If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Townhall)   Before we go to the polls in 2012, let's find out if the GOP is becoming again the same old War Party that bankrupted the nation   (townhall.com) divider line 213
    More: Interesting, GOP, Strait of Hormuz, existential threats, Meir Dagan, oil exports, atomic nuclei, Mossad, inaction  
•       •       •

3929 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 Nov 2011 at 11:01 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



213 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-11-15 11:40:37 AM
I just feel the need to post this part again.

And before we go to the polls in 2012, let's find out if the GOP is becoming again the same old War Party that bankrupted the nation.

-- Pat Freaking Buchanon


Suspect quote may come in handy.
 
2011-11-15 11:41:28 AM

AMonkey'sUncle: Arkanaut: St_Francis_P: That was the first sensible article I've seen from Pat Buchanan.

Whatever you say, Pat Buchanan is not an idiot. He may be a racist, a troll, and an idiot, but definitely not a Communist.

WAT?


dorkshelf.com

GET OUT, NOOB!
 
2011-11-15 11:43:04 AM
Not that the wars were a good idea, but the notion that the wars alone "bankrupted" the country is facile. Only a shallow thinker or a cynical partisan would push it. Especially considering that both parties are demonstrably "the war party."
 
2011-11-15 11:44:43 AM

canyoneer: Not that the wars were a good idea, but the notion that the wars alone "bankrupted" the country is facile. Only a shallow thinker or a cynical partisan would push it. Especially considering that both parties are demonstrably "the war party."


So, vote Republican.
 
2011-11-15 11:45:52 AM
Ron Paul, the only truly anti-war candidate to have graced our national stage since I don't know when. Still crazy like a bed bug. Still living in a blimp above Texas. Still the best chance the Republicans have at winning the big race in 2012.
 
2011-11-15 11:48:28 AM

Freaky_Sold_Mustard: Ron Paul, the only truly anti-war candidate to have graced our national stage since I don't know when.


Yeah, that's why he's been running all those ads on Fark proclaiming himself as "The Military's choice for President".
 
2011-11-15 11:48:36 AM

ignatiusst: So the candidates leading the GOP nomination process advocate starting a war against a country that hasn't threatened us in order to eliminate the weapons of mass destruction our intelligence agencies claim they posses? Do I have that right? Am I to assume as well that such a war would be funded by promissory notes to China?


Whoa.
Deja-Va-Va-va-va-va-va-vu
 
2011-11-15 11:49:12 AM

Infernalist: So, vote Republican.


So, vote against the war party. I know that's a highly complex and almost inscrutable concept, but if you mull it over for a few weeks, it might soak in.
 
2011-11-15 11:49:46 AM

Freaky_Sold_Mustard: Still the best chance the Republicans have at winning the big race in 2012.


That is to say, if the big race were an online poll.
 
2011-11-15 11:49:56 AM

St_Francis_P: That was the first sensible article I've seen from Pat Buchanan.


Pat Buchanan has been 100% correct about the neocons and the GOP "war party" since long before it was cool. His passionate and articulate opposition to the Iraq invasion was, literally, better than I could have done. And his position on the matter has remained consistent for 10 years.

But on nearly every other subject, the man is 100% wrong. And insufferable.
 
2011-11-15 11:50:38 AM

canyoneer: Not that the wars were a good idea, but the notion that the wars alone "bankrupted" the country is facile. Only a shallow thinker or a cynical partisan would push it. Especially considering that both parties are demonstrably "the war party."


Including the democratic majority that voted against the Iraq war? As opposed to the 2% of Republicans who voted no?

Yeah, exactly the same.

And who the Hell said the wars ALONE were the problem?
 
2011-11-15 11:50:38 AM

Satanic_Hamster: IrateShadow: Satanic_Hamster: You know who else wanted to exterminate all other life...

The Daleks?

Exactly. And like the Daleks, Americans are getting so fat and lazy that we'll be defeated by a simple but effective technology; stairs.


