cultures. Once again I will say it is not racist to tell the truth. You may see it different, but I’m calling it as I see it. I agree with his analogy 100 percent.
>
"Our culture is superior. Our culture is superior because our religion is Christianity and that is the truth that makes men free."

And

"We're going to bring back God and the Bible and drive the gods of secular humanism right out of the public schools of America”
>
Hell, half the country, the red half, the George W. Bush half, believe the same thing. He has the right to say the same thing as the Bush folks doesn’t he? You voted for Bush didn’t you? But he and the Bush people won’t win on this issue. BTW I would love to see the dates on those quotes. Talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel for ammunition.
>
"The poor homosexuals -- they have declared war upon nature, and now nature is extracting an awful retribution."
>
My first inclination was to tell you to see the first half of my rebuttal on the preceding quote. Nigal I remember the day in TT when you used to try to pass yourself off Biblical scholar of sorts. I was going to suggest that you reread Romans 1:27. I’d even done the work for you.
>
“In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.”
>
Hard to get by that one isn’t it? And I sure you can find other similar verses in the Koran the Torah, the Talmud, and other middle-eastern religious texts.
>
But then I realized that I couldn’t say that Buchanan is right about the part where he says homosexuals have declared war on nature. If homosexuality exists in nature then logically it must a part of nature, hence natural in some. Do you see the dilemma? I believe that certain male individuals are genetically predisposed towards homosexuality. It’s not something they choose. Buchanan is right on the last part though. Nature has declared war on homosexuals in the form of AIDs.
>
“"Take a hard look at [KKK leader David] Duke's portfolio of winning issues and expropriate those not in conflict with GOP principles [such as] reverse discrimination against white folks."
>
It’s no surprise that your source wouldn’t elaborate on some of the “winning issues” David Duke was espousing. Duke and Buchanan were referring to the issues of NAFTA, the WTO, most favored nation status to the PRC, and any number of trade agreements that are killing the manufacturing sector of our economy. You might think all this free trade is great but I agree with Duke and Buchanan on this one. If we do not stem the tide of red ink caused by the USA’s inability to make objects that we can sell in the international markets at a profit, then we are sunk as a first world nation. Nigal even a racist like Duke can be right some of the time.
>
“"[For President Nixon to visit King's widow on the anniversary of King's assassination because it would] outrage many, many people who believe Dr. King was a fraud and a demagogue and perhaps worse.... Others consider him the Devil incarnate. Dr. King is one of the most divisive men in contemporary history."
>
The first part of this hack job “quote” doesn’t warrant a rebuttal because Buchanan is directing his comments about the opinions of other unnamed sources. I’ll address the last sentence. The operative phase here is “Dr. King is”, in the present tense. Considering the context of the times, Dr. King did appear to some as divisive. A lot insider Washington knowledge about King was not very complementary. King also had followers that really didn’t espouse the non-violent teachings of King. King did a great job of controlling them for the most part. Still the fact that they were with King caused some to label him as divisive. My personal opinion is that the truth lies somewhere in between the present opinions of him. Time will tell.
>
I think that covers all your Buchanan quotes and therefore I have almost reached the end of my post. Nigal my bet is that you won’t even have the courtesy to read it. Of course you will probably say I’m so wrong that you wouldn’t waste your time. That’s been your standard response for as long as I can remember. Today you called me an #&%!$. Fine, now I’m going to tell you what I think of you. From the time I first came to the backpacker.com you have always struck me as an intellectual lightweight. IMO you are a poorly educated individual with no real grasp of history or current events. But you’re also a decent human being who I have enjoyed hiking with on our one Llama-Rama together. Nevertheless we probably won’t be hiking together again and that’s probably for the best.
last edited: 3/17/05 8:55:45 PM”

““I think that covers all your Buchanan quotes and therefore I have almost reached the end of my post.”

If I have a bucket with a single hole in it it is easy to plug it and use the bucket. If the bucket has 100 holes in it it’s a whole other thing. You may try to justify anything you wish.

“Nigal my bet is that you won’t even have the courtesy to read it. Of course you will probably say I’m so wrong that you wouldn’t waste your time. That’s been your standard response for as long as I can remember.”

Have you shown me any reason why your long winded, intellectual masturbation is valid? I mean besides the fact you think you are 100% right. Why should I respond to cut and pastes as if they were your own words? Get some original thoughts and maybe I’ll give them some time.

