Posted on 04/02/2015 2:32:12 AM PDT by Reaganite Republican
***ping***
Pat’s dismissal of Ahmadinejad on Hannity is just too reminiscent of Obama’s “tiny country” dismissal of Iran.
He really sounds like he’s losing it... Mr Buchanan has painted himself into a corner for years with his increasingly fanatical isolationist views,
and world events are now invalidating them thoroughly, imo
He said Ahmedinjad ‘didn’t do anything’ (aggressive) for his 8 years- imo he did all he could possible get away with
If he’s referring to Israel, Iran was not -and remains- incapable of confronting the IDF
The default foreign policy position of almost every political person these days is: American intervention. In short, war. This includes bombing, ground troops, and even forced economic sanctions.
Buchanan merely presents a counter argument to them.
All he needs to say:
The USA cannot afford to intervene militarily and defend other nations, nor does it have the moral imperative, the omniscience to choose the “correct” side and mitigate all the unintended consequences, or the leadership ability.
Looking how you keep posting to yourself you seem a bit of attention seeker here. But I’ll take the bait.
You’re graphic isn’t funny, but even if it were your target is a 77 year old man who hasn’t participated in government or politics or elections since 2000. He has no say or sway in anything. He is all but retired. Perhaps you might find someone actually involved and at least partially responsible for current predicaments to make a caption about?
I find your handle comical given the target of your poorly captioned picture, dishing on a man who was the FRIGGIN communications director for Ronaldus Magnus himself, PJB actually WAS a Reaganite Republican.
Finally, you dish on a man who in three tremendous volumes starting 17 years ago laid out the case to prevent the absurd destruction of our great America, despite Reagan’s restoration, right before our eyes. The Great Betrayal, A Republic Not an Empire and Death of the West were the warnings of the complete decline of our beautiful, wonderful, amazing country and no one would listen. We’d still be an economic colossus, we’d still hold our place as the globe’s heavyweight champion, we wouldn’t have to worry about our demographic balance vanishing without ever even getting to vote on it. No one would give a rat’s behind about what anyone in Iran said about anything.
The truth is we can’t really do anything about what Iran does, not right now anyway. We probably don’t have the economic power to fight for real, certainly we don’t have the Patriotism of the populace required to do so, we’ve shipped our economy overseas, borrowed operating expenses from China, hitch rides to the space station from Russia (!), 1/3 of adults don’t even work (yeah, you’ll get them to fight) and kids can’t even wear American Flag tee shirts to school anymore.
Maybe you can do Pete DuPont wearing Depends next?
Did you watch the tape from Fox News w Hannity?
Buchanan sounded delusional
I agree with most of his domestic observations, and have read Buchanan’s books
Used to enjoy him greatly on McLaughlin FOR YEARS...
but what Pat Buchanan said on Fox yesterday borders on lunacy
Because he worked for Reagan I have to like Buchanan’s 2015 isolationist foreign policy ‘ideas’- or there’s something wrong with me?
He’s the one who’s way off the track... why don’t you stick to the points noted above, I never said a peep about Pat Buchanan’s domestic views- ever.
btw, Did you hear Pat’s defense of the Charlie Hedbo terrorists on McLaughlin Report?
All he had to say is ‘they were provoked’, because we ‘slandered the prophet’- he sounds like he doesn’t believe in any of the things I do (and I’m Catholic too)
And his excuse-making for V. Putin is appalling- doesn’t sound like he remembers what it even means to be a Reaganite, certainly on foreign policy
They are not increasing fanatical views, just more exposed. He is a Poster Boy for the John Birch Soceity, which has always been extremely antisemitic. Buchanan gained some ground with conservative isolationists early in his career, but the longer he lives, the spots come out on his Leopard skin. He told Hannity ‘who cared about the ramblings of Ahmedinjad? My point is who cares about Buchanan? At least the midget was honest about his antisemitism—Buchanan crouches behind isolationism to hide his..Just my opinion.
I have swirled this thought around in my mind as well
Note how he says to Hannity ‘YOUR friend Bibi...’ did this or that
What is that supposed to mean?