Daleks don't climb stairs, they level the building!
 
2011-11-15 11:51:14 AM
If the RNC runs a bowl of jello salad for president, it has my vote.

I'm voting ABO!! Anyone but Obama!

Vote early, Vote Often, Vote Pro-Life!
 
2011-11-15 11:51:14 AM

Freaky_Sold_Mustard: Ron Paul, the only truly anti-war candidate to have graced our national stage since I don't know when. Still crazy like a bed bug. Still living in a blimp above Texas. Still the best chance the Republicans have at winning the big race in 2012.


The best chance that the GOP has for winning the White House is Huntsman and he'll never get through the primaries.

The man needs to go ahead and lead the charge to form the Real Republican Party. This would be similar to how the Ghostbusters had to become The Real Ghostbusters when they made a cartoon because some jackholes had already made a crappy Ghostbusters cartoon.
 
2011-11-15 11:51:46 AM

canyoneer: Only a shallow thinker or a cynical partisan would push it.


It being the covert assassination of Iranian scientists, or it being the unwarranted occupation of Iraq with no exit strategy?
 
2011-11-15 11:53:23 AM

PistolBob: If the RNC runs a bowl of jello salad for president, it has my vote.

I'm voting ABO!! Anyone but Obama!

Vote early, Vote Often, Vote Pro-Life!


YouTube called. It needs its most prolific commenter.
 
2011-11-15 11:54:51 AM

canyoneer: Infernalist: So, vote Republican.

So, vote against the war party. I know that's a highly complex and almost inscrutable concept, but if you mull it over for a few weeks, it might soak in.


This is like saying 'vote against the tax party!'

War is a tool. It has its place and time and can be used effectively and efficiently to accomplish a goal that is, otherwise, unattainable.

The tax system, likewise, is a tool that can be used effectively and efficiently to accomplish a goal that is otherwise unattainable.

Now, if you're saying we should vote against the party in government that rushes to a war-mindset and seeks to use military force at any and every opportunity, then yes, we should definitely vote against the Republicans.
 
2011-11-15 11:56:31 AM
"Becoming again"?

They've been The Party of War and International Bullying since I was old enough to vote, at any rate.

They are, apparently, only against war when a black guy is in the white house...
 
2011-11-15 11:57:22 AM

canyoneer: Not that the wars were a good idea, but the notion that the wars alone "bankrupted" the country is facile. Only a shallow thinker or a cynical partisan would push it. Especially considering that both parties are demonstrably "the war party."


Good use of the word facile. Right to point out that yes, the Iraq war and the Afghanistan war did not happen in a vacuum. But really, if you had to point to any one thing that was significantly different before and after the recession hit, you might say "Oh hey how bout them trillion dollar wars, maybe they had some significant influence?"
Yeah, if I was an investigator looking over the data for some kind of cause and effect correlation, with out doing any research, it would be asinine for me to say "Oh yeah they were the cause of the recession." But it would be even more asinine to ignore them, or rather, not suspect them as the primary cause. Pretty much the elephant that broke the camels back imo.
 
2011-11-15 11:57:29 AM

Arkanaut: St_Francis_P: That was the first sensible article I've seen from Pat Buchanan.

Whatever you say, Pat Buchanan is not an idiot. He may be a racist, a troll, and an idiot, but definitely not a Communist.


He's an Ultranationalist. This means he doesn't see the logic in bombing countries on the other side of the planet for vague goals (or merely to support other countries (that is, Israel)) if it costs American blood or treasure. Of course, he happens to be completely correct on this particular topic.
 
2011-11-15 12:00:07 PM

namatad: St_Francis_P: That was the first sensible article I've seen from Pat Buchanan.

wait! WHAT ?
that article was written by a democrat!!


Oh hell no! We don't want him. He's yours to keep, GOP!
 
2011-11-15 12:00:08 PM
Regarding Iran and nukes I have read the following as compelling reasons for Iran to not build nukes but have the preparations to make them as a last resort.

