Hear! Hear!

Amen. And, what were they thinking?

Excellent.

Some Lizard!

=)

Hopefully the folks over at Townhall.com will heed your comments. Unfortunately, Fox News has utterly failed to police itself in terms of Bob "scumwad" Beckel and Pat Buchanan.

Maybe a letter-writing campaign will actually work here.

This isn't like the Thais trying to stop the Muslims in the south from beheading them by folding paper cranes. This isn't like meeting with Ahmadinejad.

The opponent here is rational and sane. Reason might work.

Good letter, but sad that it is even necessary. I've never understood the fascination certain quarters have with Pat "Europe Led Hitler On" Buchanan.

Kudos, sir.

Here's hoping someone's listening.

re: #6 Silhouette

Maybe a letter-writing campaign will actually work here.

This isn't like the Thais trying to stop the Muslims in the south from beheading them by folding paper cranes. This isn't like meeting with Ahmadinejad.

The opponent here is rational and sane. Reason might work.

If reason doesn't work, we haven't lost anything.

This ought to get their attention, since many TH readers are also Lizards.

Excellent.

Quite correct. Pat Buchanan is the father of too many lies.

re: #10 Golem Akbar

I'm no longer a reader, and won't be, as long as they keep Buchanan.

For Mr. Kennedy, this.

Nicely put.

re: #9 debutaunt

If reason doesn't work, we haven't lost anything.

That's not necessarily true. If you try to reason with the unreasonable, you may have missed the oppertunity to strike decisively. Your attempt at reason may prevent you from solving the situation by force. That almost happened to us vis a vis Saddam Hussein. How many people, including the Democratic candidate for President, would have said "Reason didn't work, oh well?" and left Hussein in power?

/slapping the tabletop

Well said, Mr. Kennedy.

I dunno, the letter seems too reasoned and restrained. I was thinking more along the lines of,

"You bozos, how can you publish the anti-semitic rantings of this jerk? I'll never visit your Web site again!"

re: #14 TalkinKamel

I'm no longer a reader, and won't be, as long as they keep Buchanan.

Yes, my point, exactly. TH has many readers who won't stand for the crap spewed by Pat Buchanan.

Very well said indeed!

Bravo!

Just wondering why Buchanan's views get such a respectful hearing.
Maybe it is because to many people the world wide jihad is just too overwhelming. A more comfortable position is to blame Israel.
They are civilized & reasonable. If the key is Israel standing down, then it looks doable.
It is delusional and dangerous, but I wonder if that is why Buchanan has any currency.

re: #19 zombie

I dunno, the letter seems too reasoned and restrained. I was thinking more along the lines of,

"You bozos, how can you publish the anti-semitic rantings of this jerk? I'll never visit your Web site again!"

Let's just say that if TH does nothing, then you have it right. I'll give them a day or two. No more.

OT:
I just made a post in the Obama Speech thread... with a question/statement of a position I'd like a response to/I'd like to hear people's arguments on.

Please take a look re: #195 rlevitin

re: #5 descolada9

Hopefully the folks over at Townhall.com will heed your comments. Unfortunately, Fox News has utterly failed to police itself in terms of Bob "scumwad" Beckel and Pat Buchanan.

I tried several letters to Fox asking them to "call" Bob Beckel on his "crackers" remark and got exactly zero in response.

Well said, Buchanan is off his rocker (has been for awhile).

I wonder what Pat Buchanan's take on the IRA was during The Troubles. He sometimes sounds like he wishes the USA would have sided with Ireland against England in WWII, or like he got to know and admire the PLO and the PFLP during the years they were running exchange programs and technology transfers with the Provos.

Hell, maybe he joined the Republican Party by mistake, confusing it with the Republicans in the Old Country.

Kudos to Ross! That was a most eloquent statement expressing what so many of us have attempted to say, only better.

And CNN (PBUH -- Pat Buchanan upon him) also hearts Pat Buchanan.

re: #19 zombie

I dunno, the letter seems too reasoned and restrained. I was thinking more along the lines of,

"You bozos, how can you publish the anti-semitic rantings of this jerk? I'll never visit your Web site again!"

My email:

Although I will miss reading Thomas Sowell, I will no longer visit your website until you stop publishing articles by the historical-revisionist and Nazi apologist, Patrick Buchanan.

Sincerely,
R.T. Gringo

I've removed TH's link from my favorites list.

Boo-yah!

(well spoken, Mr. Kennedy)

pat buchanan is competing with jimmy carter to see who the worst Jew hater is.

by the way ... does anyone with financial knowledge have any idea if the recent stock market losses can be attributed to any moves made by george soros?

Maybe Patty is lobbying for a job in an Obama administration...

Obama gets to "reach across" party lines...

Patty gets a paying gig and a chance to run his mouth...it isn't like Obama would disagree with this analysis.

Does anyone know where Obama stands on this resolution...even though it is a House resolution.

re: #34 _RememberTonyC

pat buchanan is competing with jimmy carter to see who the worst Jew hater is.

by the way ... does anyone with financial knowledge have any idea if the recent stock market losses can be attributed to any moves made by george soros?

Soros is a Jew, so it works both ways. I'd blame the Jews, too, except that I know too many (myself included), and they ain't that smart.

re: #30 Golem Akbar

And CNN (PBUH -- Pat Buchanan upon him) also hearts Pat Buchanan.

CNN is at least undestandable - Unkie Pat helps them make conservatives* appear vile, PLUS the lefties love an anti-Semite sans swastika.

Fox, OTOH, is either haveing its purse strings pulled by its erstwhile Saudi "investor" OR is pimping itself out for a bigger audience OR is pulling the same stunt as CNN...Fox has some 'splainin' to do.

*as CNN understands the term

This is the letter I'd previously written Fox, Townhall, and Hannity to no avail.

The letter above is good, but I don't think they're going to change their policy one iota. They apparently think that Buchanan is good business.

I wouldn't mind if they took Patsy down, but honestly, I don't see a need to demand it.

Nor would I mind if they let Ron Paul have his own column, just proves his insanity and bigotry.

I would say they need to make it clear they don't espouse his ideals and are just providing him a forum to air his 1st Amendment rights.

Rush himself says that he doesn't want liberals wiped out...just not in power.

re: #23 opnion,

I think it's inertia. Buchanan has been considered a leading Conservative voice in the past, even a credible Presidential candidate, and it's easy to let him keep on pretending to still be if you don't really read what he is now spewing. It will take people standing up and calling attention to what he is now saying to change that.

It isn't enough to simply call him a Nazi or a Nazi sympathisizer. The Left call all Conservatives Nazis and/or a Nazi sympathisizers.

Constantly. It has degraded the accusation to the point that when the real deal shows up, people tend to discount the accusation.

re: #34 _RememberTonyC

pat buchanan is competing with jimmy carter to see who the worst Jew hater is.

by the way ... does anyone with financial knowledge have any idea if the recent stock market losses can be attributed to any moves made by george soros?

The recent stock market losses are largely driven by media induced panic and analysts who don't have a clue what they are taking about. What CNBC does on a regular basis borders on the criminal. I am a fan of capitalism and the free market system but ours has run amok.

Thank you for standing by israel- the staunchest friend we have. And thanks for calling Buchanon on his 'problem' with the jews.

re: #31 Ringo the Gringo

My email:

Although I will miss reading Thomas Sowell, I will no longer visit your website until you stop publishing articles by the historical-revisionist and Nazi apologist, Patrick Buchanan.

Sincerely,
R.T. Gringo

You can get Sowell at Jewish World Review.

Great letter. People should call townhall.com and let them know this can not take place on that web site

#36 GolemAkbar ...

soros is a Jew, but he hates the USA and wants to influence the election. Bringing up soros was not meant to imply I blame the Jews for anything (I don't).

I'm just saying that a man with his financial clout, coupled with his desire to manipulate our presidential election is someone I'd want to keep my eye on.

And if he can do anything to make the stock market fall in order to hurt the Republicans in November, I believe he would (if he could).

re: #17 Iron Fist

That's not necessarily true. If you try to reason with the unreasonable, you may have missed the opportunity to strike decisively. Your attempt at reason may prevent you from solving the situation by force. That almost happened to us vis a vis Saddam Hussein. How many people, including the Democratic candidate for President, would have said "Reason didn't work, oh well?" and left Hussein in power?

