No, I'm just pointing out that the classical definition of Conservative doesn't fit Buchana (Fascist) or "that Liberarian guy" (Nihilist).
Conservatives are defined by what they are FOR, not what they are AGAINST, which is the only thing these two have to spout off about.
IOW, don't tell me that certain people are "sacrosanct" and immune from criticism, especially when it is clear from their own stances, that they are far, far out on the fringe.
Buchanan and that other guy are part of what's WRONG, not the solution.
You just cannot give it up, can you? The need to purify by insult and slander overrides the common sense of this post.
Try to see how silly you sound calling Buchanan a fascist. He was on TV for years. A very large percentage of the frequenters of this venue have heard him defend conservative principles on numerous occasions. They have never heard him endorse Mussolini, nor the Corporate State. You do not hurt Buchanan by this, you actually hurt yourself. But you start a firestorm, which dissipates Conservative energy in a silly playground level argument.
As for Harry Browne, he is not a nihilist. He is simply a shade more strident in his Libertarianism than some of the Founding Fathers. Why do you need to pillory him? Why can't you simply state--in an appropriate thread--where you and he differ, and give your reasons? We all gain from the legitimate debate. We all lose from the carping argument by insult. It stultifies. It angers. It leads to that playground level argument that makes us all look trivial, foolish and intellectually absurd.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site