“Today you called me an #&%!$.”

Hey, don't call me brain dead and act like an ass hole and I won‘t trade insults with ya.

“Fine, now I’m going to tell you what I think of you.”

And I care how? What, are we long dear friends or something? We hiked together once.

“From the time I first came to the backpacker.com you have always struck me as an intellectual lightweight. IMO you are a poorly educated individual with no real grasp of history or current events.”

Well of course! Anyone that doesn't agree with you falls in this catagory. From your posts you tend to look down on everyone this way so I feel good that you are equitable in your views of me as well.

“But you’re also a decent human being who I have enjoyed hiking with on our one Llama-Rama together.”

Yeah, I really enjoyed not being able to put any of my own gear on the lamas because you were laying beside the trail looking like you were going to die forcing everyone else to take their stuff off the lamas to put your gear on them so you could drag your dead ass up the mountain. That was fun.

“Nevertheless we probably won’t be hiking together again and that’s probably for the best.”

I’m crushed. Yeah, like I want to hike with the guy who can’t even go hiking without going nuts on a ranger for having lamas in a restricted area and getting the local law called up into the mountains to deal with the crazy guy who‘s raging. I’m not even surprised to hear that you have a problem with authority even when you are clearly breaking the law. Not exactly my type of hiking partner.

In short, if putting me in some little pigeon hole makes your crazy world a little bit easier to deal with I have no problem with that. I have broad shoulders and experience in dealing with the mentally ill so I’m here for ya.”

“"Buchanan is defending his right to defend his Catholic Church and Christianity against the ever-present charges by Elie Wiesel et. al. that Christianity and particularly the Catholic Church were responsible for the Holocaust. That diatribe, endlessly repeated by people in the Shoah business, is not true and Buchanan, as a Catholic and a Christian, has the right to refute it and defend his faith."

O come on! Show me evidence that any of the Shoah folks have suggested that Christianity or the Catholic Church was responsible for the Holocaust. What has been alleged, and proven, is that some leaders were complicit in anti-semetism, some cooperated or at the very least did not stand against holocaust.”

“"Buchanan is right on the last part though. Nature has declared war on homosexuals in the form of AIDs"

Not true Sol - world-wide, its affecting far more heterosexuals than homosexuals. Or are you saying nature has declared war on all who stray f rom life-long monogamy with partners who are also monogamous?”

“Every word of my last post is my own words except for the quotes. I had the original thoughts, you did't. And if you don't like my cut and pastes of Buchanan articles the solution is simple. DON'T COME INTO MY THREADS!
>
I never called you brain dead. You assumed the worse because you voted for Bush. Sorry I painted you and other with such a broad brush. Nevertheless if the shoe fits wear it.
>
I was lying down on the trail dieing? According to who? The only person who helped me was Phil in the last two miles up to Piute Lake. He carried my tent. I had a blister on my heel the size of a half dollar and it was killing me. It was hurting 3 weeks after I got home. Nevertheless as far as you having to pull your stuff off the llamas so my gear could be hauled, the way I remember it was at the beginning of the trip I barely had any stuff on the llamas. Everyone was so keen on the llamas carrying all the luxury stuff there was damn little room for anything else. I was pactically carrying my full pack. I will admit I overpacked but hey, it was my first trip to the Sierras. I didn't know what to bring. So if I got any extra room later that caused problems to the group I offer my sincere apologies and gratitude to all the Llama-rama 1999ers but you Nigal.
>
You know nothing about the rangers and the llama incident. Therefore you are a G-d dammed liar. They weren't called up the mountain on account of me. They were there because Mel was supposedly running a packing outfit without a license. What particularly set me off was the stupid ranger who wanted me to stand in rain and answer her stupid questions while she sat inside her jeep. I was tired, hungry, and just wanted to left alone. My attitude of the whole thing was if she wanted information to go ask Mel. And I told the her and the other ranger just what I thought of the whole damn thing. Next time Nigal, get your facts straight before you start telling lies about me.”

