Should we discriminate on ports deal? You bet! [Buchanan is right for America]

World Net Daily ^ | 2 -25-06 | Pat Buchanan

[Dante3]

I agree. In this case Pat is right. Yet some posters full of bitterness about their life and resort to personal attacks - it is usually done when one is unable to make a case. Others may want to divert from Pat's position. In any case, their rants reflect more on them than on Pat.

[Dante3]

You sound if you have had a few too many. Read your statement and see how stupid you sound.

[Alberta's Child]

I think Pat misses a very important point here.

If we are supposed to have a "preferential option" for certain foreign countries like Great Britain, and a British-owned company has been offered $6.8 billion for the sale of their assets (including operating leases at a number of port terminals in the U.S.), then who are we to tell them that they can't accept the offer because we don't like the person or parties they are selling to?

It seems to me that to be fair here, the U.S. really ought to step up to the plate and match the UAE company's offer of $6.8 billion -- and then sell off everything except the U.S. leases to the highest bidder.

[ex-snook]

Right you are with "Yet some posters full of bitterness about their life and resort to personal attacks"

Few posters even attempt to refute Pat's truth. What bugs some posters is Pat puts America before all countries and working American citizens before new world order economic interests.

Pat is obviously right for America. He is like old time prophets calling attention to needed corrections and just like them, he is hated for it.

[Alberta's Child]

I think it has been pretty conclusively illustrated here on FreeRepublic that both Peter King and Chuck Schumer are utterly full of sh!t. Neither one of them gives a damn about the "security" aspects of this deal, as evidenced by their astonishing ignorance of the actual facts of the acquisition.

I hold King in particular contempt on this, since he's the guy who is supposed to be the chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

I think he's referring to the decision in 1994 by the Gulf Corporation Council to drop its secondary boycott of goods that are made in countries that have diplomatic relations and trade with Israel.

I presume that the UAE was a signatory to that agreement.

That's a far cry from "having major business deals" with Israel.

[Borges]

It is always amusing to see Catholics attack Buchanan, just because he has consistently opposed the anti-Catholic neocon philosophy which they have embraced.

How is Neo-Conservatism anti-Catholic?

[Thorin]

>>>>>>How is Neo-Conservatism anti-Catholic?

In the sense that its philosophical premises--rooted in the Englightenment and indeed in the Marxist strain of the Enlightenment--are opposed to the position of the Church. Neoconservatism is an offshoot of Trotskyism, which is why undoubted anti-Catholics like Christopher Hitchens have been attracted to it.

[jd777]

Neocons, under pressure, might toss out that word protectionism. Like it carries some weight. Meanwhile we have a 700 billion dollar a year trade deficit. Open markets, No borders, and our ports are foreign owned.

What protectionism?

[Pelham]

He likes to see the kook fringe play the Nazi card.

[Pelham]

I hate when these threads turn into Anti-Buchanan rants

The usual suspects do it every time. It's a variation of the shout-down tactic the hard left uses against conservative speakers on campus, to prevent them from being heard. When you hate what the speaker says you disrupt the speech with cries of Nazi, racist, and the rest of the lefty lexicon. Here they do it by spamming threads.

[stop_fascism]

Even if that were true, to paraphrase, the much hated by Pat, Winston Churchill, Tomorrow I'll be sober, and you'll still be a patsy.

[joe fonebone]

Thank you for your carefully researched answers to my questions. There are still some people on this board with intellegence.

[kellynch]

I think I can live with that!

[Zionist Conspirator]

Yep . . . Pat's a really confused individual(s)!

I bet he didn't lionize Hamilton's central bank, did he?

[wideawake]

He likes to see the kook fringe play the Nazi card.

The question is, why is he playing the Nazi card by using Nazi catchphrases?

[wideawake]

Actually, the trade issue isn't a big thing with me.

I know. I was pinging for the "American blood and soil" rhetoric.

Of course, right along with the protective tariff the Federalist tradition also champions the Central Bank--an issue on which Buch's bunch suddenly morphs into Thomas Jefferson. Can't have a Central Bank, you know . . . after all, "You Know Who" would run it.

Fascinating, isn't it?

[Pelham]

You're the one playing the Nazi card.

[wideawake]

You're the one playing the Nazi card.

Buchanan started talking about "blood and soil" first. I'm asking why he used that phraseology in the first place.

Think before you post.

[jammer]

He didn't have a problem with Saddam Hussein.

Reference to support that?