I was just referring to the Townhall geniuses.

This is what I just wrote:

Dear Editors:

I have been a faithful reader of townhall.com for many years. Are you so desperate for content that you are willing to provide a platform for the antisemitic conspiracy theories of Pat Buchanan? This latter-day Father Coughlin, who recently advertised his book on the aptly named "Political Cesspool" program of self-described "White Nationalist" David Duke, is the very opposite of modern, responsible, American conservatism.

Buchanan was run out of the Republican party a decade ago. In recent years he appears to have become even more of a bigot and lunatic than he already was. Throw him back into the fever swamps inhbited by looney left and white supremacist "right" alike.

Sincerely,
Former Belgian
[Link: entre_nous.typepad.com...]

Charles,
Thanks for recommending the WF Buckley book In Search of Anti-Semitism.
I finished reading it over the weekend.

Get a copy here for less than $4.00.

Well said. Townhall really does need to ditch that guy...he get's plenty of press and exposure elsewhere, it would not be a great loss and would probably even be a significant gain.

Mr. Kennedy sure has an eloquent way with words. I wish I could make words sound so purdy.

re: #44 pre-Boomer Marine brat

I wrote the same thing to them. Shame on Townhall.com

re: #50 Ringo the Gringo

Charles,
Thanks for recommending the WF Buckley book In Search of Anti-Semitism.
I finished reading it over the weekend.

Get a copy here for less than $4.00.

Try, "God & Man at Yale." That is the book that launched WFB.

They have a huge list of columnists. Cutting one won't hurt anything.
But that's besides the point. If they had two columnists, and one was vile, they need to cut him. It's very important to not present these kinds of ideas under the guise of respectable conservative thought.

I'm quite disappointed. I thought they would have taken action after the last article. Personally I find their site a bit too slow and crowded aestetically, but I do peruse it sometimes to listen to Prager. Now, eh, I don't think I'll bother.

re: #19 zombie

I dunno, the letter seems too reasoned and restrained. I was thinking more along the lines of,

"You bozos, how can you publish the anti-semitic rantings of this jerk? I'll never visit your Web site again!"

I was thinking a moby letter might be just as effective:
Dear Sirs:
I congratulate you for your repeated articles by Pat Buchanan.
[Insert hate-filled, anti-semitic diatribe here]
Sincerely,
John Q Moby

/ think they'd get a clue?

Well said Ross, thanks for speaking up!

re: #54 opnion

Try, "God & Man at Yale." That is the book that launched WFB.

and Up from Liberalism

We're in a war for civilization. Free speech doesn't imply you may find the invitation to spew your hate and invective everywhere. It may mean you are marginalized to ranting on the street corner which is where Buchanan should find himself--on the street, hat in hand, frothing at the mouth. Townhall is getting it badly wrong to think they need to be fair and balanced or present all points of view. That's a lovely practice in peacetime. We are at war. We don't need an American cutting our allies off at the knees. We don't need an American undermining our efforts to remain free. What kind of dangerous, misguided nonsense is this? Buchanan is a negative, he is the opposite of a morale booster. He is our own "Tokyo" Irish Rose. That doesn't even address the issue of his blatant lying.

Brilliant - that's all that needs to be said.

re: #25 rlevitin

My view is that Pakistan has democratic India next door, which also 'has the bomb' (thank you Tom Lehrer), acting as a surrogate regulator. That border/neighbor situation does not exist in Iraq or Afghanistan. Besides, why screw with Pakistan when Iran, Syria, and North Korea are greater threats at the moment? Realpolitik triage. Or adapt (policies) and overcome (tyrannical pricks). Take yer pick.

Perhaps we should also suggest a few columnists to replace him.

Holding my breath in 3...2...1...

Excellent, will they do anything about it?

re: #63 Silhouette

Perhaps we should also suggest a few columnists to replace him.

Melanie Phillips would make a nice replacement.

OHHHHH, this is like a challenge to me.

Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

Buchanan is the resident go to Anti-Semite for MSM.

Good letter.

It's not often you get the chance to trot out the word 'trenchant'.

Hear hear. This myopic buffoon is an albatross around the neck of those who provide him with a platform. I can't believe FNC hasn't figured that out.

Michael Scheuer should also be made persona non grata on Fox. He's more weaselly than Buchanan, I think.

re: #68 buzzsawmonkey

Who would be the Fifth Columnist?

By Buchanan's reckoning, I suppose it would have to be Krauthammer.

re: #28 stuiec

I wonder what Pat Buchanan's take on the IRA was during The Troubles. He sometimes sounds like he wishes the USA would have sided with Ireland against England in WWII, or like he got to know and admire the PLO and the PFLP during the years they were running exchange programs and technology transfers with the Provos.

Hell, maybe he joined the Republican Party by mistake, confusing it with the Republicans in the Old Country.

As long as the IRA was being supported and funded by the USSR, Buchanan was against them. (Likewise w/ the Palestinians.)
Once the Cold War ended, all bets were off.
His latent anti-semitism and not-so-hidden anglophobia became very marked once Israel and England no longer counted as allies against Communism.

Pat Buchanan is hard at work giving Christians and conservatives a bad name. He's doing more to further the leftist cause than pelosi, reed or soros. In fact, hearing the crap that spews from his pie-hole, I begin to think he might have been bought and is a tool of the left. He doesn't speak for me, I repudiate his vile point of view. I wish with all my heart that he'd just go away.

Bravo! Excellent letter, excellent.

I've been a long time reader of Townhall and since Pat went off the deepend, I've removed them from my list and I refuse to go there. Period.

re: #19 zombie

I dunno, the letter seems too reasoned and restrained. I was thinking more along the lines of,

"You bozos, how can you publish the anti-semitic rantings of this jerk? I'll never visit your Web site again!"

You need to KOS it up, man.

"LOOK YOU !@#$ EATING, FROTHING-AT-THE-MOUTH @#$@#$ @#$@#$@ @#$@#$. WE WON'T TOLERATE @#$ @#$@#$@#$@# ON OUR @#$@#$$ TELEVISIONS! I'M NEVER WATCHING YOU OR GOING TO YOUR SITE AGAIN!

SINCERELY,
@#$@#$ @#$@#$@$@#

Many of the writers at TH are Jewish, including Hugh Hewitt, no? Why are they silent?

re: #79 Born Again Republican

Many of the writers at TH are Jewish, including Hugh Hewitt, no? Why are they silent?

Hewitt is a former Catholic turned Evangelical Christian.

re: #80 Ringo the Gringo

Hewitt is a former Catholic turned Evangelical Christian.

My error. Could have sworn I heard him say he was Jewish but it was a long time ago. Thanks for the correction.

re: #81 Born Again Republican

He is very supportive of Israel.

There's a big difference between not reading what he writes and trying to destroy him. Personally, I agree with him on Iran, but he's become a part-time nutjob. It's really sad, as I used to agree with him. That having been said, he has a right to write, but no right to be heard.

Are you mad with him because Townhall is carrying racist writings, or are you trying to use his personal beliefs to silence his political writings? One is fair warning, but the other is political censorship.

Good letter, but I'd also mention the WWII revisionism.

A letter to Dennis Prager with a copy to TownHall.com.

Dear Dennis,

I've enjoyed your show and your columns for many years, reading the columns as they become available on TownHall.com. I truly appreciate the clarity you bring to the issues.

Unfortunately, TownHall has put Pat Buchanan's "Blame Israel and the Jews for Iran and High Gas Prices" piece ([Link: www.townhall.com...] on the same stage as you. While I'm disgusted with Pat's revisions of history and blatant anti-semitism. I'm puzzled why TownHall would give air to this evil.

I'm hoping that you might also question TownHall's actions and bring it up with them.

Thank you,

Gavriel

re: #83 thepresenceusmc

There's a big difference between not reading what he writes and trying to destroy him. Personally, I agree with him on Iran, but he's become a part-time nutjob. It's really sad, as I used to agree with him. That having been said, he has a right to write, but no right to be heard.