Pat Buchanan on Defense: Jun 12, 1999
Expand defense budget for expanded global commitments
Under Clinton-Gore, our global commitments have expanded, but our defenses have declined. A Buchanan Administration will restore funding to our hollowed forces, honor to our ranks, and safety to our shores. We will not splinter our strength by committing American forces where no vital national interests are at stake, and will reclaim international credibility by establishing a clear, consistent foreign policy that keeps our interests first, our forces strong, and our nation secure.
Source: www.GoPatGo.org/ “Issues: Rebuilding Military”
Uh. Step off the ledge and breathe into the bag.
These “opinion” shows that have you so riled are news junkies’ pseudo intellectual professional wrestling and reality TV rolled into one.
They aren’t real. They are all fixed one way or another depending on the network or the host to draw viewers.
They are entertainment. Fiction to play on watchers sense of powerlessness and need to see someone “fight” their fight. Repeated ad nausem, they resolve nothing, enighten no one and new “outrages” are spun like a weekly episode script on Breakin Bad.
Do you remember Hannity AND Colmes?
Was it balanced?
It was no more real than the Washington Senators and the Harlem Globetrotters.
Get out more. Attend your local council meetings and GOP Central Committees and be indignant there about real issues and risks.
Fight. Don’t waste time on this crap.
Also, the moment you attack the person and start yapping about “delusional:, anti-Semite, insane, John Birchers, etc....you loose any readers worth having.
But, that is just my opinion and I don’t feel strongly about it.
Nice Freudian slip there. While I agree that the Washington Senators were only nominally a “real” major-league baseball team throughout most of their existence, I think you meant the Washington Generals.
“The USA cannot afford to intervene militarily and defend other nations, nor does it have the moral imperative, the omniscience to choose the “correct” side and mitigate all the unintended consequences, or the leadership ability.”
Sounds like Rand Paul.
On the Left/liberal end of the spectrum, we have Wilsonian interventionists (in today's world, the Clintonites) as well as pacifists. On the right/conservative end of the spectrum, there have always been "isolationists" (i.e. Republicans who opposed Wilson and getting involved in WWI, the America First committee, and today, libertarian and paleoconservative "isolationists" like Paul and Buchanan) as well as interventionists hawks (neoconservatives like Bolton, etc).
Actually, Reagan's foreign policy was somewhere in between the neoconservative interventionist and the paleoconservative "isolationist" view of things. He, along with Eagleburger, Weinberger, etc. are foreign policy realists - they're not interested in nation-building or "spreading Democracy" (a view they share with libertarians and paleoconservatives), but they're more willing to resort to force over diplomacy to protect our strategic interests. Case in point: Reagan did bomb Libya, but he also withdrew US troops from Lebanon after Marine barracks were bombed there, because he felt that it wasn't our war.
Bottom line is that both neoconservatives and libertarians/paleoconservatives claim Reagan as their own, and they're both equally wrong (or right?).
start yapping about “delusional:, anti-Semite, insane, John Birchers, etc”
___________________________________________________
None of these terms appear in my above post...
As for my motivations and actions in support of Reaganite conservatism, you have no idea who I am or what I’m involved with.
And fyi it’s just Pat Buchanan that has me ‘riled’... I turned on him for good when he started defending Vladimir Putin’s ‘right’ to an empire- while all Buchanan ever talks about is how WE aren’t supposed to have one, even of the ‘soft power’ variety
He sounds almost EXACTLY like Rand Paul -minus the pot and amnesty- where he makes sense on size of government, Constitution, etc... and foreign policy sounds like it’s coming from some hippy
I have yet to hear a good rebuttal from the neoconservatives of the following point that Pat Buchanan makes: if Nixon can sit down and negotiate with a monster like Chairman Mao (who had the death of millions on his hands, and, indirectly in Vietnam, the death of tens of thousands of Americans) and Reagan can negotatiate with leaders of what he rightly called the Evil Empire, what is intrinsically treasonous about negotiating with Iran? How is Iran so much more dangerous than Communist China or the USSR, and are we really supposed to believe that Mao Tse Tung was somehow so much more reasonable and friendly towards us than Hassan Rouhani?
A current Buchanan clone is Grover Norquist, who conservatives clamor for his tax views, but don’t take the time to learn what his real values are—one of the major enabler of Islamic organizations in America (for whatever reason.) As it has been said, don’t trust the person that “says he is righteous” but his actions suggest otherwise..That is how Obama has gotten such power.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.