Pat Buchanan: Save us from the Establishment

Status
Not open for further replies.
I must disagree that the government intentionally burned down the Waco Compound. I have read transcripts of recordings of bugs placed in the compound and it is extremely obvious that some of the Davidians set fire to the compound because they thought the agents were going to storm the building. There was MANY, MANY reference to fuel, spreading hay, fire, ect. I read the interview of an agent condemning the governement, not for burning the place down, but for ignoring the transcript indicating that some Davidians were going to set fire to their own building.

This does not mean that I am agreeing with the governent conduct. Their actions indirectly caused the fire, but the direct cause was the Davidians pouring fuel around and lighting the place.

Keep in mind that some persons who sell videos about Waco aren't necessarily interested in the truth. For example, "Waco: The Big Lie" has footage of a "flamethrower tank"- however, the footage was edited- if you see the whole clip, the "flame" is actually a piece of wallboard. The creator of the video lied to make a buck.
 
Not to get too far off the thread here. Check out the latest issue of Soldier of Fortune (DEC 99), WACO: Can You Handle The Truth?

Mike McNulty (WACO: The Rules of Engagement) has produced part two of this documentary called, WACO: A New Revelation. This will blow the lid off of the government's cover-up sham. Further proving the abuse of power currently in our Capital.

The Republic has been invaded from within, and we must begin again, with someone completely against this sort of dictatoral presidential power. Pat has my vote.
 
416,

I'm beginning to think that maybe some of these NWO people are correct. Gov. Bush has just been doing all of these conservative things to make it easier to get elected President. Once he is elected, his "true" agenda will come out and he will destroy our nation.

For all of the conspiracy buffs I would have to ask; if you think that Gov. Bush is being annointed by some evil, secret organization, why even vote? It would seem obvious that a vote for anyone other than Bush would not be counted if it would endanger the pre-ordained outcome.

For all of the people upset at the ad-hominum attacks on Pat Buchanon (they are totally uncalled for), does it upset you that Mr. Buchanon has just resorted to the same tactic. Today he said that William Safire is a less than honorable man and impuned his patriotism.

It appears to me that Pat Buchanon is falling apart!
 
....Yeah.....

And still, no word about why all the Bushbashing! Must be some reasons way beyond yours and my comprehension, Cactus....

Most of all, what I find so hard to swallow is how hard is it to see what HHUUGGEE difference there is between the 2 main parties?

It's not like they don't spend all their time drastically disagreeing with each-other about justabout everything.....

And if you can't see that, no wonder it's hard to see the nuances (differences between "moderate" and "conservative Republicans", for example).

I understand that for some, due perhaps to repeated disappointments with "the system", a certain "lack of faith" may have found the way into your hearts.
But, please, don't lose all sense of political strategy. For example, if you think that handing over the Presidency to Gore is going to act as a wake-up call to Americans, you must have spent too many hours under the hot sun.... Or maybe I have, because it doesn't seem to me that after the most corrupt administration I can remember (and 8 years of it, at that), we need another 8 years of the same to wake up!

Wake up now, here's your chance!!!!!

Folks, whether you like it or not, unless we have a full-fledged revolution, the next president (and the next one, and the next ten for that matter) is going to come "from the establishment". No "old man from the mountain" is going to come down his cave, with no strings attached to any party or organization and magically appeal to even 34% of the American people, the necessary number to have a meager relative majority.

Stop thinking of "the establishment" as a monolithic mass of likely-minded automatons all bent on taking away our rights!!!! Sure, some are just that, and it is our RESPONSIBILITY (yes, responsibility) to vote them out of existence. But in order to know who's who, we mast retain some sense of political reality, and justify the opinions that we have about candidates (again, I refer potentially angry respondents to my previous posting).

By the way.... Cactus and I are actually 2 different people, in case some of you are wondering!!!!! ;) ;)

------------------
If you are younger than 20 and not a Liberal, you have no heart.

If you are older than 20 and STILL a Liberal, you have no brain.
 
416,

I'm glad you told me that. I thought I was starting to post in my sleep!