Are you mad with him because Townhall is carrying racist writings, or are you trying to use his personal beliefs to silence his political writings? One is fair warning, but the other is political censorship.

You agree with him on Iran?...How so?

Do you think Israel is trying to prod the US into war?

Townhall must be hurting for revenue if they feel the need to pander to the nutsos.

What's next? Will they give Dylan Avery his very own column?

Damn Ross, nice letter! Although I don't think they'll understand it because you used too many big words. :P

I agree completely with Ross Kennedy.

re: #86 Ringo the Gringo

No, Israel is a sovereign country. Israel can't prod us into war. The GOP and the Democrats are trying to prod us into war.

We need to stop this nonsense and quit trying to be the world's policeman, just like Dubya said in 2000, back before ambition and opportunity ruined him. "Humble foreign policy" was and is a good idea.

You don't have to be anti-semitic or liberal to oppose the impending war. Comparing Iran's situation to WW2 is just as silly as saying that Iraq had WMD's just waiting to get launched into the US. A trillion dollars and 4000+ casualties later, we're supposed to settle for "spreading democracy?"

If they want to be free, they will get there under their own power or not, but starting a war in that part of the world is myopic. Just ask the Brits, Russians, Turks, and anyone else who tried.

re: #83 thepresenceusmc

One is fair warning, but the other is political censorship.

I don't think you understand or know the definition of this.

re: #90 buzzsawmonkey

re: #90 buzzsawmonkey

Nope. "Political censorship" is government suppression of political speech--which is wholly absent here.

Saying "I will not patronize your establishment [Townhall.com] because you have seen fit to give a forum to noxious views" is the operation of the free market.

Yes, but this letter isn't saying "I won't be reading your website anymore." It says "Townhall should issue a retraction and purge their content of this specious garbage." I don't read the KOStards, but I wouldn't ever try to have them kicked off the internet.

re: #14 TalkinKamel

Amen to that. They lost me some time ago with the Buchanan asp kissing. The only good thing I can come up with about Pat is fact that he was on the butterfly ballot in Palm Beach county and a sizable number of elderly Jewish folks apparently accidentally voted for Buchanan. I know libs would have us look at voter intent, but call is kismet or divine intervention, stopping the windbag blimp goracle.

Some excellent comments here. And thanks to all of you for the kind words. I've been a lurking lizard for some time, and I deeply respect so many of you in this community. While I disagree with Charles on a very few things, the work done by him and the Lizard Army is indispensable. I would encourage each and every one of you to flood Townhall with letters calling for the removal of Pat Buchanan from their roster. He is so far gone to the extreme right wing that he's shaking hands with the Truther nutjobs on the Left. What an embarrassment to us all.

Ross

re: #93 thepresenceusmc

Not 'kicked off the internet' ~ just from a site that calls itself 'conservative' since most of us do not hold with PB's views. I will say that the amount of commenters at TH agreeing with PB is disheartening, though.

re: #96 buzzsawmonkey

Faster and better said, sir!

re: #91 thepresenceusmc

Comparing Iran's situation to WW2 is just as silly as saying that Iraq had WMD's just waiting to get launched into the US.

Who said that?

re: #91 thepresenceusmc

If they want to be free, they will get there under their own power or not, but starting a war in that part of the world is myopic. Just ask the Brits, Russians, Turks, and anyone else who tried.

I am not concerned with Iran being free, I'm concerned with Iran acquiring nuclear weapons....aren't you?

re: #93 thepresenceusmc

re: #90 buzzsawmonkey

Yes, but this letter isn't saying "I won't be reading your website anymore." It says "Townhall should issue a retraction and purge their content of this specious garbage." I don't read the KOStards, but I wouldn't ever try to have them kicked off the internet.

This is just crap. No one has the power to "kick Pat Buchanan off the internet." He is perfectly free to post his garbage at any web site that will let him do it. And if he can't find one (hopefully soon that will be true), then he's perfectly free to post his garbage on his own web site.

Calling this "censorship" is ludicrous.

It is unfortunate but the only journalistic standard in the 24 hr news cycle is the train wreck and the controversial opinion because it attracts our blooshot eyeballs and therefore sells adspace....

re: #96 buzzsawmonkey

1) Protect the integrity of a conservative site by removing an obvious bigot, and

2) Pointing out to the proprietors of Townhall, who are doubtless carrying Buchanan under the belief that he is "good box office," that he is not, in fact, good box office--an economic argument, as distinct from the previous argument of principle.

BSM, we're all "bigots." Charles hates ID and even vaguely anti-semitic people. I hate environmentalists and warmongers.

The thing is, we all do stuff that is "good box office," and if he isn't, the market will take care of him. If people stop reading him en masse, he'll go away. However, advocating that he be silenced is not a boycott, it is manipulation and is unjust.

What you choose to do is your business, and if you never read Townhall again, that's your call. Denying him the venue, though, is short-sighted. That's "fairness doctrine" thinking for the internet age.

#91 thepresenceusmc:

You don't have to be anti-semitic or liberal to oppose the impending war. Comparing Iran's situation to WW2 is just as silly as saying that Iraq had WMD's just waiting to get launched into the US. A trillion dollars and 4000+ casualties later, we're supposed to settle for "spreading democracy?"

Freeing 50 million people? Just a day at the office for our dedicated military.

I don't know about you, but I was quite satisfied when Saddam took the long drop. Just as I'd be happy to see Ahmadinnerjacket and quite a few mad mullahs dance on the end of a rope (if the JDAM's don't get them first). Some people jus' need killin'. Saddam and his evil spawn were three of those people.

re: #101 Charles

This is just crap. No one has the power to "kick Pat Buchanan off the internet." He is perfectly free to post his garbage at any web site that will let him do it. And if he can't find one (hopefully soon that will be true), then he's perfectly free to post his garbage on his own web site.

Calling this "censorship" is ludicrous.

How so? You want him kicked off a site, rather than you avoiding the site. Not reading what he writes is simple...don't go there.

co-sign

Co-sign with the open letter to Town Hall, that is.

re: #105 thepresenceusmc

How so? You want him kicked off a site, rather than you avoiding the site. Not reading what he writes is simple...don't go there.

That's right, I want Townhall.com to drop his columns. Would you be comfortable having David Duke write for Townhall.com, too? Because Buchanan and David Duke are about one inch apart.

re: #105 thepresenceusmc

You want him kicked off a site, rather than you avoiding the site. Not reading what he writes is simple...don't go there.

That's exactly what we're doing, except that we're also letting Townhall know why we will be avoiding their site.

Does that make any kind of sense to you?

re: #105 thepresenceusmc

Know when to hold 'em, and know when to fold 'em. Tilting at windmills would be a step up from the losing battle you're fighting on this one. We used to shun people in America, and not just in the 17th/18th Centuries, either. Now we turn such losers like Buchanan into fairly well-paid pop culture/media figures, rehabilitating their mental madnesses when such a thing should not be possible in a civilized -- and educated -- society.

Buchanan makes frequent appearances on the Political Cesspool, an openly neo-Nazi, white supremacist radio show.

You cool with that, too, 'thepresenceusmc?'

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

re: #91 thepresenceusmc

The GOP and the Democrats are trying to prod us into war. ...

You don't have to be anti-semitic or liberal to oppose the impending war.

Ah, I see where we disagree. You think the war hasn't already started.

Iran is at war with us. Right now. They are funding those killing American men and women in Iraq. More than that, there are Iranians themselves in Iraq. And Ahmadinejad is very open with his plans for the demise of the West and his ongoing nuclear ambitions.

Our only decision is whether to fight back before or after they kill a million or two.

And you've been woefully misinformed on pre-invasion estimations of WMD in Iraq. Nobody thought he had working nukes "just waiting to be launched." We said at the time that he was working towards them and we wanted to stop him before he got a working one.

Meaning we expected to find A) personnel trained for making nuclear weapons. (We did) B) equipment for enriching nuclear materials. (We did) C) Source materials for bombs (We did), and D) facilities where this all would take place (We did).

We did not find working bombs, no. But we didn't expect to. Revisionists have gone back and tried to claim that this is what was said, to create a false "failure."

Those same revisionists, in typical projection, have claimed BUSH is being revisionist by saying "now" that the purpose was freedom for Iraqis. Yet facts get in the way. The name of the very operation was Operation Iraqi Freedom.