“Let Nigal tell you the time Buchanan made the homosexual statement. If if was in the early 80s AIDs was predominately a homosexual problem. Better yet let Nigal find the entire article and let's see in what context the statement was made. That's is if Nigal knows how. he's not very good at this stuff.
>
About my Shoah statement and Buchanan's statement about the Catholic cardinalate, I remember the article but can't find it right now. Maybe sometime tonight I'll have a fix on it. I'll give you several books based on the premise of my statement. And I'll give you quotes etc. by Shoah business folks. Hell all I will have to do is do a google search on Mel Gibson's "The Passion of Christ". That alone will give me all the ammunition I need.”

““What cut and paste?“

The very first post was nothing but an article.

“Every word of my last post is my own words except for the quotes. I had the original thoughts, you did't.”

I was cutting and pasting just like you. Hypocrite.

“And if you don't like my cut and pastes of Buchanan articles the solution is simple. DON'T COME INTO MY THREADS!”

Jessus, you really are socially retarded aren’t ya? What is the sub title of this whole thread? “ It don't get any better than this Nigal!”. You started this whole thread for me. I called Pat an Anti-Semite and then you started this cut and paste thread like a brainless twit.

“I never called you brain dead. You assumed the worse because you voted for Bush. Sorry I painted you and other with such a broad brush. Nevertheless if the shoe fits wear it.”

Sure ya did. Who’s the liar now? You called people who voted for Bush brain dead. No misunderstandings there.

“I was lying down on the trail dieing? According to who?”

The last time I saw you on the trail the first day you were sitting on your ass all red faced and looking like you were going to have a coronary infarction.

“Nevertheless as far as you having to pull your stuff off the llamas so my gear could be hauled, the way I remember it was at the beginning of the trip I barely had any stuff on the llamas.”

You have some bad memory then.

“Everyone was so keen on the llamas carrying all the luxury stuff there was damn little room for anything else. I was pactically carrying my full pack.”

Everyone was told they could put a certain number of pounds on the lamas, six pounds I believe. All I remember was having to pull my stuff off as well as a few other people so you could get your pack down to a manageable weight.

“I offer my sincere apologies and gratitude to all the Llama-rama 1999ers but you Nigal.”

Oh, you wound me yet again. Boohoo! Haha! Someone hold me! A guy on the internet doesn’t like me!
“You know nothing about the rangers and the llama incident. Therefore you are a G-d dammed liar. They weren't called up the mountain on account of me. They were there because Mel was supposedly running a packing outfit without a license. What particularly set me off was the stupid ranger who wanted me to stand in rain and answer her stupid questions while she sat inside her jeep. I was tired, hungry, and just wanted to left alone. My attitude of the whole thing was if she wanted information to go ask Mel. And I told the her and the other ranger just what I thought of the whole damn thing. Next time Nigal, get your facts straight before you start telling lies about me.”

LOL! This ain’t the way I heard it. More than likely it falls in the middle somewhere. It can’t discount the fact that you are unstable and act like an ass. Yeah, that’s who I wanna hike with.

Are we ready to tell each other to just phuck off yet? I shall try to somehow lick my wounds and deal with the fact that you don’t like me. It will take some effort to get over because your approval means the world to me but it is something I must do in order to survive and carry on…














…ok, I’m over it and ready for life again. LOL!


Loser...”

“My last post was all mine except the quotes. Of course the first post was a Buchanan cut and paste. I impled that with the title of the thread didn't I?
>
You say I called you brain dead. Pull down the quote where I said Nigal was brain dead. I made a cheap-shot generalization and you jumped to conclusions. I can't help it if the old addage.

"Hit dogs hollar" seems to be true!:)

And if it makes you feel any better, Buchanan recommended voting for Bush even after that great Nader article in "The American Conservative!"The bottom line IMO is you overreacted and called me an A$$hole.
Then you came over to my thread and posted a bunch of out of context quotes. I guess that was your cheap-shot. Well I don't like being called names any more than you do and I'm certainly going to defend Buchanan against a campaign of lies by the Israeli Firsters who culled those quotes.
>
Now let me quote you.
"LOL! This ain’t the way I heard it. More than likely it falls in the middle somewhere. It can’t discount the fact that you are unstable and act like an ass. Yeah, that’s who I wanna hike with."
>
So you admit that your story in parts could be wrong or "falls somewhere in the middle." So I wonder who will back you up? I know who was there. I bet you don't, other than Mel. I'm not trying to fight with any of those people. They're all good trail companions. I'd hike with any of them again. In fact I'm planning on it this summer. If any of those people don't want me along on that trip because of what I did all they have to do is email me. I'd be more than happy to make other plans. I'll do the solitary hiker thing and they can do their thing. California is big enough for all of us. Even a "meglomaniac" like me.
>
Have a nice day Nigal.
last edited: 3/18/05 11:00:42 AM”

““You say I called you brain dead. Pull down the quote where I said Nigal was brain dead. I made a cheap-shot generalization and you jumped to conclusions.”