The one opinion that frightens me the most is the people who say it would be good (or not so bad) if AlGore wins because people would then see how bad he is and they would then vote for a "perfect" candidate.

If someone could tell me at what exact point 51% of the people would come to this conclusion it may become less frightening. Would it be after Pres. Gore appointed 3 anti-gun Supreme Court Justices? After he banned all handguns? After he banned everything except muzzleloaders, and then only with a license? After he raised our taxes to confiscatory rates? When?

It is my feeling that people would come to this conclussion at different times. Kind of like the German cleric during Nazi times who said "when they came for the Jews, I didn't act; when they came for the Gypsy's, I didn't act; when they came for the Catholics, I didn't act; when they came for me, there was no one left to act".

The same could happen to America. By the time that AlGore lost the majority of support, it would be to late for us. Gunowners are right at the top of the hit list folks. It is far easier to fight tooth and nail for a struggling right than to reclaim one lost.

[This message has been edited by Cactus (edited October 26, 1999).]
 
America has the clock running against her. she is weak militarily,economically(Huge debt,huge trade imbalances, and families working around the clock in the Global plantation), and politically with a powerful central regime nearly destroying our remaining rights. It was great to hear Pat hammer the globalists,but his chances of even winning the reform party nomination are not good. Trump has been sent in to stop him. But even if he gets the nomination, the Reform party cannot match the money of the ONE PARTY. The news media will destroy his chances and have already demonized him before the stupid sheeple. I respect Pat and will vote for him. But it will be like pissing in the wind.Providing we even have a 2000 election, we patriots will be stuck with the same old crew we have had since WWI. Skull and Bones Bush will keep this former republic on the globalist agenda if he wins the next so called election.
 
And Top o’ the Day to ye, Mr. Rigby! Now let’s get to work, shall we?

Let’s consider your “facts” from your 12:45PM post:

First of all, sit down, put your seat in the upright position, place any
drinks you may have out of your reach and empty your mouth
appropriately to preserve your keyboard.

Ready?

I agree with most of your facts about Bush’s accomplishments in Texas;
but... (Aw, c’mon! You knew there’d be a “but”!)

You give Bush credit for creating, proposing, and pushing through the
Texas legislature much more than I believe to be accurate. He signed the
CHL law - he didn’t propose it, write it, or push it through the committees,
etc. By prohibiting any consideration of CHL, Ann Richards alienated not
only gun owners but also anti-gunners who wanted to vote against CHL.
In effect, she UPS’d Bush the keys to the Governor’s office by letting her
elitist arrogance show in public.

Bush can only take credit for signing the CHL law and I DO give him full
credit for fulfilling his main campaign promise! But the CHL law had been
written much earlier, during Queen Ann’s reign, by the State Rep (from
Houston, I believe). It is personally embarrassing that I can not
remember his name at the moment.

Indeed he signed the bill to keep idiot city leaders from suing gun
manufacturers. But who wrote it? Not our Bushy governor. But I DO
recognize and give credit to him for signing something so common
sensible.

I commended Bush for his stand against teen-age murderers and for frying
Carla Raye Tucker. And, with the help of the legislature, he showed
common sense ridding Texas of some old Blue Laws.

But does Gov. Bush believe in LESS government? I have no reference, but
is it one of your facts that our state budget *decreased*? Have we
*fewer* regulations now (even though he repealed some Blue Laws) than
we had before he was elected? Frankly, I don’t know. But I DO know our
legislature has been busy - and that seldom bespeaks fewer laws or less
cost.

Crime, at least violent crime, has decreased during Bush’s tenure. I find it
truly offensive (as I’m sure you do) that credit is given to everything
including midnight basketball rather than stricter law enforcement and our
CHL. We agree on much of this topic.

However, Bush has permitted many new violations of our U.S.
Constitution. Two that quickly come to mind are: 1) curfews (based on
age rather than criminal acts) and 2) no-man’s lands (creating certain
areas in San Antonio where it is forbidden for certain people simply to be).

As for “smear-free” campaigns, Bush learned his lesson from Clayton
Williams. (Is that the right name?) Anyway, this arrogant Texas rancher
ran against Ann Richards, swapped some really ugly smears with her, then
called her a liar and refused to shake her hand. (He also made some
dumb comment about the weather being like rape - if you can’t change it
just lay back and enjoy it or something to that effect. Really a dumb thing
to say.)