1) The theocracts have said that nukes are an unholy weapon and that those that use them(America) are cursed by God.

2) Iran does a great deal of trade with China and Russia who have both tried to mitigate sanctions against Iran by aruging their nuclear efforts are peaceful. If Iran suddenly shows it has nukes then Iran loses 2 profitable trading partners whose money Iran needs and without which they would have a recession and civil unrest.

3) If Iran did have nukes, it would compell saudi arabia to get into the game and build its own nukes thus starting an arms race in the mideast that Iran won't profit from.

4) Outside intervention: US, Isreal, others would make it a nightmare for them if they joined the nuclear club.

Regarding the end times nonsense, puzzlme me this: grant as a premise that there is a prophecy about armmegeddon, antichrist, Hell's forces reeling in defeat, and so on, why on earth would hell even get invovled? Seriously if you are scripted as the loser why show up on the battlefield. The antichrist is either smart enough to realize such a battle would have a foregone conclusion and would wisely choose to stay at home with netflix or the antichrist is so dumb as to not even be a threat in the first place. This entire end times fantasy is absurd.
 
2011-11-15 12:00:22 PM

monoski: Buchanan goes RINO?


He's barely a Republican in the first place; kind of like Ron Paul. People forget he ran for President (on the Reform Party ticket) against Republican George W. Bush in 2000.

Now, that doesn't mean he (and Paul) aren't conservatives; they just don't parrot the Republican Party line 100% of the time.
 
2011-11-15 12:01:27 PM
Vietnam is a good cop out for Republican dickweeds.

They always say Kennedy started it(actually Harry Truman did), so it isn't their fault, but at the same time the hippies and the media didn't let them win.
 
2011-11-15 12:04:10 PM
...and then let's get outraged and all vote for the same old War Party Democrats who bankrupted the nation.
 
2011-11-15 12:04:26 PM
Count me in as almost ABO. I would not vote for Buchanan or any other 'holy roller'. Having a 'church' in the white house would be a very bad idea.
 
2011-11-15 12:04:36 PM
Philip Francis Queeg: In several polls military members supported him over other candidates. Most service members don't want to be in Iraq/Iran. Paul supports the military, he just thinks they should be over here as protection, not in other countries.
 
2011-11-15 12:04:59 PM

thismomentinblackhistory: Freaky_Sold_Mustard: Still the best chance the Republicans have at winning the big race in 2012.

That is to say, if the big race were an online poll.


He's the only candidate I can see siphoning any votes away from the Democrats. He might be as nutty as marzipan, but frankly, if he gets the nomination, Republicans will have to vote for him; some Democrats will vote for him because they (and myself being one) see him as an unembedded outsider.I don't consider myself a Republican or a Democrat, I consider my self a rational person with limited options, so would I vote for him over Fartbongo? I can't answer as of right now. I know he is crazier than a shiat house rat, but frankly, he is consistent. I don't think he would have the influence to get any of his moon-battier policies into play, but I also think he could set some limited but accomplish-able goals that he could get done in four years. I would vote for him just because I have high confidence he would put a lot of effort into reigning in military spending. I wouldn't vote for him because I have an inherit mistrust of idealists, as I see their world view as too simplistic to grasp an accurate picture.
 
2011-11-15 12:07:10 PM

Gergesa: Regarding Iran and nukes I have read the following as compelling reasons for Iran to not build nukes but have the preparations to make them as a last resort.

1) The theocracts have said that nukes are an unholy weapon and that those that use them(America) are cursed by God.

2) Iran does a great deal of trade with China and Russia who have both tried to mitigate sanctions against Iran by aruging their nuclear efforts are peaceful. If Iran suddenly shows it has nukes then Iran loses 2 profitable trading partners whose money Iran needs and without which they would have a recession and civil unrest.

3) If Iran did have nukes, it would compell saudi arabia to get into the game and build its own nukes thus starting an arms race in the mideast that Iran won't profit from.