No conclusions need drawn. You were very specific…

post title: “Nigal

“If the brain dead half of the country that voted for Bush had voted for Nader instead (or wrote in a vote for Buchanan) we wouldn't have to write letters to "our leaders".”

You said those who voted for Bush were brain dead. You know I voted for Bush. You even went so far to title the post with my name.

“Then you came over to my thread and posted a bunch of out of context quotes.”

You posted the thread for me. That’s why you titled the first brainless cut and paste, “It don't get any better than this Nigal!”. You can wiggle all ya want but don’t piss down my leg and tell me it’s raining.

“I'm certainly going to defend Buchanan against a campaign of lies by the Israeli Firsters who culled those quotes.”

They weren’t Israeli Firsters. It was a quotes page from everyone from Steve Martin to Art Carney. The fact that you would assume it to be the Jews who would want to defame him is very telling. Pat has many detractors.

“So I wonder who will back you up? I know who was there.”

All I can tell you is the one person who recounted it was embarrassed and frightened by your behavior.

What I can’t figure out is why you have this insatiable need for validation and approval from me?”

“I didn't know for a fact you voted for Bush. I suspected as much but I didn't know. It was a funny article wasn't it? I knew that posting that article and tagging it with your name would be like waving a red flag in front of a bull. One thing I can say about you Nigal. Man you're predictable. I learned that by watching the way Gentle Ben used to handle you back in the good old days. You were like putty in his hands. It was funny as hell to watch. LOL! But I digress.....
>
Now about your quotes .... Steve Martin and Art Carney my a$$! Site your sources for the quotes then. Give me the URLs or links. But then again, I'll find it for you. Violin or mutt posted the same quotes about 18 months ago. I went to the site. It was the standard crap that all of you lightweights rolls out everytime I post a great article by the Master.
>
Best regards from the "verbal masturbating, loser, meglomaniac, a-hole!" :)”

“And as far as the person who supposedly recounted this frightening tale to you, why were they frightened? If anyone was going to get into trouble with the federales it was gonna be me. And they certainly didn't have anything on Mel. She'd done nothing wrong. This is just more of your BS.
>
And Nigal you need to get another last dig line beside the "why you have this insatiable need for validation and approval from me?" crap. How many times are you gonna use that lame angle on everyone you argue with? Get some new material.”

“How about a round of golf?

LOL”

“"Site your sources for the quotes then. Give me the URLs or links."

Here's one from an >atheist group.

Here's one from a >political encyclopedia.

Here's one from >Fair.org.

You can also find them on >RealChallange.org. That was my favorite because they expose the little Nazi and his socialist ties and corruption.


Wait, don't tell me; they're all Jewish sources because the Jews control the world, right?”

““It was a funny article wasn't it?”

How would I know? I’d as soon read Mine Kumph as to read Pat’s drivel. Why would I even give a racist, anti-Semitic, chauvinistic, gay hating, caveman like him the three minutes to read it? Face it SH, you support a loser. This is why he sits in a chair with his greasy, died hair and talk about what politicians are doing and saying…because he’s failed miserably in politics. No one buys his bullshlt. And the only reason he gets on these shows is to represent the crazy wing of the right. But as they say, “Those who can’t….commentate.”. He’s nothing more than a Rush Limbaugh from the stone age. No wait, scratch that, Rush is right at least some of the time and he’s at least funny.

I see why you admire, emulate and parrot him. You are very alike.”

