Posted on 06/20/2008 9:02:50 AM PDT by Huck
And if "The Nation" or "The Socialist News" or whatever crap they read started publishing someone that they didn't like, that they felt misrepresented their views, they'd be totally justified in letting the publishers know. It's a free market.
I read a column of Pat’s a week or so ago and it was the first in a long time, it reminded me of why I stopped reading him.
Glad to hear.
I agree. Rather than get a serious Republican who believes in national security, they get Patsy so they can simultaneously portray Republicans as crazy, religious zealots and at the same time, double their bashing of Bush foreign policy.
Pat has had some pretty wacky ideas. But, that being said, he was also among the first to recognize that the GOP had strayed off the conservative reservation, that NAFTA and "free trade" are ultimately bad for America, that uncontrolled immigration WILL mean the death of The Republic and that GW Bush was never really a conservative.
Throw Buchanan beneath the bus for his crazy ideas only after you've first thrown under folks such as Mike Medved, Irving Kristol, Fred Barnes and even GW Bush.
No, you did the right thing. Real conservatives should have chosen Perot over Poppy Bush.
Historical hindsight is twenty/twenty.
Sure, we can ignore his articles, but that's not the point...seems we just can't keep the worst of us off of the TV and we certainly don't want others to think he represents us in any way.
“Rather than get a serious Republican who believes in national security, they get Patsy so they can simultaneously portray Republicans as crazy, religious zealots and at the same time, double their bashing of Bush foreign policy.”
Yep, I am tired of the go-to conservative commentator being this little Nazi. Who has time to put together a list of who to contact and how?
World Net Daily
TownHall
Fox News? -— probably need to break down by show
MSNBC
I guess you haven’t read the book. There is no doubt that WWII was ‘unnecessary’, in that errors drove the world to war. Starting with that dingbat Wilson, the reparations, the weak response of the West to Hitler’s rearment, and the fact that Hitler knew England’s guarantee to Poland was not worth the paper it was written on. Pat himself says that, once the battle was joined, it became necessary and he dedicates the book to his uncles who were veterans of that war. As he says, the war was not a good war for Poland, which lost 6 million non-combatants to racial genocide and was swallowed up by the Soviets coming out of it. 90% of Warsaw destroyed, 65% of Poznan, etc. Clearly not the best outcome of the British ‘guarantee’.
Get a grip. First of all, I'm not suggesting "intimidation." I'm suggesting giving conservative publications, who theoretically serve our cause, constructive feedback. What intimidation? I'm not suggesting anything other than expressing an opinion. It'd be totally up to them of course what to do about it.
Second, as I pointed out several times, he's free to be published wherever they'll have him. Your hysterics are comical, but misplaced. As consumers of conservative publications, we have every right and perhaps a duty to give feedback, positive and negative, to the publications that supposedly give us voice in the public forum.
Censorship is not a good idea .... but if you like it so much, perhaps you'd be more at home living in Russia or Communist China?
LOL! Sober up!
It’s free association, and just as Obama is rightly (har har) criticized for associating with Wright, conservative publications can and perhaps should be criticized for associating with PJB.
Exactly, Huck.
Do these fellows simply represent the libertarian, constitutionalist or "paleo-conservative" view points?
If so, then the question becomes, how many of them are there, and do conservative Republicans (i.e., Freepers) need them to win elections?
I suspect the answer is, they are quite few in numbers, and will not be voting for McCain anyway. Whether that will help elect Obama is still unclear.
Again I've got to disagree with you. Yeah, he's a wack job, but when he hits the ball, he hits it way out of the ballpark.
Forgive me if I give anyone offense, but first putting arguments of divine inspiration aside, I'd bet my last shekel that prophets such as Isaiah, Jeremiah, Elijah and John the Bapist would all have seemed pretty wacky if their stories weren't probably cleaned up by later exegetes.
At least he recognizes the 9 million Slavs who were exterminated as well as the Jews. The Holocaust deniers are those who at best call the Holocaust “six million jews and others”
You are a long time and well established freeper. What do you think the general view on the board would be to an organized effort to provide feedback to conservative publications that publish him that we’d prefer they didn’t, and let him find a home in the Storm Front Weekly News or Nazi Weekly or perhaps Al Jazeera?
The left is going to believe about us whatever they want. It's truly a sad day when we begin looking over our shoulders, worrying what they think of us.
I'm not aware of any idea that is reliant upon PJB for expression (other than perhaps Nazi apologias.) Anything he's saying, Lou Dobbs is saying, minus the goose step. Or Tancredo.
I guess I'd say there's an awful lot of bathwater and not much baby. Throw it out.
Who's "us"? Neocons? LOL!
Go Pat Go!
I'm not really sure. I don't know much about Ron Paul. I think he has quite a few Bircher types in his ranks, though. But Ron Paul is competing in the political arena. He's not presented by conservative publications as a conservative opinion maker. He's a free citizen jawing for votes. Nothing to do about that, really, except reject him.
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.