4) Outside intervention: US, Isreal, others would make it a nightmare for them if they joined the nuclear club.

Regarding the end times nonsense, puzzlme me this: grant as a premise that there is a prophecy about armmegeddon, antichrist, Hell's forces reeling in defeat, and so on, why on earth would hell even get invovled? Seriously if you are scripted as the loser why show up on the battlefield. The antichrist is either smart enough to realize such a battle would have a foregone conclusion and would wisely choose to stay at home with netflix or the antichrist is so dumb as to not even be a threat in the first place. This entire end times fantasy is absurd.


According to Evangelical logic, the Devil is so proud that he thinks he can beat God. So, even though he's going up against the omnipotent Creator of all things, the Devil thinks he can win still.

Don't ask me, I don't preach the stuff. I just had to listen to it for 18 years.
 
2011-11-15 12:07:11 PM

pxsteel: Count me in as almost ABO. I would not vote for Buchanan or any other 'holy roller'. Having a 'church' in the white house would be a very bad idea.


Buchanan's not running. Romney and Perry and Cain and Gingrich are. One of those four will be going up against Obama in 2012, and they are all "holy rollers", IMHO.
 
2011-11-15 12:09:29 PM

Jake Havechek: Vietnam is a good cop out for Republican dickweeds.

They always say Kennedy started it(actually Harry Truman did), so it isn't their fault, but at the same time the hippies and the media didn't let them win.


Actually NATO and the French started Vietnam. We were asked in after they realized they couldn't handle it.
 
2011-11-15 12:10:37 PM

pxsteel: Count me in as almost ABO. I would not vote for Buchanan or any other 'holy roller'. Having a 'church' in the white house would be a very bad idea.


Can I offer you some legit advice? The whole 'Anyone but Obama' mantra might feel good, but it's a political disaster.

The Democrats tried the same thing in 2004 with Kerry. 'Anyone but Bush!' was their mantra, and they got a wooden, uninspiring, flip-flopping Governor who got destroyed long before the election drew to a close.

In short, they tried 'Anyone but Bush!' and got a Democratic version of Mitt Romney. Minus the magic underwear.
 
2011-11-15 12:10:59 PM

JLEM: canyoneer: Only a shallow thinker or a cynical partisan would push it.

It being the covert assassination of Iranian scientists, or it being the unwarranted occupation of Iraq with no exit strategy?


If we (or Israel) are actually killing Iranian scientists (they do seem to die in car accidents and unexplained explosions a lot, but there's little proof that the US/Israel (or somebody else) are actually killing them), that's orders of magnitute better than bombing the country overtly.
 
2011-11-15 12:12:29 PM

Infernalist: flip-flopping Governor


dude, Jim Carrey was a senator.
 
2011-11-15 12:12:31 PM

Infernalist: pxsteel: Count me in as almost ABO. I would not vote for Buchanan or any other 'holy roller'. Having a 'church' in the white house would be a very bad idea.

Can I offer you some legit advice? The whole 'Anyone but Obama' mantra might feel good, but it's a political disaster.

The Democrats tried the same thing in 2004 with Kerry. 'Anyone but Bush!' was their mantra, and they got a wooden, uninspiring, flip-flopping Governor who got destroyed long before the election drew to a close.

In short, they tried 'Anyone but Bush!' and got a Democratic version of Mitt Romney. Minus the magic underwear.


I agree with this. The 2012 election is almost exactly the same as the 2004 election, with the parties reversed. Unpopular President, crappy opposition candidate, tie goes to the incumbent.
 
2011-11-15 12:15:43 PM

Geotpf: Infernalist: pxsteel: Count me in as almost ABO. I would not vote for Buchanan or any other 'holy roller'. Having a 'church' in the white house would be a very bad idea.

Can I offer you some legit advice? The whole 'Anyone but Obama' mantra might feel good, but it's a political disaster.