“Yeah I figured, especially the Fair.org site. If ever there was a site with an agenda. I wish I could remember the guy who runs that site. They used to tell you but it was so obvious who he was working for they had to take him off the "cover". And IMO the quotes are still crap at all the sites, hacked together to give some semblance of continuity, except the ones about homosexuals. He flat out doesn't like them. But hey, all Buchanan has to do is look at Romans 1:27. It's there in black and white. He's a judgemental Christian. But then so are Jerry Falwell and all the other "Christian" Bush supporters. So tell me again why you backed Bush?
>
As far as the Jews running the world. I don't know about that. You tell me. All I know is that not all Israelis and/or Jews are like Ariel Sharon and the Likud kooks running Israel right now. Thank G_d for that. There still might be a chance for peace in that tortured land someday. I don't think Pat Buchanan has any anti-Semitic feeling about Jews or anyone else (Palestinians are Semites too) for that matter. And that really is the point isn't it? Most of the people who play the nazi canard on Buchanan use it because they don't like it when he calls the Israeli right-wing down on the Palestinian issue, or America's unbalanced Middle-Eastern foreign policies. He and a lot of other people think it's time to reevaluate our inconsistencies and deal with all parties in a more fair-handed manner. That's all Buchanan is asking for. It's not a bad thing to ask because things are getting a little weird. I mean you have people looking forward to Armmagedon involved in this thing. Somehow there needs to be some sanity exhibited on the part of all parties before things spin out of control.”

“Now I have to argue with a Rush Limbaugh fan!This just gets worse and worse. Somebody come pinch me. I'm in a nightmare and can't wake up.
last edited: 3/18/05 6:15:12 PM”

“The funny article was the Toronto Sun piece by Margolis and you must have read it. I mean you've been beaching about it for three days. Come on, pick one story or the other and stick with it Nigal ole boy.
last edited: 3/18/05 6:25:09 PM”

“You simply don’t get it do you? You just ramble on and on and on and on.



Go ahead, take the last word Grandpa...”

“Solitary Hiker,

You have some of the weirdest politics on this board. I actually agree with Buchanan about some things, like border security, and requiring immigrants to learn English, and dependence on foreign oil, but many of his views are indefensible. Buchanan carefully conceals his anti-semitic and racist tendencies through the use of terms like "western culture", but it isn't hard to read between the lines and interpret what he really means.

His thinly veiled admiration for lovely folks such as David Duke and Hitler should give you a hint. And this little article that you posted, where he is practically jumping for joy over the fact that the US is unable to control the foolish actions of its supposed "allies" around the world, is just another example. Buchanan would have us close the borders, batten down the hatches, and just mind our own business when it comes to the suffering of those inferior denizens of the third world. And while we are doing this we should probably re-implement segragation, throw the gays in jail where they belong, and get those pesky jews out of government, the banking industry, and our formerly pristine country clubs.

And the jewel in your crown of absurdity is deliberately posting a thread to provoke Nigal and then being outraged that he responded to defend himself & his views. "Don't come into my threads" - that's gotta be a new "classic TT quote" based on the hilarity factor alone.”

“Quoting you,
"His thinly veiled admiration for lovely folks such as David Duke and Hitler should give you a hint. And this little article that you posted, where he is practically jumping for joy over the fact that the US is unable to control the foolish actions of its supposed "allies" around the world, is just another example."
>
Exactly what has Buchanan's supposedly thinly veiled admiration for David Duke and Hitler got to do with our inablity to "control the foolish (debatable) actions of [our] allies around the world". Absolutely nothing. You are doing the same the atheists, the pro-abortion crowd, the Far Left, and the Israeli Firsters are trying to do to him. Take some of his quotes about the real facts of history and populist politics, all out of context, and make him into some sort of demon. They do it to anyone and everyone who would dare question their motives.
>
As far as Buchanan "jumping for joy" as you call it then he should be. As a person who analyzes and forcasts world events for a living, he was telling folks this was going to happen over two years ago. Go read his past articles about U.S. Middle-Eastern foreign policy and the so-called "war on terrorism". He's batting about a 1000 percent by my count. IMO that's why most of you Pat bashers hate him. Cause it's either that or you have an agenda to push.
>
And this quote of yours will go into my "Proof of What I Just Said" classic file.