So if Bush takes the high ground, it is (at least in part) because it is to his
advantage to do so and he never has run against a “viable” opponent.
He’s never had to “get tough”. As you point out, Ann Richards is elitist
scum.

However, if he is a man of such unimpeachable integrity, then we must
believe he WILL implement gun control measures as President as HE
PROMISED!

Either he is lying and calling it “realism” or he will implement the
proposals of the Republican Party PLUS whatever “compromises” that must
be made with the Democrats to achieve whatever other goals they both
feel are more important than our pesky ole Constitution.

I have listened to the guy speak. So have you (apparently). So tell me,
when did he say that gun laws are unconstitutional and should be
rescinded? What has he said or done to show us he is ready to defy
Schumer, Brady, et al? Nothing!

And his record in Texas, in which you place so much stock, won’t carry him
through the power structure of Washington, DC.
--------

Now, in reference to your post at 09:11 PM
“And still, no word about why all the Bushbashing! Must be some reasons
way beyond yours and my comprehension, Cactus....” I understand your
political concepts are limited to the last four to eight years, but surely you
can understand that many of us can not check hourly for your posts!
Right? (Okay, so that was more like Ann Richards than Georgie. I’ll take
a minute to “look ashamed” as Gary Moore would say.) Just give me a
break over a time period from 12:45 to 9:11, okay?

As for your difficulty swallowing, see a political historian rather than a
medical doctor! The differences between the two parties are shouted from
the rooftops while they secretly make deals and compromises in the cloak
room.

You like facts, eh? Well the FACT remains that the Democrats and
Republicans, working together, have darned near voided the Bill of Rights.
That “HHUUGGEE difference ... between the 2 main parties” is largely a
debate over whether they want us fried or fricasseed!

These staged “pillow fights” result in combined unconstitutional violations
of our gun rights, our rights to be safe in our homes, our rights to
property, our right against self-incrimination, and (as expert TFLers can
tell you) it is getting worse instead of better.

So don’t talk to me in suave tones about “nuances”. Show me the Brady
bill rescinded. Show my daughter in New York being able to buy the
means to protect her life and the life of her son. Show me able to buy a
shotgun through mail order and have it shipped to me by UPS. Show me
able to return a firearm to the manufacturer for repairs without having the
darned thing registered by the government.

You’re cotton-picking right, “...that for some, due perhaps to repeated
disappointments with "the system", a certain "lack of faith" may have
found the way into your hearts.” And that lack of faith is in the lying
buggers implementing their “need” to reduce us to subservience.

And the sun also shines in Ft. Worth, that provincial suburb of Dallas ;), so
Bush’s plans to further restrict our gun rights will affect you just as it will
affect me and our children and grandchildren. If you can’t see that, then
maybe I’m not the only sufferer from excessive sunlight.

“Wake up now, here's your chance!!!!!” That’s a wonderful, wonderful call
to action! I agree! Wake up! The Republicans will infringe our gun rights
just as would Democrats - it only take Republicans longer to do it. So the
Republicans must become Republicans again, be absorbed by their
mentors (the Democrats), or simply fade from the scene. To say that the
next ten Presidents will come from this semi-monolithic establishment is a
terrible accusation, presuming incredible stupidity and blindness, of the
American voter.

The Republicans have promised more infringements of our Second
Amendment. Either they have the integrity to do what they say (in which
case I despise them) or they are liars (in which case I despise them).
 
UUUUUH, Dennis!

Not bad from someone from Pennsylvania ;)!

You sure know your "bushology"!

Yes, I remember good old Clayton and his unfortunate remark about weather, and I still have nightmares about Ann Richards!

She appears to me in my sleep, dressed like a shriveled madam of a "provincial suburb" ahem... establishment, clad in garters and blue wig, trying to seduce me out of my CHL.... My wife never figures out why I wake up screaming and shaking every night!

Sure, it would be nice if Bush would declare most gun laws unconstitutional!