The Democrats tried the same thing in 2004 with Kerry. 'Anyone but Bush!' was their mantra, and they got a wooden, uninspiring, flip-flopping Governor who got destroyed long before the election drew to a close.

In short, they tried 'Anyone but Bush!' and got a Democratic version of Mitt Romney. Minus the magic underwear.

I agree with this. The 2012 election is almost exactly the same as the 2004 election, with the parties reversed. Unpopular President, crappy opposition candidate, tie goes to the incumbent.


Unemployment was not 9%+ in 2004.
 
2011-11-15 12:19:58 PM

St_Francis_P: That was the first sensible article I've seen from Pat Buchanan.


When I find myself agreeing with Buchanan I always think about things one more time.

But this time he appears correct. Freaky.
 
2011-11-15 12:20:50 PM

canyoneer: Not that the wars were a good idea, but the notion that the wars alone "bankrupted" the country is facile. Only a shallow thinker or a cynical partisan would push it. Especially considering that both parties are demonstrably "the war party."


You're right, the Bush tax cuts contributed too.
 
2011-11-15 12:21:43 PM

pxsteel: Jake Havechek: Vietnam is a good cop out for Republican dickweeds.

They always say Kennedy started it(actually Harry Truman did), so it isn't their fault, but at the same time the hippies and the media didn't let them win.

Actually NATO and the French started Vietnam. We were asked in after they realized they couldn't handle it.


Dien Bien Phu falls, Rock Around the Clock.
 
2011-11-15 12:24:05 PM
Now he's done it.

Next up on FOX News - Pat Buchanan (D) hates America. . . .
 
2011-11-15 12:24:08 PM

pxsteel: Geotpf: Infernalist: pxsteel: Count me in as almost ABO. I would not vote for Buchanan or any other 'holy roller'. Having a 'church' in the white house would be a very bad idea.

Can I offer you some legit advice? The whole 'Anyone but Obama' mantra might feel good, but it's a political disaster.

The Democrats tried the same thing in 2004 with Kerry. 'Anyone but Bush!' was their mantra, and they got a wooden, uninspiring, flip-flopping Governor who got destroyed long before the election drew to a close.

In short, they tried 'Anyone but Bush!' and got a Democratic version of Mitt Romney. Minus the magic underwear.

I agree with this. The 2012 election is almost exactly the same as the 2004 election, with the parties reversed. Unpopular President, crappy opposition candidate, tie goes to the incumbent.

Unemployment was not 9%+ in 2004.


It's not a Magic Switch, my friend. When Unemployment passes 8.9%, the people don't suddenly 'change' their opinions of the President and the GOP.

And right now, even with Unemployment being as high as it is, without Obama campaigning at all, with all these debates from the GOP trying to get their message out, Obama's kicking the living crap out of them in the polls.

Because people still blame the GOP for the economic troubles that we're in. Obama inherited this mess and they don't blame him for it.
 
2011-11-15 12:26:28 PM
Perhaps I blinked, when did the GOP take a break from being the war party?


On a side note, I know several wonderful, friendly, loving people who are Republican. If the candidates more closely resembled the people who vote for them, we would live in a much improved world. The situation flumoxes me.
 
2011-11-15 12:28:56 PM

pxsteel: Geotpf: Infernalist: pxsteel: Count me in as almost ABO. I would not vote for Buchanan or any other 'holy roller'. Having a 'church' in the white house would be a very bad idea.

Can I offer you some legit advice? The whole 'Anyone but Obama' mantra might feel good, but it's a political disaster.

The Democrats tried the same thing in 2004 with Kerry. 'Anyone but Bush!' was their mantra, and they got a wooden, uninspiring, flip-flopping Governor who got destroyed long before the election drew to a close.

In short, they tried 'Anyone but Bush!' and got a Democratic version of Mitt Romney. Minus the magic underwear.

I agree with this. The 2012 election is almost exactly the same as the 2004 election, with the parties reversed. Unpopular President, crappy opposition candidate, tie goes to the incumbent.