And we didn't do it just to be nice. A free Iraq makes all of us safer.

re: #108 Charles

That's right, I want Townhall.com to drop his columns. Would you be comfortable having David Duke write for Townhall.com, too? Because Buchanan and David Duke are about one inch apart.

No, I wouldn't be comfortable seeing David Duke there, but it's none of my business. In fact, I don't go to Townhall that much anymore as it is. Too many zealots and chickenhawks for my tastes. It offends me and many of the writers attempt to misinform and spread drivel, so it just stopped being part of my daily reading.

Townhall doesn't speak for me, so I don't go there. It's just that simple.

re: #112 Silhouette

Ah, I see where we disagree. You think the war hasn't already started.

Iran is at war with us. Right now.

Yep. Totally agree. It only takes one side to wage war. The other side has two (now maybe three) choices:

1) Fight back;
2) Surrender (Obambi-style);
Or, like 'thepresenceusmc',
3) Ignore the problem - make like it doesn't already exist.

re: #113 thepresenceusmc

Townhall doesn't speak for me, so I don't go there. It's just that simple.

You might consider that strategy here at LGF as well.

"Chickenhawks?"

re: #68 buzzsawmonkey

Who would be the first? Second? Third? Fourth? Who would be the Fifth Columnist?

Now now now, Pat Buchanon already IS our Fifth Column-nist. Natch.

re: #114 RickZ

1) Fight back;
2) Surrender (Obambi-style);
Or, like 'thepresenceusmc',
3) Ignore the problem - make like it doesn't already exist.

When Iran invades the lower 48 from halfway around the world, I'll stand with you to protect our great land. I'll even bring weapons and ammo, if you'll bring chips. Until that day, pardon me if I would rather live in peace.

re: #118 thepresenceusmc

So you have no problem with a nuclear armed Iran?

Very slippery slope here in my opinion. I tend to agree that asking for someone to be removed as a columnist could be construed as censorship. I will use this as an example. My cable company carries Showtime which, in my point of view, is decidedly liberal and promotes homosexuality. I am opposed to both these ideas but I just don't subscribe to Showtime, I don't write my cable company and ask them to remove it from there line up.

Now I haven't read Townhall.com ever as far as I know so I have no idea of who writes there or not. But if people choose not to read their site and they loose advertising over it they will make changes without question.

re: #118 thepresenceusmc

When Iran invades the lower 48 from halfway around the world, I'll stand with you to protect our great land. I'll even bring weapons and ammo, if you'll bring chips. Until that day, pardon me if I would rather live in peace.

Iran's been at war with us since November, 1979. I haven't forgotten that fact. Have you ever known that fact?

Here they come, out of the woodwork.

re: #116 Charles

"Chickenhawks?"

People who talk about war in glowing terms for individual gain, but would never want to be part of fighting the war. People who want to send people like me, who volunteered for service years ago, off to war and call themselves "patriots" for spilling other mens' blood. Baby boomers who champion the war, but do everything they can to keep their own kids from enlisting because "Johnie and Sally have more important things to do."

Chickenhawks are a pretty diverse group. As a vet, though, they are a constant source of frustration and annoyance.

re: #113 thepresenceusmc

No, I wouldn't be comfortable seeing David Duke there, but it's none of my business.

Jacob Marley: "Business? Mankind was my business!"

It is everyone's business when a rogue regime is broadcasting its intention to commit genocide. And it's everyone's business when someone like Buchanan is permitted to have a platform to spew his antisemitic venom and lies.

Silence is acquiescence.

So maybe you just don't believe in putting your money where your mouth is where antisemites like Buchanan are concerned; or maybe you agree with him.

re: #120 N_Jones

...if people choose not to read their site and they loose advertising over it they will make changes without question.

Don't you think it's a good idea to let them know why people choose not to read the site?

re: #119 Ringo the Gringo

So you have no problem with a nuclear armed Iran?

Yes and no. Yes, it annoys me. We have primitive SDI, in one form or another, though. It doesn't bother me enough to start another war.

In addition to the two in this thread, there's also someone going through the Buchanan threads and dinging down comments.

re: #113 thepresenceusmc

No, I wouldn't be comfortable seeing David Duke there, but it's none of my business. In fact, I don't go to Townhall that much anymore as it is. Too many zealots and chickenhawks for my tastes. It offends me and many of the writers attempt to misinform and spread drivel, so it just stopped being part of my daily reading.

Townhall doesn't speak for me, so I don't go there. It's just that simple.

re: #116 Charles

"Chickenhawks?"

Bloody hell, there goes that wrongheadedly-created word again. In my mind, all these years since childhood, a chickenhawk was a kind of hawk that primarily preys on chickens. The figure that started using "Chickenhawks" as a term for people that want to portray themselves as hawks but are really chickens... just offends me, and clearly doesn't remember his classic Warner Brothers cartoons. ("I'm a chickenhawk and I gotta have chicken! Where's the nearest chicken? Show me a chicken!" [Goes after an unsuspecting Foghorn Leghorn.])

re: #118 thepresenceusmc

When Iran invades the lower 48 from halfway around the world, I'll stand with you to protect our great land. I'll even bring weapons and ammo, if you'll bring chips. Until that day, pardon me if I would rather live in peace.

You are NOT living in peace. They're at war with us today, whether you want to fight back or not.

Shi'ite militiamen with Iranian weapons and training launched nearly three-quarters of the attacks that killed or wounded U.S. forces last month in Baghdad,

According to U.S. military figures, 198 American and British soldiers have been killed, and more than 600 wounded by advanced explosive devices manufactured in Iran and smuggled in through the southern marshes and along the Tigris River.

"Twice in the last two or three weeks, in pursuit of those networks, when we have gone and captured those cells, we've captured Iranians," said Gen. Peter Pace.

re: #124 Amy

It is everyone's business when a rogue regime is broadcasting its intention to commit genocide. And it's everyone's business when someone like Buchanan is permitted to have a platform to spew his antisemitic venom and lies.

Silence is acquiescence.

So maybe you just don't believe in putting your money where your mouth is where antisemites like Buchanan are concerned; or maybe you agree with him.

Actually, I don't, but I appreciate your attempts at insinuating such a kinship. After all, if I don't agree with silencing someone who disagrees with you, I must be a bigot racist nutjob.

I don't waste my time on that site because it already offends me. It offended me well before this whole letter-writing campaign. You know what I did? I stopped wasting my time there, but I would never try to keep them from voicing their opinions to anyone who will listen. That's life in the "marketplace of ideas."

re: #126 thepresenceusmc

Yes and no. Yes, it annoys me. We have primitive SDI, in one form or another, though. It doesn't bother me enough to start another war.

How about if you lived in Israel?...Would you find it a little bit more than just annoying?

re: #126 thepresenceusmc

Yes and no. Yes, it annoys me. We have primitive SDI, in one form or another, though. It doesn't bother me enough to start another war.

SDI won't keep your butt from glowing after someone in Asia ships a nuke in a container into US waters.

Mr Buchanan has successfully defined himself by the company he keeps. He should be relegated to the fringes of politics where he might feel more comfortable.

re: #118 thepresenceusmc

I gather you may well admire the likes of the two Chamberlains- the Hitler appeasing Neville and the phoney Injun professor in Colorado?

The Amish and Quakers don't believe in wars and would turn the other cheek. They have other people defending their rights to have that freedom to dissent and exercise free speech. I wass just reading some of the ramblings of a sickening troll who goes by levi over at Patterico's Pontifications. He and you seem to share the idea that the war on terror is criminal and worse. Do you also think that Bush wipes his posterior with the constitution? Would you agree with that troll that our military is only being used as c*mrags in Iraq and Afghanistan? Tell us how you really feel? Are Buchanan and Jimmy right about the Jews? Is Pat's revisionist history of world war two correct in your opinion?

Buchanan along with Olberdouche and Chrissie "I squat to pee" Matthews are a threesome I would avoid watching at any cost. But still capitalism deems them worthy of financial riches. Go figure.

re: #125 Ringo the Gringo

Don't you think it's a good idea to let them know why people choose not to read the site?

