A Vote For Buchanan Is A Vote For America

Status
Not open for further replies.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Roberson:

Cruiserman, Ron Paul was the Libertarian Party candidate for president in 1988. (Incidentally, that was an off year for the party, for they got on the ballot in only 46 states then.) You're right that he'd make a great president.
[/quote]

I remember that he switched parties and was elected to Congress, which is quite funny. It tells you that the libertarian tag is a bad one in the public's eye. Harry Browne should switch to Republicrat and run for prez again :).


[This message has been edited by cruiserman (edited March 15, 2000).]
 
Please God please no more third party draws.

THIS IS HOW WE GOT CLINTON!

I am a far Right wing extremist Bible-beating Jesus-loving well-educated Christian but I fear more than anything another term with a Dem in the Whitehouse. Just let it go and vote for the lesser of two evils.
FACE IT, you and I both know that Buchanon ain't gonna win. Tell me that you don't KNOW that Buchanon ain't gonna win. So, voting for him is useless. I would love to vote my conscience too, but not is that means throwing the country to the wolves. It is not wrong to vote for the person that you think can win, because otherwise you are just being selfish and high and mighty and throwing away tour vote for personal edification, without a care that our country is going to hell. A vote for him is a vote for Gore. It is nice and all to vote your conscience, but you and I both know that that is what will get Gore to win. Just vote Bush or we all lose. The Dems just LOVE it when these far right wing guys take the votes from the Republicans.

DID YOU EVER NOTICE THAT THE DEMOCRATS ARE SMART ENOUGH NOT TO ALLOW A FAR LEFT WING RADICAL ON THE BALLOT TO TAKE THEIR VOTES? They are smarter than that. Let's not be the dumb ones here.
 
Neither Buchanan nor Perot were responsible for the Clinton victories. Liberal Republicans abandoned the party and voted Democrat.

Back in '92 Buchanan would have made a good President. These days, because of his analysis of WWII, I think his potato's been baking too long. He's burned out, substituting enthusiasm and weird speculation for analysis.
It's a real pity.

------------------
ALARM! ALARM! CIVILIZATION IS IN PERIL! THE BARBARIANS HAVE TAKEN THE GATES!
 
Munro, I've read what Buchanan had to say about WWII and it's nothing that wasn't said at the time by many respected people including Truman. In perfect hindsight it might have been better to let the Nazis and the Soviets fight it out and then take on the weakened loser. Much of what Buchanan has said has been distorted by the Republicans to minimize his impact on the campaign.

Having said that, though, the fact remains that Buchanan cannot win and a vote for him is a vote for Gore. There's idealism and there's reality. Occassionally we get a candidate who represents all of our ideals, but not often. The reality is that Gore can win if we're divided, and that would be a very ugly reality.

Dick
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Munro Williams:
Neither Buchanan nor Perot were responsible for the Clinton victories. Liberal Republicans abandoned the party and voted Democrat.[/quote]

More to the point: Most eligible voters didn't even go to the polls in 1996. Voter participation was 49 percent, the lowest turnout since at least 1932.
 
Let me say at the get go, I know Pat Buchanan. I have sat and talked with the man. I listened to his views, and at one time agreed with him. Unfortunately, Pay has changed a lot. I agree with what many have said about Pat's convictions as they relate to keeping America strong. He actually believes the things that he says, unlike Al Gore who decides what to believe on any given day based upon where and in front of what group he is speaking. Unfortunately Pat has decided to believe that the things that made this country great, immigration, free enterprise, etc., are no longer good for HIS America. I stayed in the Republican party (was ready to bolt and declare myself independent) because of Pat and worked very hard for Pat when I lived in California, but we are not talking about the Pat Buchanan of 1992. It's unfortunate, but a vote for Pat Buchanan is a vote for extremism. It's a vote for isolationism. It's a vote for Al Gore. It's a vote wasted.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Red Bull:
DID YOU EVER NOTICE THAT THE DEMOCRATS ARE SMART ENOUGH NOT TO ALLOW A FAR LEFT WING RADICAL ON THE BALLOT TO TAKE THEIR VOTES? They are smarter than that. Let's not be the dumb ones here. [/quote]

You don't think Gore is a far left wing radical? Read _Earth_in_the_Balance_, and you might change your mind. I'm going to be dumb and vote libertarian. My conscience will thank me ;). Prez Gore will probably motivate the troops to organize against him anyway.
 
Good for you, cruiserman! Welcome aboard.

If everyone who supports Libertarian positions would just vote for Libertarian candidates, we'd have a House-cleaning (and a Senate-cleaning) that would turn this country into something our Founding Fathers might recognize.
 
Monkeyleg,

Without US industrial might the Royal Navy wouldn't have been able to supply the Russians who tore out the guts of the German Army.

If we had stayed out the Germans would have taken Russian as far as the Urals and the Nazi Volksgemeinschaft would have been a reality, and if anything, our Cold War would have been with the Third Reich.

Pat's starting to fall to pieces. I like him, but the guy needs a vacation or some help. Check out what he had to say regarding OPEC and the fuel crisis: a few facts strung together in Rube Goldberg fashion entirely ignoring the impact of tree-hugger politics which deprived us of any political leverage via alternate petroleum sources. Like I said earlier, he substitutes enthusiasm for analysis. It's a damned shame.
We'll really be needing Pat around in the next few years.
He needs to get himself a nice .58 caliber rifled musket, spend about two or three weeks in the middle of nowhere, and watch all his troubles go up in smoke!

Speaking of which, so do I!
 
Anybody who finds the slightest justification for why we should have kept Hitler around can go ... themselves.

We made it past the USSR without a nuclear war and they fell. Would we have made it that way past the Reich in control of Europe.

Hitler killed 2/3s of European Jewry. I suppose we would have been better off if he had killed the rest? He had plans to kill all the males in Poland also. Then the mentally ill.

Buchanan is scum. Those who didn't want to fight Hitler early on may not have known his true horror or were symapthetic to him.

Knowing what we know now and to argue that we should have somehow dealt with Hitler and the Nazis disqualifies one as a human being.

Last, if you want to argue about pseudo-geopolitics, tell it to my family members that died in the camps.
 
Glenn, I hope you were not taking my comments about Buchanan as any sort of justification for "keeping Hitler around." All I was saying was that his ideas on the Soviets and the Nazis were not uncommon at that time.

What I _still_ do not understand, sixty years later, is why the Allies did nothing to stop the genocide they knew was going on. The Jewish underground begged the Allies to bomb Auschwitz, and were told that the planes had other targets. One of those targets was a few miles from Auschwitz, and the planes flew over the camp every day. I just don't get it.

BTW, many of my wife's Polish relatives died in the camps also. One great aunt who survived did so by being a "comfort woman" to the SS.

I'm sorry for your losses.

Dick
 
Hey Glenn. Lighten up. Stalin and bolshevism killed far more people, but the U.S. sided with him for political reasons. I met some of my relatives for the first time a few years back. They told me about Siberia and how cruel it was to our people. Several relatives of mine were murdered in cold blood by the bolsheviks. I'm a loyal, patriotic American nevertheless, and believe in sticking up for the country I live in. My relatives have learned to accept the fact that their casualties were the casualties of war, then they move on.

Buchanan is a good man because he puts his nation first. That would have been the wishes of the founding fathers of this country, who also believed in a Second Amendment. If getting together with former Marxists is good for America, then so be it. Move on! The left and right of old are all gone. Remember, George Bush Sr. said we live in a New World Order. New Rules, new politics. Left and right are antiquated concepts. National sovereignity's the question, not ideologies? Europeans are far more astute on this one than Americans.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CleanCut:
National sovereignity's the question, not ideologies? Europeans are far more astute on this one than Americans.[/quote]

I don't follow you on this one, CleanCut. If national sovereignty is so important to Europeans, where did the European Economic Union come from?


[This message has been edited by David Roberson (edited March 17, 2000).]
 
> National sovereignity's the question, not ideologies? Europeans are far more astute on this one than Americans.

If the Europeans are so astute, why are they surrendering so much sovereignty to the European Union and other organizations?
 
Uh..David, national sovereignity is a debate in Europe. Many Europeans are not settled on the idea of a big European Union. Sovereignity is a big issue in Europe. Who makes the decisions about immigration? Individual European countries or the EU? The sovereignity issue was and still is alive since the EU's inception. Go to university bookstore and check out a book on 'Comparative Politics.' It talks about the different European nations, their political systems and problems, issues. I still have my old book and it's very enlightening.
 
Matt:
Being astute and aggressive are 2 different things. One can be astute on gun laws. Will that make you aggressive enough to resist confiscation? That's another matter entirely.
Next question.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Glenn E. Meyer:
A
Hitler killed 2/3s of European Jewry. I suppose we would have been better off if he had killed the rest? He had plans to kill all the males in Poland also. Then the mentally ill.
[/quote]
I hate to be the one to tell you this, but the US did NOT enter WWII to liberate the jews from the nazis. We entered the war due to Pearl Harbor, and we fought the nazis because they were allies with the japanese. The plight of the jews was ignored by our gov't.
 
I hate to be the one to tell you this but FDR wanted to enter the war against Hitler. Our shadow naval war in the Atlantic was a clear indication of this. Hitler was stupid enough to declare war on us.

Yep - the US Government ignored the plight of the Jews. Buchanan thinks that is just fine as long as we stopped the Commies.

If the successors of the Reich still existed and held back the forces of the USSR, how many of you would say we should support them?
Would you want us to ally with them as they conducted a genocidial romp through Africa.
That was their plan also.

Do you think that there wouldn't have been nuclear missiles in the hands of Psychopaths that might have splashed NYC for ethnic hatred reasons?

Buchanan's reconstruction of history is indicative of his bigotry rather than a realpolitik.

Should we have acted against Soviet genocide , maybe we should have.

Buchanan's view of America first is a view of his own bigoted America.

Just because some a**h*l* supports the RKBA doesn't make him a good person.

Thank you for expressions of sympathy of family loss.

Probaby won't read this thread anymore to avoid rant mode.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CleanCut:
Uh..David, national sovereignity is a debate in Europe. Many Europeans are not settled on the idea of a big European Union. Sovereignity is a big issue in Europe. Who makes the decisions about immigration? [/quote]
I'm not knowledgeable about immigration laws in European countries, and if your point is that individual countries in the EEU set their own immigration policies, that's fine. But I still don't understand your broader assertion that European countries are "more astute" about sovereignty than we are. Many Europeans may not, as you say, be "settled" on the idea of the EEU, but the fact is that they belong to it already -- it's a done deal. Are you saying that European citizens are more astute because they're upset over their governments' surrender of sovereignty to the EEU?
 
The issue of the EU and sovereignity has been an issue for them for a while. As with NAFTA, time will tell if it's a done deal. Austria's not too happy about all those immigrants coming into there land. The point is, it's not just about left and right, Clinton vs peeping Tom Ken Starr, Democrat vs Republican, the usual boring 2 party election. That's how Jesse Ventura got elected. Voters were so hungry for a change, they elected a dim-witt wrestler. You know, that wrestler says some good things.

Anyhow, a vote for Buchanan is a vote for America. I'll try to not get off topic again. Let's stick to the subject and make it relevent to gun owners. I think we owe that at least to this message board which has been quite generous in allowing us to post freely. ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top