Unemployment was not 9%+ in 2004.


Obama is not a drooling idiot like Bush. Nor is the war in Iraq in full swing. And, gee, Obama actually killed Bin Laden.

The source of the unpopularity of the incumbent is irrelevant. You can't beat somebody with nobody. All of the possible Republican canidates are at least as flawed as Kerry was. So, if both sides suck, the tie goes to the incumbent.
 
2011-11-15 12:29:22 PM

ignatiusst: So the candidates leading the GOP nomination process advocate starting a war against a country that hasn't threatened us in order to eliminate the weapons of mass destruction our intelligence agencies claim they posses? Do I have that right? Am I to assume as well that such a war would be funded by promissory notes to China?


Seems to me, that they have lost a bit of credibility with the WMD thing.
Just sayin.
 
2011-11-15 12:31:27 PM

Rapmaster2000: St_Francis_P: That was the first sensible article I've seen from Pat Buchanan.

It's gotta be a trap.


Actually, Pat's been doing this for years. He's a Paleoconservative who never got over Woodrow Wilson. He's a vicious opponent of Neocons, referring to them as "Right-Wing Trotskyites." I've seen criticism of the Bush Administration from him that would make Keith Olbermann blush. But his isolationism has a significant xenophobic element too.
 
2011-11-15 12:31:53 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Freaky_Sold_Mustard: Ron Paul, the only truly anti-war candidate to have graced our national stage since I don't know when.

Yeah, that's why he's been running all those ads on Fark proclaiming himself as "The Military's choice for President".


I haven't seen those ads, but maybe he is the Militarys' choice for President. Maybe some folks in the Military are tired of being deployed, oh say, 47 times and really don't want to be deployed to Iran.
 
2011-11-15 12:31:59 PM

Serious Black: We should just nuke the rest of the planet to be completely sure that that only people left are freedom-loving Americans.


The problem with that, is the Corporations that run this shindig won't be able to farm out their slave neighbor labor needs.

Think of the Stock Holders!
 
2011-11-15 12:32:47 PM

Infernalist: pxsteel: Geotpf: Infernalist: pxsteel: Count me in as almost ABO. I would not vote for Buchanan or any other 'holy roller'. Having a 'church' in the white house would be a very bad idea.

Can I offer you some legit advice? The whole 'Anyone but Obama' mantra might feel good, but it's a political disaster.

The Democrats tried the same thing in 2004 with Kerry. 'Anyone but Bush!' was their mantra, and they got a wooden, uninspiring, flip-flopping Governor who got destroyed long before the election drew to a close.

In short, they tried 'Anyone but Bush!' and got a Democratic version of Mitt Romney. Minus the magic underwear.

I agree with this. The 2012 election is almost exactly the same as the 2004 election, with the parties reversed. Unpopular President, crappy opposition candidate, tie goes to the incumbent.

Unemployment was not 9%+ in 2004.

It's not a Magic Switch, my friend. When Unemployment passes 8.9%, the people don't suddenly 'change' their opinions of the President and the GOP.

And right now, even with Unemployment being as high as it is, without Obama campaigning at all, with all these debates from the GOP trying to get their message out, Obama's kicking the living crap out of them in the polls.

Because people still blame the GOP for the economic troubles that we're in. Obama inherited this mess and they don't blame him for it.


The switch is not 8.9%. It is around 7.6%. If the GOP candidate has any brains at all, Obama will get piledrived next year in commercial after commercial over the bad economy.
 
2011-11-15 12:33:19 PM
Remind me, folks. These are the same people that claim Obama fails at foreign policy by letting France and Britain lead the attacks against Libya at the cost of 0 American lives?
 
2011-11-15 12:37:09 PM

St_Francis_P: That was the first sensible article I've seen from Pat Buchanan.


He's a pretty straight up guy for a religious, racist whackaloon. I don't agree with him mostly, but I find his honesty admirable.
 
Displayed 50 of 213 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report