I own two restaurants...bet your bottom dollar I would want to know what you thought and why you wouldn't patronize my business any longer. You work hard to build trust and customer confidence.

'thepresenceusmc' is a creationist and a Ron Paulian, just so you know who you're arguing with, and how much chance you have of making an impact.

re: #103 thepresenceusmc

That's "fairness doctrine" thinking for the internet age.

No, it's struggling to maintain integrity of a political movement.
If you get the government involved, that's censorship.

re: #123 thepresenceusmc

People who talk about war in glowing terms for individual gain, but would never want to be part of fighting the war.

Do you or do you not support civilian control of the US military? From Whittle:

The Chickenhawk argument goes something like this: anyone who favors military action should not be taken seriously unless they themselves are willing to go and do the actual fighting.

This particular piece of work is an anti-war crowd attempt to silence the debate by ruling that the other side is out of bounds for the duration.... This is a logical fallacy of the first order, because the messenger is not the message.

The messenger is not the message. That's all you need to throw away the entire Chickenhawk response. But why stop there when this one is so much fun?

If you ever see this charge again, you may want to reflect that person's own logical reasoning in the following fashion: You may not talk about education unless you are willing to become a teacher. You may not discuss poverty unless you yourself are willing to go and form a homeless shelter. ....

Using the internal reasoning behind the Chickenhawk argument means you cannot comment on, speak about or even hold an opinion on any subject that is not part of your paying day job. It is simple-minded and profoundly anti-democratic, which is why it so deeply appeals to those who sling it around the most.

But wait! There's more!

If you accept the Chickenhawk argument that only those actually willing to go and fight have a legitimate opinion on the subject of war then that means that any decision to go to war must rest exclusively in the hands of the military. Is that what this person really wants? To abandon civilian control of the military? That's the box they have trapped themselves in with this argument.

re: #131 Ringo the Gringo

How about if you lived in Israel?...Would you find it a little bit more than just annoying?

Yes. BUT, I don't live in Israel. Ergo, it isn't my annoyance, unlike the Illegal alien problem, which is.

re: #126 thepresenceusmc

Maybe you really were in service, and maybe you weren't. If you were, I thank you for your service. I'm a little surprised that the Corps would graduate someone who didn't understand that he or she was fighting, among other things, to defend the Constitution. Didn't you take the oath? As a lawyer, I did.

As for your substantive argument about "chickenhawks", it reminds me of the drug abusers in high school saying to the rest of us, "You have no right to an opinion about drug abuse. After all, you don't abuse drugs."

Are you seriously contending that only servicemen (and women) or vets have a right to a political opinion about foreign policy and going to war? By your standards, Barack Obama should shut up, correct? If I support military efforts against tyrants, my opinion is invalid because I was never in the service?

Explain yourself, sir.

re: #136 Charles

'thepresenceusmc' is a creationist and a Ron Paulian, just so you know who you're arguing with, and how much chance you have of making an impact.

And proud of both. Yes, thanks for the intro, Charles. I'm honored. :)

Also, I'm a Christian, Marine vet, and Libertarian, so take it all with a grain of salt.

re: #130 thepresenceusmc

After all, if I don't agree with silencing someone who disagrees with you, I must be a bigot racist nutjob.

Nice try, but I am not talking about "silencing" Buchanan, and neither is Charles. What I am talking about is standing up for one's principles by (1) publicly expressing one's disagreement with his ideas and (2) communicating one's disappointment that what is supposed to be a "mainstream" website is allowing someone like Buchanan to disseminate hateful propaganda.

Upholding freedom of speech doesn't mean that anyone should be allowed to say anything anywhere without encountering substantial pushback, or that those who publish such garbage shouldn't be told how people feel about what they're doing.

Furthermore, this is not just about "someone who disagrees" with me. This is about someone openly spewing antisemitic lies. And yes, I do consider antisemities to be a species of bigot. Don't you?

re: #139 thepresenceusmc

Yes. BUT, I don't live in Israel. Ergo, it isn't my annoyance, unlike the Illegal alien problem, which is.

So then you would understand, and be supportive of, a strike by Israel on Iran's nuclear facilities..yes?

re: #140 quickjustice

Maybe you really were in service, and maybe you weren't. If you were, I thank you for your service. I'm a little surprised that the Corps would graduate someone who didn't understand that he or she was fighting, among other things, to defend the Constitution. Didn't you take the oath? As a lawyer, I did.

I took an oath to the Constitution, not to a political cause, man, or movement. I take that oath seriously, and I believe in fighting enemies "foreign and domestic."

Are you seriously contending that only servicemen (and women) or vets have a right to a political opinion about foreign policy and going to war? By your standards, Barack Obama should shut up, correct? If I support military efforts against tyrants, my opinion is invalid because I was never in the service?

No, it isn't invalid. No opinion is invalid, but they're like parts of the anatomy, in that everyone has one. The measure of patriotism is the Constitution, though, and opinions voiced by people who have little invested in its defense and have little interest in helping with its defense don't carry as much weight with me as with others'.

And that isn't to say that military service is required to impact me. There are other ways of protecting one's country and Constitution. I respect people who do that in and out of uniform. However, I don't confuse political and discretionary wars for legitimate protection of the nation.

re: #138 Silhouette

No, I want a war hero as my C-in-C if at all possible. Someone like Lurch of rice shrapel/magic hats/four months in war zone/american GIs= genghis khan nuance. Unless I could choose an Obama or Billy Clinton who are great at ciphering words and loathe the military in all aspects. Maybe Wesley Clark would be the ideal leader for wartime? Someone of great competence who inspires loyalty and pride in his troops. Hahaha. I was thinking about our "need" to gain respect with the Euroweenies, the UN and give hope to minorities. McCain is osrely lacking in experience and Obama is the great Lightmaker inspiratioon. Actually if I went by experience and common sense and had to pick a black president just because he was black, I'd go with Bill Cosby. That Okla, ex-congressman J.C. Watts lost me when he said Obama would do the most for blacks.

Buchanan needs to be tossed under the bus, kicked to the curb, made persona non grata.

He made my skin crawl on that interview with Laura: yeah, Pat, Hitler was a lamb, if only we hadn't provoked him.

re: #136 Charles

'thepresenceusmc' is a creationist and a Ron Paulian, just so you know who you're arguing with, and how much chance you have of making an impact.

Oh.... frak...! One of those, eh? Anything else we need to know about him?

Nevermind, those two things are enough...

re: #38 buzzsawmonkey

Yes.

See my #68 in the Buchanan thread.

Buchanan is doing the double service of delegitimizing Israel (and domestic Jewish political involvement), and delegitimizing the validity of US participation in WWII--both of which are desired by the Left and the Islamists.

Getting rid of WWII's "good war" status puts blame back on the US and the Western democracies for WWII, delegitimizes the one obstacle to the "all wars (and, by extension, all armament and self-defense) are bad" worldview espoused by the Left and desired by the Islamists, and also assists in tainting the founding of Israel after WWII. It also creates an end-run around Holocaust denial, since Pat has been claiming that the Holocaust only came about as a desperate measure by Hitler after he had become embroiled in a war which he did not desire and which was forced on him.

We are witnessing a true demagogue attempting to lay the groundwork for genocide in the USA. Shrewdly following the historical and classical anti-Semitic narrative, Buchanan will use the coming hyper inflationary depression to vilify the jews (i.e. Israel and their American "fifth column") in their familiar scapegoat role for all of societie's ills.

After four years of bread lines and a failed Democratic Obama presidency, the nation will be yearning for a strong fuhrer to lead the masses out of their misery (sound familiar?). Pat will be there (perhaps with Ron Paul ?) to run for a third party ticket that the beleaguered American public will run to, with tragic results for America's jews. Think it can't happen here? Think again.

It is very obvious to see for those who know history. Every jew should own a firearm (preferably several)

re: #143 Ringo the Gringo

So then you would understand, and be supportive of, a strike by Israel on Iran's nuclear facilities..yes?

Sure, in an abstract sense. Go for it, Israel. I just don't want to get stuck in the West Bank if Iran invades. Otherwise, I don't care what they do. They're a sovereign country.

re: #144 thepresenceusmc

I took an oath to the Constitution, not to a political cause, man, or movement.

