Replies

You left out "racist," "nazi," and "xenophobe," just to name a few of the most popular politically correct names you could have called him. You really ought to be armed with more pejorative labels if you're going to make the typical establishment argument against reason and common sense.

"You left out "racist," "nazi," and "xenophobe," just to name a few of the most popular politically correct names you could have called him. You really ought to be armed with more pejorative labels if you're going to make the typical establishment argument against reason and common sense. "

You have to forgive their oversight. They go crazy when Pat tells truth they can't refute. You know the usual also includes guilt by association, half-truths, out-of-context - the whole KGB dossiers are searched. All because Pat is for America first.

words like anit-semite in reference to P.B.'s column posted here are not politically correct--they are true. His postion on Israel is as clear as the nose on my face (and I have a fairly substantial one) from this article. I know that Pat and others who hold his postion make a distincition between Israel as a political entitity and Jewish people as an ethnic identity--however, my religious orientation (evangelical christian) leads me to the conclusion that Israel the political institution is an instrument God has raised up to protect his people, the Jews and therefore it is in our best interest in the US to adopt a geo-political strategy that protects the welfare of the state of Israel, and keeps the growing threat of Islam at bay. Islam is opposed to Christianity and Judaism. Taking out Iraq and achieving hegemony in the middle east would allow the Christian mission in that area to go forward with less impediments--just as Colonialism in the 19th century paved the way for the church's mission in Asia and Africa, and the Roman empire allowed Christian missions to spread throughout the near east. I don't understand how Pat as a devout Christian, does not get that.