>
"And while we are doing this we should probably re-implement segragation, throw the gays in jail where they belong, and get those pesky jews out of government, the banking industry, and our formerly pristine country clubs."
>
Ad hominem attacks and calling everyone a racist or an anti-Semite won't work with Buchanan or me. Let me quote myself and then a man I wish would run for president.
>
"It's not racist to tell the truth."
>
"It is not anti-Semitic to criticize the policies of the state of Israel ..." Berlin, Germany, April 28, 2004 remarks by Secretary of State Colin L. Powell.
>
And finally, here's a challenge for all you anti-Buchanan folks. Why don't you take the novel approach of doing some research on the aforementioned topics and what Buchanan actually said about them. Prove me wrong. My bet is that you won't because (forgive me Jack) you can't handle the truth.
last edited: 3/19/05 9:18:15 AM”

“Is Pat doing the same thing as "the atheists, the pro-abortion crowd, the Far Left" when he celebrates alleged failures of US foreign policy? I think the answer to that is "yes." How is Buchanan's brand of isolationism any different from the anti-war left's contention that you "can't impose democracy" on the Arab world, that self-government is a concept so alien to their culture that it can never succeed? Buchanan might take a slightly different route to reach his conclusions but the end result is the same. It's what Bush refers to as the "soft bigotry of low expectations."

I don't want to get into another debate over Operation Iraqi Freedom. Some will never support the use of military force to protect or advance American interests, or to intervene in the genocidal activities of third-world dictators, and I have no hope of changing anyone's mind with my feeble and relatively uninformed opinions. If our adventures in the Middle East turn out to be an unmitigated disaster (which is yet to be seen), at least we will be able to say "we tried" before exploring other alternatives, such as Buchanan's isolationism.

I agree that it's not racist to tell the truth. But the discussion of racial and cultural disparities should be a starting point for analyzing problems and identifying solutions, not an excuse to conclude that people of different races and religions are incapable of achieving the success enjoyed by white Christians, and that such people therefore deserve their fate, and our neglect.

As far as the "ad hominem" attacks that I supposedly employed, it seems to me that Pat Buchanan could have found someone in the broad political spectrum of human history to laud, defend, and emulate, besides Hitler and David Duke. That he chose them, is revealing and disturbing.

I don't hate Pat Buchanan, you assume that because I criticize some of his viewpoints. I even said that I agree with him on some things. I just think he goes too far in his non-interventionism.

As far as the "Israeli firsters" are concerned, I think the UN's obsessive condemnation of any Israeli policy of self-defense has been quite adequate without the US withdrawing its support. The nation of Israel was formed as a result of Jews fleeing lethal European anti-semitism, and is now understandably concerned with its own survival, being surrounded by those who long for its destruction. America's abandonment of Israel could result in total war in the Middle East, not to mention the possibility of global economic chaos. Perhaps in Buchanan's world this would be an acceptable outcome, so long as we Americans are safe at home. But I would not want to live in that kind of world.”

“there was a quote about when to quit wrestling with a pig, its when you realize he is enjoying it...”

“Heh heh heh heh!”

“You are probably right birch but I find it hard to resist such a soft target. "Low hanging fruit" and all that. "heh heh heh heh" indeed!”

“you have the "fruit" part right omahiker.”

“Does your fruit hang low as you wobble to and fro.....”

“I like that Buchanan makes me think. He thinks outside the box, and has a unique perspective. I find I have to think very critically when Buchanan speaks, sometimes he is very insightful and makes points I hadn't thought of... other times he seems totally off the wall. I gladly read him, but would never vote for him.

Personally, I think he has a facist steak. Just like he says of Hitler, most of us are only aware of the cartoon verssion of facism. Facism has its points and its appeal (especially before it was co-opted by Hitler), but on the whole is dangerous and worthy of our enmity. No one really wants to set the record straight about facism, because it's very hard to try to correct misimpressions about it without being accused of being a facist.

When I read Buchanan's piece on Hitler, I thought he was fighting a certain attraction to the him - and is reminding himself, not just his readers of what a terrible trip that path provides.”