Then may I direct you to the portion of the Constitution that allows civilian control of the military?

re: #125 Ringo the Gringo

Don't you think it's a good idea to let them know why people choose not to read the site?

I do agree with this. I'm not saying that a person should not express their opinions of the writers at that or any other website or news outlet. Especially if that web site purports to have "conservative" views. All though I believe that "conservatives" are not what they used to be.

My point is this: If we try to silence everyone that has opposing views that makes "us" just like "them". We need to be the better people. My conservative views allow people to be stupid. At some point stupid dies out. You can also think of it this way. Liberal Talk Radio is failing at every turn and Conservative Talk Radio is succeeding. Why? Because of listener-ship.

re: #120 N_Jones

Censorship is the deliberate muffling of an uncomfortable truth by a group who stands to benefit from that truth's continued silence, or the cover-up an opinion that runs counter to the prevailing conventional wisdom or acceptable party line. That said, a free speech code does not allow for hate speech or illogical attacks to remain unnoticed or hidden in the shadows. For far too long, claims of "censorship" have emanated from whomever is saying something patently ridiculous or specious, and is then called on it by more intelligent, decent human beings.

Like you, I choose to not subscribe to premium movie channels due to their high cost and controversial agendas. They choose to proselytize for an agenda I disagree with, ergo I refuse to watch them (and likewise do not patronize them financially). However, Townhall purports to speak for my agenda and beliefs (in a general sense), and Buchanan's comments deviate strongly from their stated platform and typical belief structure. Therefore, they have betrayed me as philosophically-aligned customer.

Unlike Showtime, whom I do not support in full knowledge of their agenda, I previously supported Townhall with my time and ad revenue, based on my well-founded assumptions about their philosophy. Having betrayed common decency, Townhall now must answer to their customers for such an egregious mistake in whom they are promoting and sponsoring. I chose (like many others) to express my disgust in their "breach of duty", as it were. This is not about censorship. It is about violating their customers' sense of decency and good faith. In allowing Buchanan to continue, they have chosen to support a radical Right, bigoted agenda, and embarrassed rational conservatives in the process.

For that, they must answer.

#148 That's one scenario. If we legitimize those illegal aliens in order to gain more liberal votes, you can expect the welfare state dependents to make greater demands. After all, dear Nancy Pelosi is already calling for increased taxes on retirement plans to level the playing field between the rich neocons and the poor illegal aliens and lower classes.

This dude believes our soon-to-be-hell depression is based on baby boomer demographics. Like history repeating itself endlessly:

www.thegreatbusthead.com

re: #152 N_Jones

I do agree with this. I'm not saying that a person should not express their opinions of the writers at that or any other website or news outlet. Especially if that web site purports to have "conservative" views. All though I believe that "conservatives" are not what they used to be.

My point is this: If we try to silence everyone that has opposing views that makes "us" just like "them". We need to be the better people. My conservative views allow people to be stupid. At some point stupid dies out. You can also think of it this way. Liberal Talk Radio is failing at every turn and Conservative Talk Radio is succeeding. Why? Because of listener-ship.

This is nonsense. No one is trying to "silence" anyone. We're trying to get Townhall.com to behave responsibly and stop publishing the work of an antisemitic lunatic.

There is nothing "better" about allowing crass bigots to spew hatred, and drag down the reputation of every conservative with their ugly propaganda.

re: #150 thepresenceusmc

Sure, in an abstract sense. Go for it, Israel.

There will be nothing abstract about it.

Would you oppose, in the event of an Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, the US using it's might to keep open the Strait of Hormuz and the shipping lanes of the Persian Gulf?

re: #148 onepistoffyid

After four years of bread lines and a failed Democratic Obama presidency, the nation will be yearning for a strong fuhrer to lead the masses out of their misery (sound familiar?). Pat will be there (perhaps with Ron Paul ?) to run for a third party ticket that the beleaguered American public will run to, with tragic results for America's jews. Think it can't happen here? Think again.

I've always said Sinclair Lewis' It Can't Happen Here should be required reading in high school, at the latest. One of the best American political novels from a great American writer who is very much underappreciated today; too much of that dead white guy thing, I guess. Forget the Maya Angelou crap.

re: #149 buzzsawmonkey

Yes, of course. I'm very familiar with First Amendment issues. I was responding to thepresenceusmc's equation of throwing Buchanan off Townhall with the suppression of Buchanan's free speech rights. In other words, thepresenceusmc is using the mantra of "free speech" to explain his refusal to speak up in the face of bigotry. That kind of justification for doing nothing to oppose evil offends me.

re: #158 Amy

In other words, thepresenceusmc is using the mantra of "free speech" to explain his refusal to speak up in the face of bigotry.

Exactly right.

re: #144 thepresenceusmc

No, it isn't invalid. No opinion is invalid, but they're like parts of the anatomy, in that everyone has one. The measure of patriotism is the Constitution, though, and opinions voiced by people who have little invested in its defense and have little interest in helping with its defense don't carry as much weight with me as with others'.

And that isn't to say that military service is required to impact me. There are other ways of protecting one's country and Constitution. I respect people who do that in and out of uniform. However, I don't confuse political and discretionary wars for legitimate protection of the nation.

Quick Justice is an Attorney. He, like you took an oath to uphold the Constitution. His, or her opinions, therefore are valid. Correct?

re: #152 N_Jones

My point is this: If we try to silence everyone that has opposing views that makes "us" just like "them".

No one is trying silence anyone.

You are not thinking clearly.

re: #151 Silhouette

Then may I direct you to the portion of the Constitution that allows civilian control of the military?

I don't contest that. Never did. I'm slapping the fan-boy wannabes, not the chain of command. There's a subtle difference, as you should know, between fan-boys who think war is their chance for armchair fame and legitimate civilian authority over the military. I oppose the former and support the latter.

re: #160 buzzsawmonkey

LOL! I always read your comments with interest.

re: #144 thepresenceusmc

I concede that honest people can differ in their opinions in good faith, and I'm not challenging that aspect of your opinion. I'd respectfully suggest, however, that the attacks of 9/11 were attacks on the United States of America against which we had to defend ourselves. I also believe that foreign terrorists, extremist Muslims, perpetrated those attacks. And I believe that every American has a right to an opinion on this issue.

Because Al Qaeda, based in Afghanistan at the time, organized the attack, my opinion is that a U.S. military attack on those Al Qaeda bases was essential to protect America from further attacks.

Are you a "truther", a conspiracy theorist like Dr. Ron Paul, who believes that the U.S. government itself engineered the destruction of the Twin Towers and the air attack on the Pentagon on 9/11?

re: #153 BrothersMcManus

Well said! This should be shouted from the housetops.

re: #145 madmax517

On average, a man or woman with experience in war makes an excellent political leader. It is great check mark in their "qualifications" column.

But that is far different from believing that no one outside the military may be involved in the decision to go to war, which is the ultimate logical conclusion of the "chickenhawk" argument: "You can't say anything if you're not willing to go yourself."

Admittedly, on the surface, it sounds like a valid complaint, and I've certainly used a truer version is telling people that if they don't vote, they cannot complain, it is nonetheless false, even in the second case. Unalienable rights of self-determination do not expire because you don't exercise them. They do, however, get taken away by tyrants if you don't defend them.

re: #155 Charles

This is nonsense. No one is trying to "silence" anyone. We're trying to get Townhall.com to behave responsibly and stop publishing the work of an antisemitic lunatic.

There is nothing "better" about allowing crass bigots to spew hatred, and drag down the reputation of every conservative with their ugly propaganda.

Charles:

Perhaps you can reach out to Dennis Prager and Michael Medved about this issue. They are both on Townhall and have alot of respect for LGF. I am sure they would not approve of Mr. Buchanan's imitation of Goebbels. Medved and Prager may be able to exert some influence on Townhall management. In the meantime sympathetic lizards could also contact them directly via their sites.

re: #162 Ringo the Gringo

re: #152 N_Jones

No one is trying silence anyone.

You are not thinking clearly.

Yes it's all clear to me now. You don't care what Pat Buchanan says you just don't want him to say it and claim to be on your side. Which by the way I have no issue with at all.

