Did Pat give credit for his title? I refuse to read the article to find out. He's almost as crazy as Perot.
Posted on 09/25/2005 8:25:02 AM PDT by RepublicNewbie
Pat Buchanan is a nutjob.
Pat never did have a sense of humor.
Gee Pat where should they put the killing fields this time? Iraq? Kuwait? The West Bank?
> DeLay says there is simply no more fat to be found.
Rush opined that DeLay was attempting to indulge in some
Limbaugh-like ironic satire.
When Limbaugh spoofs an oppositionist position, he doesn't
care if a large number of people don't get it.
DeLay needs to care.
Did Pat give credit for his title? I refuse to read the article to find out. He's almost as crazy as Perot.
Pat Buchanan is a nutjob.
-----
Yes, but is what he has written here incorrect? The essence of the article is not Pat, but RUNAWAY PORK SPENDING which is very real...and the Congress is at the heart of it. From GWB to the Repubs in Congress -- where is the yelling and screaming about grossly excessive waste and fraud in government spending? I certainly don't hear it. Not to any consequence.
If DeLay is truly saying what Pat claims, then we do have a real problem with DeLay...but really, the problem again lies with the Congress and the administration relative to spending policy...and its well-known excesses.
--amen---
He's good at sabotaging 3rd parties, tho.
>>>>David Keene of the American Conservative Union... noted that, even before Katrina, "spending was spiraling out of control" and conservatives were "losing faith" in Bush and the Republican Congress.
If PresBush had cut spending like he cut taxes, conservatives would be jumping for joy. Even a spending freeze would work well. Instead Bush hasn't vetoed one single spending bill from the majority GOP Congress. Who is the leader of the GOP? PresBush!
This paragraph applies to the retards here who call Pat a nutcase.
Assume what you say is true: precisely how does that invalidate his point?
If George Bush (43) were a Democrat, many of the people who are now "solidly" behind him would be screaming for his head.
Folks, how is the Democrats blindly supporting an obviously flawed President Clinton different from Republicans blindly supporting an obviously flawed President Bush?
Any point we had to make in the middle east has long since been made. We're not going to impose our values on the middle east, the money we're spending could be put to much better use and the troops involved would be doing more if they were used to guard our borders.
The biggest difference between Republican proposals and those of the Democrats is that the Republicans are spending more of your money than would have been possible if Kerry had won.
The best analogy I can think of for the situation is Studio Wrestling.
Your party affiliation determines who the good/bad guys are and the referees are the court system.
You pay money to watch the show and afterwards the players and refs go out drinking together and laugh about the idiots in the stands, and the people in the stands go home and complain about how the ref shafted their guy.
For the most part, politics is studio wrestling for the slightly better educated.
Until as much money as possible is removed from DC, this won't change.
Pat Buchanan is a tad pessimistic, but in this case, I think he makes a valid point. The Republican Party is clearly no longer the party of small government. In my view, true conservatives are a distinct minority. Even though the Republicans are in control, RINOs and Democrats are calling the shots.
There was a time when people put their faith in God and each other. Now they prefer to trust bureaucrats. Watch Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy for a good idea of how bureaucrats operate!
Now I'm not saying government won't be able to do the same things individuals can do for themselves. Clearly, government can fight the war in Iraq, rebuild the Gulf Coast, pay everybody's college education, etc, etc, etc. However, realize government is naturally very inefficient--extremely so.
True conservatives want the same things as liberals. We all want people to live healthy and happy lives. However, conservatives know government is NOT the answer to every problem.
If we continue to spend money like there is no tomorrow, we will ultimately devalue our currency. When a typical pension no longer buys a loaf of bread, Americans have no one to blame but theirselves.
Truly, there is something seriously wrong about a Republican Party which answers every problem with a new government program!
The Taft-Goldwater-Reagan-Helms Republicans were prepared to pay the political price for saying "No." But just as the Democrats of the 1930s found the formula for permanent power in "tax and tax, spend and spend, elect and elect," as Harold Ickes Sr. put it, the Bush Republicans and Big Government Conservatives of the 1990s believe they have found an even surer formula for permanent power: "Cut taxes, spend and spend, elect and elect." Whether they have or not we will discover in the fall of 2006, but already the battle is being joined inside the GOP, and it will be fought out in the primaries of 2008: deficit hawks vs. Big Government conservatives.
One day, not far off, Americans must choose: Either we keep the empire -- or our munificent welfare state. Either we raise taxes and pay as we go -- or we run deficits until foreigners cease to lend us the money and the dollar goes the way of the peso.
When Republican leaders are saying there is no more fat in the federal budget, the proper political translation is that the Grand Old Party of Taft, Goldwater, Reagan and Helms is no more. We have become the very people we went into politics to run out of town.
hiredhand wrote: "The pattern of Pat and others like him is to bring up some element of truth in a problem, and then exploit it for his own gain."
With all due respect, how is Buchanan exploiting this for his own gain?
Exactly.
RATkiller wrote: "This paragraph applies to the retards here who call Pat a nutcase."
So calling fellow Freepers retards is somehow better than them calling Pat a nutcase?!? How about a fair exchange of ideas on both sides of the issue without the name calling?
The truth is, I strongly disagree with Buchanan on many points, like his stand on Israel, but in this case, he's on target.
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.