“Let me add that having read the whole Hitler piece (that Nigal quotes from), I think it is basically on target with respect to Hitler. I dsagree with some things he says (most notably I think he radically mischaracterizes the positions of Fairbanks and Doak Barnett with regards to recognition of China), but Buchanana is not soft on Nazism and it is ignorant or disingenuous to say he was soft on Hitler or Nazism. Read for yourselves:

"A lesson in tyranny too soon forgotten", Patrick Buchanan, Chicago Tribune, August 25, 1977 Section 3 page 3
"If Hitler had died in 1937 on the fourth anniversary of his coming to power... he would undoubtedly have gone down as one of the greatest figures of German history. Throughout Europe he had millions of admirers. Gertrude Stein (who found Roosevelt boring) thought Hitler should get the Nobel Peace Prize. In magazine and newspaper articles George Bernard Shaw defended Hitler and other dictators."
So writes John Toland in his brilliant biography of Hitler. From his masterful study in tyranny, a generation without memory of World War II can learn the lessons the West has already forgotten.
Those of us in childhood during the war years were introduced to Hitler only as caricature. Either he was a ranting, raving, carpet-chewing Chaplinesque buffoon -- or the anti-Christ, Satan Incarnate, a devil without human attribute who had hypnotized the German people.
Such ignorance is folly. Though Hitler was indeed racist and anti-Semitic to the core, a man who without compunction could commit murder and genocide, he was also an individual of great courage, a soldier's soldier in the Great War, a political organizer of the first rank, a leader steeped in the history of Europe, who possessed oratorical powers that could awe even those who despised him.
But Hitler's success was not based on his extraordinary gifts alone. His genius was an intuitive sense of the mushiness, the character flaws, the weakness masquerading as morality that was in the hearts of the statesmen who stood in his path.
Men like Chamberlain and Daladier needed a moral justification for their acts of weakness and betrayal. They needed to believe they were making minor concessions, doing the right thing, to preserve the larger good -- the peace of Europe. Hitler generously provided those justifications.
Had he preached at Munich in 1933 of his New Order, a thousand-year-old Reich where the Jew would be exterminated, the 'lesser' peoples enslaved, and the German would rule, East and West Europe might have united to destroy him.
Instead he cloaked each of his territorial seizures in the rhetoric of rationality and righteousness. When his battalions marched into the Rhineland, even the liberal British Lord Lothian declared, 'The Germans, after all, are only going into their own back garden.'
To those who protested the Anschluss, Hitler could reply that a plebiscite was subsequently conducted, which showed 99 per cent of the German and Austrian people approving annexation.
Even at Munich, Hitler could appeal to the principle of self-determination. After all, why should Britain and German go to war to deny several million Sudeten Germans the right to link politically with their ethnic brothers in Berlin rather than their Czech rulers in Prague?
Today, we condemn Chamberlain as the arch appeaser. But today we listen attentively as the Sinologists who follow John K. Fairbank and A. Doak Barnet argue for turning over 17 million people on Taiwan to the control of their ethnic brothers who rule the mainland -- to remove the principal irritant in Washington-Peking relations. Where is the moral distinction?
Even in the Polish crisis which led to World War II, Hitler's case was not without cogency. After all, Danzig was a German city, separated, like East Prussia, from Greater Germany by an artificially created Polish corridor. Hitler's case for eliminating this artificial division of his country was at least as persuasive as Panama's case for eliminating the artificial division of its territory by the Canal Zone.
Almost alone among European statesmen, Churchill saw that -- under the guise of restoring Germany to her rightful place among nations -- Hitler was marching along the road toward a New Order where Western civilization would not survive.
The vision lacking in the statesmen of '37 appears lacking as well in the men of '77. Communists, pro-Communists, Western-haters appeal to Western commitments to anti-colonialism, nonintervention, majority rule, and strategic parity. But these arguments are the indentured servants of a global enterprise, which has as its objective the collapse of the West. Unlike Churchill, we cannot see the linkage between Southeast Asia and Panama, between Angola and Taiwan, between South Korea and South Africa.”

“Quoting you,
"Is Pat doing the same thing as "the atheists, the pro-abortion crowd, the Far Left" when he celebrates alleged failures of US foreign policy? I think the answer to that is "yes."
>
“Alleged” failures you say? If Bush's foreign policies are successes then the atheists, the pro-abortion crowd, the Far Left, and most of the rest of us are going to be in one helluva undeserved fix when the man has a failure. Just by chance do you read any of the foreign press that the USA and Bush is getting these days? In the eyes of the most of the world, everything Bush has done has been a failure. And don’t tell me you think he doing a great job. This is one poll only the foreigners get to vote in.
>
Now as far as celebrating the policy failures of the USA i.e. George Bush, I tell you the truth. I don’t know how Buchanan feels, but I look forward to the next four years when even Bush’s most comatose supporters wake up and smell “what’s cookin!” If they’re this mad over the price of a gallon of gasoline what do you think is going to happen when they finally realize that they will indeed have to pay for all this “democracy” we are spreading around. I can dream of all the delicious crow recipes I’m going to serve up. It’s going to be fun.
>
What's really sad about this whole sordid affair is that when Bush's reign is over, there is no one sitting in congress at this time, Republican or Democrat, any better than he is. Unless someone like Colin Powell steps up to the plate we are in deep trouble. And I’m not even sure a man with Powell’s stature and ability to lead will be able pull our butts out of the fire.
>
Quoting you again.
“If our adventures in the Middle East turn out to be an unmitigated disaster (which is yet to be seen), at least we will be able to say "we tried" before exploring other alternatives, such as Buchanan's isolationism.”
>
Buchanan's isolationism is the same isolationism espoused by the likes of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. They wanted trade but no entanglement in the wars of other countries. In other words we should mind our own business and quit trying to be the world's policeman and savior. Especially when most of the world doesn't want to be saved. The unbelievable aspect in all this to me is that most Americans actually believe in what is so obviously a lie to the rest of the world. The people who really run this country don't give a rat's ass about the conditions or governments other people in the world live under. You would have to live on Mars to be unaware of some of the loathsome people the US government has propped up. “We tried” to give them democracy indeed!
>
Our trying in the Middle East is no different. We are in Afghanistan to prevent the construction of oil and gas pipelines heading in the direction of China. The hunt for OBL is just bread and circuses for the useful idiots. Likewise, we are in Iraq for two reasons. One, oil that we can "purchase" with worthless fiat dollars and two, the security of Israel. If there was no oil or if the interventionists and Israeli Firsters like Cheney, Bolton, Abrams (of Iran-Contra fame) Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, etc. didn't weld so much influence over Bush we wouldn't be there. Now of course this is my opinion and from your posts you see it different. I think we can both agree on one thing though. Truth will out sooner or later.
>
Also note that Buchanan's isolationist stance stems from a plausible theory that empires collapse because of military over-extension, shrinking natural resources, devaluation of the currency, moral decay, and dilution of the homogeneous culture that made the empire predominant. The US is guilty on all five points. And before you say the last point is racist let me explain. Buchanan is not trying to lock everyone out of the country that has brown skin. We’re talking culture here. His position is we should let in anyone who does it legally and at a rate that is conducive to assimilation into the American culture. To do otherwise invites the Balkanization of the whole country. And whether or not the hand wringing liberals like it or not, Western Civilization and Christianity are the two linchpins on which this country, our American culture, and our prosperity hang. Some might think it racist that Buchanan is not apologetic because he is white, a Christian, or comes from a culture that produced Plato, Aristotle, the Parthenon, the Magna Carta, the printing press, the Mayflower Compact, the Constitution, Thomas Jefferson, Isaac Newton, Chartres, Beethoven, Jane Austin, Rome, Van Gogh, Shakespeare, Twain, Mozart, etc infinitum. I, along with many others, don’t. We think Western Civilization is worth holding onto. If people want to call us racists or anti-semites because of it, let them. Thank G_d Western Civilization made it a free country and all people, even misinformed ones, are free to think whatever they want.
>
I won’t comment on the other parts of your post. We’ll let others read your comments and decide what is ad hominem and what is not.”

“Especially birch and phaedrus. It’s no surprise to me that all you can get is low fruit. You, along with some of the other low brows in here, can’t mentally reach much higher. I might also add that persons in your position might be more careful in comments about low fruit less the wheels of kharma turn on you when the Army brings back the draft and cherry picks all ex-Army people with skills in your age bracket. Don’t think it could happen? Check out the “Bringing back the Draft” thread and see how the Army Reserve is opening to people up to age 40. My bet is that the whole Pentagon is lining up to snatch some “low hanging fruit” i.e. Gulf War vets in the next 18 months.
last edited: 3/20/05 11:17:22 AM”

“Thanks for the post. If you ever want to talk about anything we touched on in this thread feel free to email me. This place is not very conducive to actual discussion about the problems we and our children face.
I know I'm guilty of baiting some in here but others do it too. In my own defense during debates I try to get my facts straight before I post. It would be nice if some of the people on the opposing sides of issues would do the same.”

“I will abide by my own advice about pig wrestling... maybe next time.”