Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Is it time to throw pat under the boxcar..er bus?
self | June 20, 2008 | Huck

Posted on 06/20/2008 9:02:50 AM PDT by Huck

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-118 last
To: sobieski
"Why? B/c he sees the Iraq war as being horribly misplayed?"

Nope. I agree with him 100% on that. If Iran ends up with nuclear weapons capability, it will be because of Bush's decision to invade Iraq.

Fact is, I agree with him on about 85% of his positions. However, at this point I feel it's not unjust to label him as a Neo-Nazi, or at least a Nazi sympathizer and don't wish to see conservatism conflated with white supremacy. Why give the liberals ammo?

Pat's showing very poor judgement in publishing this type of piece for public consumption. A good conservative should know better.
101 posted on 06/20/2008 11:03:45 AM PDT by CowboyJay (There's always 2012...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Huck

I think it’s fine to make clear that Pat Buchanan doesn’t represent you. In fact, it’s your right.


102 posted on 06/20/2008 11:19:46 AM PDT by popdonnelly (Does Obama know ANYONE who likes America, capitalism, or white people?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Huck
One "let him bleat" vote here. The MSM are generally determined to misrepresent conservatives anyway, and Pat's only the latest talking head to be used in that direction. At some point only liberals are going to be listening to him and then only to indulge in the illusion that we're as easily dismissable as Pat has become.

I wouldn't insult my liberal friends by asserting to their faces that Keith Olbermann speaks for them. Well, actually I would. But I'm not dumb enough to really believe it. ;-)

103 posted on 06/20/2008 11:29:08 AM PDT by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sobieski

“What are you, the Grand Inquisitor?”

You’re comparing Pat Buchanon to Jesus Christ?


104 posted on 06/20/2008 11:32:55 AM PDT by MeanWestTexan (Kol Hakavod Mossad!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: MeanWestTexan; Huck

I find it fascinating how otherwise not dumb people can go off the deep end because of their Jooo paranoia. Pat is one of them. A few others I knew on the conservative side, and that used to be prominent enough, have disappeared lately (good riddance): Joe Sobran and Charlie Reese. I remember reading a good number of their essays, agreeing with most they were saying, and then suddenly stumbling on the “Joooo” ones. That was a shock. What a Jooo can do to a “nice” guy. Amazing.

What a waste.


105 posted on 06/20/2008 11:36:07 AM PDT by Tolik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Huck
I don't put much stock in letter-writing campaigns or boycotts, especially when the company for whom Buchanan most frequently works, MSNBC, is a fully functioning arm of the DLC. As John Candy ("Del Griffith") says in "Planes, Trains, and Automobiles," "We'd have a better chance of playing pickup sticks with our butt cheeks!"

Patsy knows he's being played, and is going along with it, which should tell people a lot. He more values "face time" on television than an honest outlet to further genuine conservative principles. Don't watch . . . but it won't make any difference. Olbermann, Larry King, and Chrissy Matthes right now have zero audience between them, and the networks keep promoting them.

106 posted on 06/20/2008 11:38:59 AM PDT by LS (CNN is the Amtrak of News)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Prokopton

“Some here at FR bandy about terms like Nazi or antisemitic in a much too free wheeling way similar to the way liberals use the racist moniker.”

Sure. Pat, however, flat out denies -— the in face of incontrovertable evidence -— (like Hitler’s own book, speeches made in 1935 on the “Final Solution”) that it was Hitler’s intent to kill every Jewish person he could find.

Taken with the fact that Pat seemingly has never met a Nazi he didn’t like (from war criminals he thought should be forgiven because they’re old men to blaming Churchill for WWII), he’s just gone beyond where decent company should tolerate him.

He’s an anti-semetic bastard -— and he is used by the liberal media to give the impression that conservatives are Nazis.

We should not let this bastard speak for us.


107 posted on 06/20/2008 11:41:46 AM PDT by MeanWestTexan (Kol Hakavod Mossad!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: CowboyJay

“at this point I feel it’s not unjust to label him as a Neo-Nazi, or at least a Nazi sympathizer and don’t wish to see conservatism conflated with white supremacy. Why give the liberals ammo?”

BINGO!


108 posted on 06/20/2008 11:43:47 AM PDT by MeanWestTexan (Kol Hakavod Mossad!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Huck

I don’t consider Pat Buchanan to be ON the Republican / conservative bus. Even if he occasionally is decent, being an anti-Semite disqualifies him completely.

He should not be considered a spokesman for our positions, but the left might want to keep him out there for obvious reasons. We need to intensely disassociate from him whenever possible.


109 posted on 06/20/2008 11:47:22 AM PDT by Yaelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sobieski
One’s level of support for a foreign country does not determine if one is an American conservative or not. Israel is like Bosnia; ultimately, not decisive for America and her interests

I agree with you completely.

110 posted on 06/20/2008 12:05:54 PM PDT by E. Cartman (Just say "No" to mug-whores.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: CowboyJay
He’s officially off his rocker at this point, and yes something needs to be done to distance him in the public eye from mainstream conservatism.

But most of his insights are still well worth noting. The trick with anyone (and pat is just an extreme example) is to separate his wheat from his chaff.

111 posted on 06/20/2008 12:09:34 PM PDT by E. Cartman (Just say "No" to mug-whores.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy
... until he complained of the illegal aliens showing up in his front yard. Not the Mexico kind, the Alpha Centari kind.

So, d'you think maybe he meant AlGore?

112 posted on 06/20/2008 12:10:59 PM PDT by E. Cartman (Just say "No" to mug-whores.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Tolik; MeanWestTexan; Huck
I remember reading a good number of their essays, agreeing with most they were saying, and then suddenly stumbling on the “Joooo” ones. That was a shock. What a Jooo can do to a “nice” guy. Amazing.