But if not him, maybe our next Supreme Court will. Call me over-optimistic about this, but I have seen a slight but steady change in the Constitutional Scholars' stance about the "relevance" of the 2nd Amendment. That's why I am so adamant about NOT having Gore as the next president. I know that the decisive battle is imminent, somehow, and I believe that the future of the 2nd is going to be made or broken in the courts.

By the way, I was watching Hardball tonight, and I happened to see Gore's campaign ad. Not once, but TWICE was his "ongoing fight against the NRA and the proliferation of guns in America" mentioned as the whitest carnation in his political lapel......

Let me throw this at you, Dennis. Let's (just for argument's sake) suppose that Bush, Gore and, say, Ventura or Perot wind up as the 3 Presidential nominees. Do you really think that our Supreme Court would act the same way on the 2nd if ANY of the 3 get elected president? I personally think that we would be A LOT better off with W.

Thoughts?

------------------
If you are younger than 20 and not a Liberal, you have no heart.

If you are older than 20 and STILL a Liberal, you have no brain.
 
Dennis:

My hat goes off to you sir!

You are obviously seeing the same things that I am. Sheeple have all been so conditioned by the media's propaganda machine into believing that they all are freekin experts at political strategy. Arm chair strategists, kinda cool.

What once was an honorable job, to become President of the United States, is now one that no one really wants. Except that is, for those that are corrupted, corruptable, or simply order takers. Clinton was all three. Gore is all three. Forget about Bradley. George Junior, I'd guess that he's all three too.

George Junior is not a statesman, he's not even diplomatic, and he certainly isn't a leader. Imagine him as "Commander in Chief" of the Armed Forces. This is a guy who avoided Vietnam by enlisting in the Air National Guard (so he'd have "military experience" without being shot at). He's a former drug addict, alcoholic, and who knows what else. Not even to mention his many ties to the establishment (previously outlined). Is this who we want to have as our next president??? What kind of choice is that???

Shockingly so, I was telling friends over a year and a half ago that George W. Bush would be our next president. But that wasn't because I liked the guy, or even considered voting for him. It was because I understand how the game is played. I understand how powerful the establishment is (eventhough some of you still doubt their existence). I still believe George will be our next president without a single doubt, because of his powerful establishment backing. By the way, they are sort of like the mob, buying someone to get things done for them, as they bought Clinton, George's Dad, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, etc.

But buying into the big lie presented by the neo-Republican Party that they are the saviors and protectors of our freedom, is laughable at best. With a Republican controlled Congress over the past eight years we got the Brady Bill, the Assault Weapons Ban, etc., etc., and a host of unConstitutional executive orders which bypassed Congress without even a blink. Hmmm. Yeah that Republican Congress is fighting for our Rights all right!

Being a principled true Republican and Constitutionalist, Pat Buchanan HAD to get out of what he saw as a left leaning Republican Party, completely unfaithful to their own Party platform. He is a realist. He sees how Americans feel about their current government, how they distrust it, how they feel strangled by it, and intruded by it. If the Reform Party is the place where Pat stands the most chance of bringing out those that have stood silent, grinding their teeth at the corruption in Washington, then that is where he must go. He realizes that George is bought and paid for, and that in the neo-Republican Party he stood no chance at all.

Again just imagine, Thomas Jefferson running for president today. He'd be labeled everything from racist to right wing extremist, and you'd all be backing some establishment backed candidate that will absolutely violate his oath to office and continue to tread on the Rights you so deeply value. Because you're conditioned to believe that the right thing to do, is "protect the Republicans".

Without principle, what do you we really stand for?
 
Paul Revere,
In response to the question in the last sentence of your last post, would the answer be: "Going down in flames?"
 
MLT,

Better to go down in flames than to cower our way into subservience.

-------

Rigby,

You, Sir, are a stinker!