Just for the record, I am not a creationist lol

re: #165 quickjustice

I concede that honest people can differ in their opinions in good faith, and I'm not challenging that aspect of your opinion. I'd respectfully suggest, however, that the attacks of 9/11 were attacks on the United States of America against which we had to defend ourselves. I also believe that foreign terrorists, extremist Muslims, perpetrated those attacks. And I believe that every American has a right to an opinion on this issue.

Because Al Qaeda, based in Afghanistan at the time, organized the attack, my opinion is that a U.S. military attack on those Al Qaeda bases was essential to protect America from further attacks.

Are you a "truther", a conspiracy theorist like Dr. Ron Paul, who believes that the U.S. government itself engineered the destruction of the Twin Towers and the air attack on the Pentagon on 9/11?

First, I'm not a truther, and neither was Paul. I think we need to revisit the 9/11 story, and we all know the hearings were a politicized circus. BUT, I believe it was OBL-affiliated Islamic nuts flying airplanes into buildings. The heads that should have rolled on Sept 12, 2001, still need to roll.

Yes, we need to get OBL, but we also need to secure our borders, stop invading tinpots, and sending the Border Patrol to secure Iraqi borders. If we're serious about winning the war with Islamic nutjobs, I support it. If we're into expedient wars and pointless gestures which leave us open to another attack, I'll call the powers-that-be on the carpet.

re: #168 Silhouette

Unalienable rights of self-determination do not expire because you don't exercise them. They do, however, get taken away by tyrants if you don't defend them.

Next caller. And it's Tom in Virginia: "The Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the Blood of Patriots and Tyrants."

Woulda made a great talk show host, that Tom.

re: #167 buzzsawmonkey

That sounds very uncomfortably like someone who could happily engage in a coup d'etat with very little prodding from the right demagogue.

No, that sounds like someone who is tired of the hypocrisy of the typical GOP. I'm not supporting a coup, and I never said that. It's utter stuff and nonsense.

It's correct to say that the First Amendment prohibits the government from stifling speech, not private citizens.

It's perfectly appropriate for private citizens to loudly voice opinions dissenting from those of Buchanan, and to let those who purvey Buchanan's opinions know that we're no longer buying their products and services.

re: #171 thepresenceusmc

I think we need to revisit the 9/11 story...

Care to explain further?

Mr. Buchanan, in attempting to paint the Israelis as nothing but bullies, has indeed shown himself to be an anti-Israel bigot.

How can you bully someone who doesn't recognize your right to exist and has sworn to wipe you from the face of the earth?

This man is a complete nutjob.

re: #171 thepresenceusmc

First, I'm not a truther, and neither was Paul. I think we need to revisit the 9/11 story, and we all know the hearings were a politicized circus. BUT, I believe it was OBL-affiliated Islamic nuts flying airplanes into buildings. The heads that should have rolled on Sept 12, 2001, still need to roll.

Yes, we need to get OBL, but we also need to secure our borders, stop invading tinpots, and sending the Border Patrol to secure Iraqi borders. If we're serious about winning the war with Islamic nutjobs, I support it. If we're into expedient wars and pointless gestures which leave us open to another attack, I'll call the powers-that-be on the carpet.

What do you mean by "revisiting 911"?

...can't say I've ever viewed Mr. Buchanan as anything other than a bombastic attention-whore...Attempts of portraying him as some spokesman for anything other than himself I attribute to liars...

...who lie...

re: #163 thepresenceusmc

I don't contest that. Never did. I'm slapping the fan-boy wannabes, not the chain of command. There's a subtle difference, as you should know, between fan-boys who think war is their chance for armchair fame and legitimate civilian authority over the military. I oppose the former and support the latter.

And I guess we use mind-reading to determine who is just using the war for armchair fame and who is supporting it for genuine reasons, so you'll know when to obey Constitutional authority and when not?

re: #171 thepresenceusmc

There is a fairly good chance that OBL is dead, and has been for some while. All of his recorded messages in recent years appear to have been doctored or something, with a different sound-alike voice involved. If it's a video of him talking, conspicuously you'll see the image freeze any time he brings up current events, and then the image unfreezes once he goes back to more general comments that aren't tied to anything timely. I.e. they took existing footage of him, lip-synched most of it, then freeze-framed it for anything new added.

re: #175 Charles

Care to explain further?

Absolutely! We need to find out who dropped the ball. We need to find who ignored the intel. We need to hear the testimony from Operation Able Danger. It's high time we find out what went wrong and fix it, instead of creating monolithic bureaucracies like DHS.

That 9/11 Blue-Ribbon bunch of knuckleheads didn't do anything but give the Jersey Girls a political platform.

Michael Medved is on the wrong side of the ID issue.

===

"Chickenhawks?"

Like Bill Roggio, Michael Yon, Michael Totten, James Dunnigan, Austin Bay, Al Nofi, Harold Hutchinson, Tom Kratman, and Victor Davis Hanson?

How about the Black Five crew? Aaron over at Internet Hagganah and the SOFIR crew, the gang over at Small Wars Journal, or Steve Emerson and CT Blog?

Are they all "chickenhawks?"

NOT
BLOODY
LIKELY,
R

re: #181 buzzsawmonkey

Only because nobody's yet asked you, it would seem. I wonder what you'll do when you are asked?

Your remarks about "chickenhawks," and your grudging and much-qualified acceptance and recognition of civilian control of the military, clearly indicate someone with highly developed resentments.

isn't the term chickenhawk used as a code word for neocons (and we all know who they are).

Its not a coincidence that Buchanan is trying to build his audience now... he had to wait for his nemesis William F. Buckley to leave the scene.

Step over that still warm corpse and grab the crown, you @sshole.

re: #183 Render

Michael Medved is on the wrong side of the ID issue.

So is Mr. Limbaugh, sad to say....

Love this letter...
It's almost comforting there are some people left in this world who see reality clear.

Make your voice heard on facebook.com

[Link: www.facebook.com...]

Protest old Nazi Pat and let townhall know you're angry with them

re: #181 buzzsawmonkey

Only because nobody's yet asked you, it would seem. I wonder what you'll do when you are asked?

Your remarks about "chickenhawks," and your grudging and much-qualified acceptance and recognition of civilian control of the military, clearly indicate someone with highly developed resentments.

"Resentment" is a really nice way of putting it. "Bordering on seething rage" would be more like it, and I'm not alone. You'd be surprised, actually, and that's why Paul got more military contributions than the other guys.

I didn't qualify my support for civilian leadership, though, and I resent the twisting of my words.

re: #171 thepresenceusmc

I think we need to revisit the 9/11 story.

...what...revisit until the "facts" match your perceptions?...There is no such thing as "revisit" because this story is ongoing...The "revisiting" you speak of has been ongoing for the last seven years.

Perceptions do not reality make.

re: #184 onepistoffyid

Just what the frak IS a neocon, anyway? I've seen people derisively label LGF here a neocon site. What is the difference betweeen a true Conservative and a neocon?

Anyone?

"Absolutely! We need to find out who dropped the ball. "

ahhh, it *is* somehow *our* fault

perceptions

re: #186 wrenchwench

So is Mr. Limbaugh, sad to say....

Dennis Prager believes in ID as well, but does not think that it meets the scientific standards required to teach it in a science classroom.

He believes in ID from a theological and philosophical standpoint.

paleocons were against the war, neocons were for it...

everything after that is typical demonization by demons who like to project their evil onto others

Nice letter. Appreciate the sentiments. But...

Like the Palestinians, the Israelis claim their land as their spiritual birthright ...

No, sorry. Nothing like the "palestinians," who claim it not as their spiritual birthright but as their assigned role in the global jihad. Nowhere in the Koran were the "palestinians" (who didn't exist) or the Muslims, for that matter, promised "Palestine," except as part of their conquest of the whole world. Jerusalem isn't even mentioned in the Koran (the retroactive meaning that was assigned to "the farthest mosque" notwithstanding).

I'm sorry to pick on a small point in an otherwise very good letter, but this assigning equivalence to the Israeli and "palestinian" claims to the Land of Israel is totally bogus and shouldn't be encouraged.

re: #190 Orbit Rain

...what...revisit until the "facts" match your perceptions?...There is no such thing as "revisit" because this story is ongoing...The "revisiting" you speak of has been ongoing for the last seven years.