What a waste. ******************************************************

If you want an example of a virulently anti-Semitic leftist, look no further than Gore Vidal, AlGore's queer cousin.

113 posted on 06/20/2008 12:14:38 PM PDT by E. Cartman (Just say "No" to mug-whores.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Huck

While I don’t agree with what Pat says at times regarding leftist/conservative ideology, for me his biggest problem is his continual focus on Hitler.

Pat has destroyed any credibility he ever had, by continuing to try to explain away the worst of Hitler.

I have probably defended the guy on this forum as much or more than anyone who is here.

I no longer can. He should retire, and if he doesn’t the media should retire him. He has nothing to say that isn’t an example of brain dead logic, or if it isn’t, won’t be damaged by his support for whatever it is.

Go away Pat.


114 posted on 06/20/2008 12:46:44 PM PDT by DoughtyOne ( I say no to the Hillary Clinton wing of the Republican party. Not now or ever, John McCain...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cyber Liberty
then our arguments about the Leftists trying to silence people with whom they disagree will become a little more difficult to defend.

...and they might publish him, just to point at him and laugh at us anyway.

115 posted on 06/20/2008 1:25:30 PM PDT by ApplegateRanch (The Great Obamanation of Desolation, attempting to sit in the Oval Office, where he ought not..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: MeanWestTexan

The Grand Inquisitor was the guardian of orthodoxy for the Spanish State.


116 posted on 06/21/2008 11:06:54 AM PDT by sobieski
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: sobieski

No, that is “the [first second, third] Grand Inquisitor of [Spain, Mexico, etc].

Just “The Grand Inquisitor” is a fictional character:

The Grand Inquisitor is a parable told by Ivan to Alyosha in Fyodor Dostoevsky’s novel, The Brothers Karamazov (1879-1880). Ivan and Alyosha are brothers; Ivan is a committed atheist and Alyosha is a novice monk.

The Grand Inquisitor is an important part of the novel and one of the best-known passages in modern literature because of its ideas about human nature and freedom, and because of its fundamental ambiguity.

The parable

The tale is told by Ivan with brief interruptive questions by Alyosha. In the tale, Christ comes back to earth in Seville at the time of the Inquisition. He performs a number of miracles (echoing miracles from the Gospels). The people recognize him and adore him, but he is arrested by Inquisition leaders and sentenced to be burnt to death the next day. The Grand Inquisitor visits him in his cell to tell him that the Church no longer needs him. The main portion of the text is the Inquisitor explaining to Jesus why his return would interfere with the mission of the church.

The Inquisitor frames his denunciation of Jesus around the three questions Satan asked Jesus during the temptation of Christ in the desert. These three are the temptation to turn stones into bread, the temptation to cast Himself from the Temple and be saved by the angels, and the temptation to rule over all the kingdoms of the world. The Inquisitor states that Jesus rejected these three temptations in favor of freedom. The Inquisitor thinks that Jesus has misjudged human nature, though. He does not believe that the vast majority of humanity can handle the freedom which Jesus has given them. Thus, he implies that Jesus, in giving humans freedom to choose, has excluded the majority of humanity from redemption and doomed humanity to suffer.

Despite declaring the Inquisitor to be an atheist, Ivan also implies that the Inquisitor and the Church follow “the wise spirit, the dread spirit of death and destruction,” i.e. the Devil, Satan, for he, through compulsion, provided the tools to end all human suffering and unite under the banner of the Church. The multitude then is guided through the Church by the few who are strong enough to take on the burden of freedom. The Inquisitor says that under him, all mankind will live and die happily in ignorance. Though he leads them only to “death and destruction,” they will be happy along the way. The Inquisitor will be a self-martyr, spending his life to keep choice from humanity. He states that “Anyone who can appease a man’s conscience can take his freedom away from him.”

The segment ends when Christ, who has been silent throughout, kisses the Inquisitor on his “bloodless, aged lips” (22) instead of answering him. On this, the Inquisitor releases Christ but tells him never to return. Christ, still silent, leaves into “the dark alleys of the city.” Not only is the kiss ambiguous, but its effect on the Inquisitor is as well. Ivan concludes, “The kiss glows in his heart, but the old man adheres to his ideas.” The kiss that Christ plants on the lips of the Grand Inquisitor is the equal of Christ’s whispered words to Judas (John 13.27) “that thou doest, do quickly.” Just as Jesus in no way condones Judas’ betrayal, so Christ’s kiss does not excuse the Grand Inquisitor.

Not only does the parable function as a philosophical and religious work in its own right, but it also furthers the character development of the larger novel. Clearly, Ivan identifies himself with the Inquisitor. After relating the tale, Ivan asks Alyosha if he “renounces” Ivan for his views. Alyosha responds by giving Ivan a soft kiss on the lips, to which the delighted Ivan replies, “Literary theft!.....Thank you, however.” The brothers part soon afterwards.

According to Dostoevsky’s own letters, even the author struggled with the questions posed in the Grand Inquisitor and wondered and worried how they might affect even the faith of the reader. Dostoevsky himself could not come up with a straight answer, but rather put forth the life of the Elder Zossima, which follows almost immediately this chapter, as his “answer” to Ivan’s questions. Therefore the Grand Inquisitor cannot be fully understood without reading it with the chapters on the life of the Elder Zossima and subsequent chapters.


117 posted on 06/23/2008 7:43:29 AM PDT by MeanWestTexan (Kol Hakavod Mossad!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Huck

Censor him? No.

Clearly disassociate and denounce his views in a concerted effort? Yes.


118 posted on 06/23/2008 6:58:23 PM PDT by Bryan24 (When in doubt, move to the right..........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-118 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson