Patrick J. Buchanan Examines "The Slow Awakening of George W."

Washington Times ^ | 09-17-03 | Buchanan, Patrick J.

[hchutch]

Dump the Great Society and the corproate income tax.

At that point, I will consider tariffs.

[JNB]

I will admit, my conservatism is rooted in more pre WWI European style traditionalism, not what passes for American conservatism, and the US was more or less rooted in European style traditionalism till the late 60s, and as we can see, a stable society under God does lead to prosperity. The WSJ/Limbaugh style conservatism goes no further back than the late 60s.

[hchutch]

And I repeat: The middle class CHOSE along with class warfare. Why do you insist they be allowed to evade the consequences of their past choices?

[Lazamataz]

As for the retraction: Bite me. None will be forthcoming.

Of course not. Scumbags are incapable of admitting when they are quite wrong. Begone. I have nothing further to say to a scumbag.

[JNB]

Dump the corporate tax? Sorry, how about a flat tax, flat tax on income and profits. And you would "consider" tariffs? How grand of you.

See, all these threads show a big split in conservatives between conservatives who are more focused on social issues and those who are more focused on economics issues. Despite what some say, economics consevatism as defined today(its really coporatism) is in conflict with many aspects of social conservatism.

[hchutch]

Whata re you going to do - MAKE me "begone"?

[hchutch]

Sorry, but I do not think the government has any business in my personal or private life - to include gun ownership and what I do.

I believe in freedom - and to be very honest, I have grown quite suspicious of certain parts of the "social conservative" agenda that seem to embrace and accept big government solutions.

[Lazamataz]

Whata re you going to do - MAKE me "begone"

Obviously I cannot. I can, however, remind you what you are every time you message to me.

Scumbag.

[Texas_Dawg]

Scumbags are incapable of admitting when they are quite wrong.

Like when you said Japan has done "damage" to "a lot of people" over the past decade?

[hchutch]

You're reduced to name-calling.

Guess you were nothing more than a closet RAT.

[Lazamataz]

Free traitors like Dawg, cheer whenever another middle-class American loses his job to visa indentured servants from India or outsourcing.

I used to dislike the term 'free traitor'.

Now I understand it's wisdom.

[Lazamataz]

Scumbag.

[LIBERATENJ]

And people say economics is boring. I think it's very entertaining. At least it is here. ;]

[hchutch]

Closet RAT.

[JNB]

Without the votes of the former Ralph Hall and John Conally Democrats, the GOP would be holding less seats in congress now than they did in the years after Watergate, and thats a fact.

You want free trade at all and any cost, then you will realise it will be indeed at any cost when people in the US finally get fed up and elect those who would take away more of your economic freedoms than ever before. As for social conservatives, most would be content to go back to the pre 1964 America in terms of laws and regulations. That is hardly a big govrenmnet solution.

[rdb3]

As for social conservatives, most would be content to go back to the pre 1964 America in terms of laws and regulations.

I don't think so.

[JNB]

In all of these threads, I usually see it is the Neo-Cons are the ones who are reduced to name calling, and again, all they have to fall back on is being a parrot of their favorite pundits. How original.

Free Trade as it is set up now brings up many serious conservative concerns about the impact it will have on society in the future, because like it or not, Americans will allways for now on compare their standard of living situation to that of their parents, and as a majority of them continue to see declines relative to how their folks did in being able to afford a home or a car, they will eventually get fed up and eventually elect those who in their minds will "fix" the problem. Do not like the taxes on corporations now, dont like your taxes now, dont like all the rules and regulations now, just wait and see this situation drag on for a few years.

[JNB]

Most social conservatives would be content with a rollback of Great Society era laws, and yes, that means many aspects of the Civil Rights act that enabled things such quotas and forced busing to become legalised. That also means a end to the 65 immigration "reform" laws as well, and taking the issue of abortion back to where it should be, a issue the states, not the federal govrenmnet should decide.

[rdb3]

That also means a end to the 65 immigration "reform" laws as well, and taking the issue of abortion back to where it should be, a issue the states, not the federal govrenmnet should decide.

Again, I don't think so. We've been down that road. The states blew it. Had the states done the right thing in the first place, we would not be in this situation.

[hchutch]

Pre-1964? When some Americans were treated as second-class citizens due to the color of their skin? Do the laws that put a stop to that get repealed as well?

I'm sorry, but there are certain elements of the "social conservatives" who would not hesitate to either embrace big government or use its power against groups of people they do not like. That was certainly the case in the pre-1964 USA.

It is not the government's business if I listen to Howard Stern on the radio. It is not the government's business if I decide I wish to own a gun. It's none of the government's business if I read the Weekly Standard or Maxim (I read both of those magazines).

Freedom works - and I have reason to believe that certain "social conservatives" would restrict that freedom to a large extent.