1) I was in Pennsylvania against my will! I got to Texas just as soon as I
could (and it was basic training! and it was ugly!).
2) At least I warned you (to protect your keyboard) before I shocked you
(by agreeing with much of what you had said). You dealt me a dirty blow
relating the nightmare of Ann Richards in garters! (shudder) No wonder
you wake up screaming and shivering! PTSD! :D :D
-------
Seriously, it would not be merely “nice” if Bush would declare most gun
laws unconstitutional! It would be the right thing to do - morally and
legally. If he did that I could forgive almost any other past transgression.
But, alas, we dream in vain.....
------
In your scenario of Gore, Bush, and a third party candidate:
1) Perot is history.
2) Ventura is not yet ready.
3) We (gun owners) lack a champion because there is no demand for one.
If we create a demand, supply will follow - it’s the law ( :) at least
according to my economics professor).

If gun owners and other voters who believe in the Constitution band
together, we would outnumber either of the two major parties. That is my
goal and political preoccupation at the moment. Those who say,
“Impossible” are those who are voting away our Constitution either quickly
(Democrats) or slowly (Republicans).

I truly fear that if we wait “just one more time” (again!) the two major
parties will have passed sufficient laws, regulations, directives, etc. that
their oligarchy will be more powerful than the ballot box.

As you note, Republicans have tried repeatedly to differentiate themselves
from the Democrats. However, their well-publicized “pillow fights” are
proven to be mere theatrics, a ploy to continue their cooperative
destruction of our Constitution. The laws they cooperatively create, in
violation of our ruling document, prove they are consolidating their power
over us. Therefore, any argument between the Democrats and their
Republicans are merely questions of methods - similar to the heated
arguments that used to occur in the Soviet Politburo among the various
extremes within the Communist Party.

When considering the Supreme Court nominees of the Democrat or
Republican parties, remember that these two parties have the same
eventual goals - only their timetable differs.

Again, I agree that at the moment, the Democrats probably would
nominate more radical gun control judges than would the Republicans.
But why choose between radical and moderate gun control when pro-gun
nominees are a possibility?

Why are so many of us so fatalistic about the loss of our rights? All we
would have to do is unite with other freedom-loving Americans and vote!

For a moment, let’s consider what you call the “not viable” alternative.
Can you imagine for a single moment that a third party President,
obviously elected because of his pro-Constitution stand, would nominate
the moderate gun control judges that Bush would select? Of course not.

We have the opportunity to return our government to Constitutional law,
but:
- We can not return to the Constitution without a champion, and
- We can not find a champion if we continue to vote for the demise of
freedom and liberty in America.

Therefore, even though I agree Bush is less radical than Gore in his (Bush's) current gun control goals, I can not vote for gun control by voting for Bush.
 
Dennis,
With all due respect, there's a vast difference between the primaries and the general election. In the primaries, it is extremely important that we do everything possible to nominate and support the candidates that hold our views sacred. Among the Republicans, GWB is NOT my first choice. All I have been saying is that if he is the party's choice ultimately, we should support him as the best of the electable candidates.

As I mentioned in a separate thread, it is the electoral votes that count in the general election, not the popular vote. The almost certain result in the general election (not defeatist, just realistic) is that Buchanan (or whoever runs for Reform) will come in a distant 3rd in popular votes and won't receive a single electoral vote. It isn't cowardly to want to advance the ball in the real world. I'm not saying you are wrong in your core beliefs (to be sure, I agree with them), I just think you're a little misguided on how to get the job done.
The reform party has no money and is not even on the ballot in a great number of states. Doesn't sound like the recipe for victory to me.

[This message has been edited by MLT (edited October 27, 1999).]
 
Paul, Paul...

I (and I guess Cactus and MLT), must be, as sheeple, so "conditioned" by the "establishment" that we actually thought that we have had a Republican Congress for 5 years (since the end of 94), not for 8 years as you state. Imagine to which point the "system" had us in a time-warp!!!! :)

And, if time has been such an illusion, it must mean that the Feinstein Amendment (the "assault weapon ban") and the Brady bill must indeed have been passed by a Rpublican-controlled house and senate, not, as we mistakenly thought, by a Pre-94-election Democratic majority.......

Plus, I thought it was us sheeple that believed everything the media said without questioning them. So why are you, Mr. Independent thinker, accusing Bush of having done illegal drugs? Have you smoked a pipe or two with Double-u and never invited us, is that how you know? ;)



------------------
If you are younger than 20 and not a Liberal, you have no heart.

