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

To: mr.pink
...Hillary working for the Mossad, I don't recall that....but let's face it, alot of GOP pols called Hillary a lot worse things than that.

From his last campaign wesite. Vince Foster was a Mossad agent too. Nothing bizarre about that statement, why not let him speak at the Republican convention. ...a second Jewish war,… I think he states the Iraq War as a neocon/Likud/Sharon driven war, not a Jewish war.

Right, the Zionist Occupied Government thing, for both wars, that has nothing to do with Jews, just Zionists. Thanks for clarifying that. Nothing bizarre about that statement, why not let him speak at the Republican convention.

...his association with Lenora Fulani,…You mean the same Lenora Fulani who has "associated" with, and had a working relationship with, both George Pataki and Micheal Bloomberg?....THAT Lenora Fulani?

That one. I’m aware she supported Bloomberg in the mayoral race, and she’s a NY politician, so clearly they associate with her. I wasn’t aware that, like Pat Buchanan, they had hired her as campaign co-chairman, like Pat. Thanks for the info, dumb move on Bloomberg and Pataki’s part, if they did.

....essentially his views on Jews, blacks, women and homosexuals,… Let's see here. Jewish votes for GOP candidates usually a robust 15-20%. Black votes for GOP candidates usually 8-15%. Women's vote for GOP candidate usually below 50%. Homosexual votes for GOP candidate usually what....10-15%?

They shouldn’t change their views based on that. If the Republican want’s to bring into their “big tent” David Duke supporters, along with platforms based on segregation, borderline holocaust denial, and the ZOG, Pat’s the man to do it. Face it, you can’t kill Jews with diesel engines, black are too dumb for integration, and women aren’t aggressive enough. Sounds like a winning platform to me.

This isn?t the kind of person the Republican Party need to highlight, no matter the words he speaks on the occasion, particularly to take the spotlight away from Reagan.….Now I fully agree that RR should not have been bumped for PB...but let's also keep in mind.

Make’s me wonder why you bothered with the first part of the post. When Bush 1 promised a "kinder, gentler, nation", it certainly didn't slip by Nancy's sharp eyes as she responded quite quickly by asking: "kinder, gentler, than whom?". Nancy knew that was an intentional "dis" directed at Ron from a man who only got be President by riding Reagan's coattails. There was no love lost bewteen those two families and the time slotting could very well have been a case of pettiness overriding poli-smarts….- Black Americans hated Reagan, and only if you were asleep during the RR/GB1 years could one think homosexuals were going to move to the GOP. Homosexual AIDs deaths were attributed directly to Reagan by gay activists.

Not sure the relevance of that.

The Jewish vote that had been comparatively strong (in comparison to it's history) for Reagan was dumping Bush, as was the "Amen Corner" for pressuring Isreal to cut back on the territorial Settlement grabs in exchange for American loan guarantees. Funny how you managed to leave that out of the `92 dynamics....but it's so much easier to just pin it all on PB.

I never pinned anything on Pat, other than point out why he didn’t speak for Republicans, despite the nature of this single speech, and why he shouldn’t have been on the podium. Bush Sr was going to lose. He ran a lousy campaign.

Now while you continue to feign offense that Buchanan did not subjugate his positions to cater to groups 3/4s of which (using your list) had nothing but contempt for the GOP, I'll look forward to recieving an explanation on why exactly the GOP should not show similar deference to the sensitvities of Arab and Muslim Americans (groups which have actually supported GOP candidates in impressive percentages....without expecting our candidates to disavow social conservatism). In closing I'll just say that I think this year's convention's line-up is pretty smart.....whether it's too smart by half, we'll have to wait and see.

I’m not feigning offense, I think Pats a bigot who has no place in the Republican party. Needless to say he thinks he has no place in the Republican party either. I’ve no problem with Arabs voting for Republican party. If the Republican party wants to stand with Islam against Hollywood and Hillary, they can put that in their platform. Maybe Pat will come back.

147 posted on 07/12/2004 2:18:14 PM PDT by SJackson (Be careful -- with quotations, you can damn anything, Andre Malraux)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies ]


To: SJackson
Right, the Zionist Occupied Government thing, for both wars, that has nothing to do with Jews, just Zionists. Thanks for clarifying that.

Actually you're simplifying things to make PB's position as radical/anti-semetic as possible (and I'll admit PB's given you some pretty good ammo over the years), but even "The Forward" is advising abandoning that kind of tactic, and I'll leave my arguements regarding that issue for another time as I appreciate the time you took to reply to my points, as well as your civility.

I'm not feigning offense, I think Pats a bigot who has no place in the Republican party. Needless to say he thinks he has no place in the Republican party either.

I don't think Buchanan's a bigot, but he certainly can be as delicate as a bull in a china shop, and his brawling style of arguement is a bad sell in today's society. But he has a better sense of humor than most pundits, is quicker on his feet than most pundits, has insider WH experience most pundits don't, and perhaps most importantly.....is loyal to and fights bare knuckles for the issues that matter to social conservatives.

Pat knows he has no place in the GOP, but he's still a voice that plays well on many topics with social conservatives ( who last time I checked...Bush can't win without).

Now even if he had not carpet bombed his bridges back to the party in 2000, I would not want PB on this years stage (it's time to move forward), but tossing a bone to the social conservatives might have been a smart move. Rick Santorum might have been a fine choice IMO, even at the risk of losing 1% of the gay vote.

Maybe Pat will come back.

Hopefully not, sometimes it's best to part ways.
177 posted on 07/12/2004 4:59:53 PM PDT by mr.pink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies ]

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