If you are older than 20 and STILL a Liberal, you have no brain.
 
416,

I guess that MLT, you and I are just ignorant, easily fooled sheeple that are fortunate to have such "enlightened ones" to explain the error of our ways.

It amazes me that after the complaints regarding the ad-hominum attacks against their "saviour" Pat Buchanon, some of his supporters are now resorting to the same tatics against Gov. Bush. I had expected better. Drug addict, alchoholic, corrupt, draft dodger, stooge of the "elite", etc. Of all of these charges, the only one that has any basis in provable fact is that Gov. Bush has admitted to having a drinking problem. Many of his friends and associates have said that he would drink to excess on occasion but that they did not consider him an alchoholic. I'm sure that none of here have ever had one to many!

As for the charge that Gov. Bush only joined the National Guard to save his butt, it should be remembered that flying fighter jets is far from safe even in peace time. There are many more places he could have gone to keep safe. People should also consider that Pat Buchanon has NEVER served a single day in the armed forces before charging Gov. Bush with a lack of courage.

To express difference with Gov. Bush's political opinions is fair game, but to quote rumors and inuendo as fact is less than honorable.

Dennis writes that it is no big deal that Gov. Bush signed concealed carry into law, its not like he wrote the law. In my state, Washington, the Legislature writes the laws and the Govenor signs them. It sounds like that is how it works in Texas too. If Gov. Bush wrote the laws and also signed them, wouldn't that make him a dictator?

I hate to burst Paul's bubble, but Thomas Jefferson WAS a racist by our standards. He has written that he felt that blacks were not equal to whites and were not worthy of full citizenship. Thomas Jefferson was also a great man that we should honor, but he was not perfect.

I and others have asked many questions of the third party supporters and conspiracy buffs but all we get in return is a regurgitation of; it's the Trilateral Commission, it's the CFR, it's Skull and Bones, it's the elite, it's his old man, it's rigged, yada, yada, yada. It's very difficult to respond to unsubstantiated plots and rumors.

Pat Buchanon is being held up as this honorable man who never compromises his principles, unlike Republicans. Because of this, he had to leave the GOP because it was getting to "liberal". Yet he joins a party that is made up of socialists, communists, liberals and assorted oddballs. This is sticking to principle? Maybe Pat Buchanon feels that the American people distrust the two major parties, but he should look at the fact that a far greater number distrust him. From my vantage point, the ideals of the GOP are still much closer to the ideals of Ronald Reagan than Gerald Ford or Richard Nixon. Pat Buchanon is the one who has changed, not the party.



[This message has been edited by Cactus (edited October 27, 1999).]
 
See,

the big bone I have to pick with Buchanan has to do with his (to my mind) preposterous views on the economy.

"But wait (some of you may say), what does that have to do with the RKBA?"

Indirectly, a lot. His protectionist views betray a faith in the role of Big Brother and a willingness to expand the role of the Federal Government that I am uncomfortable with.

---------

He is supposed to save us from the establishment - so why is he proposing to use the same to harness our economy?

------------------
If you are younger than 20 and not a Liberal, you have no heart.

If you are older than 20 and STILL a Liberal, you have no brain.
 
Being true to your "god" (in this case, RKBA) vs. voting for the best among the available, electable choices. Going to heaven vs. supporting that imperfect Republican candidate. These choices just make you want to puke, don't they? True, we can do the best to make as loud and clear an uncompromised statement, and we will likely lose the general election. That obviously is more appealing to some of our purest brethren than our (416, Cactus, nralife and me) objective of winning back the White House with the best of the electable candidates. I guess I'm just a fallen, corrupt, ethically-challenged, value devoid SOB.
 
106K+...start part 2.

And just an observation: as little as 2 months ago, you staunch Repulicans were telling the Independents that they were full of it, stupid and mislead and that you were the keepers of sacred writ; fact is you do the same thing the Liberals do..to whit..ridicule and belittle, engage in histrionics when you are on top then play the hurt feelings, picked on and sympathy ploy when you aren't on top. Just an observation ;)

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top