Perceptions do not reality make.

No, the bureaucrats who dropped the ball were shielded by Congress. Read the 9/11 report? Watch the hearings? It was a flipping joke, and a bad one, at that.

re: #194 Orbit Rain

Okay, but what is the difference between a conservative and a neocon? What does the neo in neocon mean? Beyond just "new," I mean. Neo in what way? And please, no jokes about how there is no spoon. :D

re: #195 Lynn B.

Good point. So-called "Palestinian nationalism" didn't even exist until the 1960's and was only adopted as a weapon against Israel and a way to get sympathy from the West. Until then, the Arabs living there considered the area to be part of "greater Syria." National boundaries have no relevance to the Ummah anyway.

re: #182 thepresenceusmc

I'll concede that I've always wondered why Bush fired no one in the aftermath of 9/11. CIA and FBI seemed ripe for a major shakeup. And elements in those bureaucracies have been fighting the Administration ever since (think Joe Wilson and Valerie Flame).

According to the 9/11 Commission Report itself, the Pentagon was unable to get armed aircraft into the air in time to intercept the airliners. I almost cried when I read about Cheney screaming "Shoot them down!" into a telephone, with no response from the Pentagon. For this we spend billions per year on defense?

I support civilian control of the military. Why didn't we see some civilian control of the CIA and FBI?

And I don't think Homeland Security is effective. I think it's window dressing, a public relations ploy. My source for all this: Michael Shaheen.

re: #191 NomadOfNorad

Just what the frak IS a neocon, anyway? I've seen people derisively label LGF here a neocon site. What is the difference betweeen a true Conservative and a neocon?

Anyone?

A neocon thinks supporting war in Iraq and Iran makes you a conservative, regardless of your other views. A real conservative may emphasize either fiscal or cultural restraint (or both), but is dedicated to deeper principles than the well-being of the Bush Administration.

Buchanan is no nutjob. People have a black and white sanitized vision of America in the 1940's.. UNDER COVER
Buchanan is the political editiorial wing of the brown shirt sympathizers... I know that sounds over the top but that's what he is.. And he's no dummy. He's gamed correctly the proper time to once again let his hate memed themes come to the fore..

Just observe how when he criticizes the White House he always does so carefully and always painting the problem as the Jewish names within the WHouse... as if Libby was controlling Cheney? lol! hilarious to anyone with a brain but effective.. then you throw in Perle or Wolfowitz and the "israeli lobby" and Pat has cover from within to strike away....

After Rafik Harriri was assasinated by presumable and by all evidentiary accounts and beliefts Syria and its agents within Lebanon.. and there have been more since! Buchanan immediately (before the blood was even dry) was penning a piece accusing Isarel of Baiting a Trap for Bush
He said Assad would have had to have been the dumbest man on the planet if he were behind it so cui bono the angry blowhard mockingly asks?

re: #191 NomadOfNorad

Just what the frak IS a neocon, anyway? I've seen people derisively label LGF here a neocon site. What is the difference betweeen a true Conservative and a neocon?

Anyone?

Neocon is a code word used by the nutroots and paleocons to refer to formerly liberal (usually) jews such as wolfowitz and perle and Kristol, with the most unsavory of historical connotations

re: #189 thepresenceusmc

"Resentment" is a really nice way of putting it. "Bordering on seething rage" would be more like it, and I'm not alone. You'd be surprised, actually, and that's why Paul got more military contributions than the other guys.

I didn't qualify my support for civilian leadership, though, and I resent the twisting of my words.

Parting shot...Paul should have told the Student Scholars where to put his conspiracy theories, instead Paul listened to this fuck-wad and allowed the perfect photo-op for the troofers. Paul should have kicked him in the ass thus helping to dislodge his head. Paul lost all creditability.

re: #200 quickjustice

Well, buddy, then you and I are in agreement. It's high time we opened the books again and had an accounting on those issues. We owe it to our kids and to the 3000 who died.

re: #193 Ringo the Gringo

Dennis Prager believes in ID as well, but does not think that it meets the scientific standards required to teach it in a science classroom.

He believes in ID from a theological and philosophical standpoint.

Rush gave Ben Stein a veritable tongue-bath in his "Limbaugh Letter," I think it was the May issue.

re: #191 NomadOfNorad

something about vigorous pursuit of traditional morality and pro-business policies is what I see defined, but I sort of took it to mean conservatives controlled by zionists and the desires of Israel. I mean the disparaging words from the left seem to say neocons are warmongers to enrich their pocketbooks.

re: #141 thepresenceusmc

And proud of both. Yes, thanks for the intro, Charles. I'm honored. :)

Also, I'm a Christian, Marine vet, and Libertarian, so take it all with a grain of salt.

You left out, "blockhead." Doubt seriously you're a Marine, btw. You don't sound like any of the Marines I've known over the years, and I'm no spring chickenhawk (49).

re: #206 wrenchwench

If you consider I.D. a theological issue and not a science one. As a theological issue I don't have a issue with it. i still don't care about it but don't find it offensive to call it a religious issue.

re: #118 thepresenceusmc

and our 32 bases they've threatened? they're not in the lower 48...

re: #200 quickjustice

Tell me why Condi Rice bought into all the State Dept. arabist leanings? It is outrageous how Israel is asked to give more concessions to Arabs and Arabs manage to attain the world's sympathy.
Bush did not clean house of formly entrenched liberal careerists in state dept. or CIA. CIA even allowed publication of books by agents that were highly critical of Bush and the war. It seems that neither agency worries at all about who their boss is. I'm sure the lbreals would have had a fit in any case if there had been broad housecleaning of disloyal creeps.

And what about Jamie Gorelick being on the investigating committee when actually a big part of the pre-911 mindset was that highly injurious Gorelick wall between agecies?

One of the main reason I will never vote for a Democrat is because the party will not formally, and without hedging, kick out the nuts, radicals, kooks and cretins who have so much voice within the party.

The Republicans tossed Pat years ago, now he needs to find his indefensible brand of conservatism is no longer welcome in reputable conservative circles of influence; conservatism has too much intellectual dignity to allow him to peddle his conspiracy theory in thoughtful venues. Let him follow down the dark and dim path of Joe Sobran

Hear, hear, for Mr. Kennedy and for Charles too. I sent my own email to Pat Buchanan explaining in civil terms why I will not browse Townhall's blogs (Implied but unfortunately not clearly stated is that I also will not use Townhall's other web facilities!) while he is associated with Townhall.

I had previously stopped reading Hugh Hewitt's blog because of the campaign he and Generalissimo Duane had waged against Rev. Wright. While I dislike, and disagree with, Rev. Wright's views on almost everything, HH and GD's campaign made no sense and it seemed to be waged in order to raise racial outrage against Trinity UCC and its pastor. It was a senseless and dysfunctional campaign in every way; IMHO.

Townhall is in close danger of becoming an outlet for irrational rage as expressed by Pat Buchanan and also occasionally by HH and GD.

If others disagree with my views, so be it.

re: #209 buzzsawmonkey

A Jewish mother, the way the phrase is usually used. In other words, "neocon" is quite frequently a code-word for "Jew."

There were a number of Jewish intellectuals formerly identified as left-liberal who started getting tired of PC, race-hustling, identity politics and a number of the other features which distinguish today's Democratic Party, who moved over to the conservative/Republican camp. Like ex-Communist David Horowitz, they had a thorough up-close acquaintance with what they were turning their backs on, and that knowledge only increased the zealousness with which they transferred their loyalties.

These newbies were disliked in some cases as Johnny-come-latelies; in some cases, such as Buchanan's, because they were Jews; and in some cases because, being articulate and able, they gained policy positions which other people had coveted. "Neocon" is used by people on both sides of the political divide; whether the person using it is doing so to express dislike of someone as a parvenu or as a turncoat, there is always the other subtext throbbing beneath the usage.

I've never heard the term defined so succinctly, though I've been thinking along the same lines for several years, since I discovered the books and online presence of David Horowitz. I'm not Jewish, just another Irish lapsed-Catholic 9/11 Rethuglican. I've noticed the throbbing subtext many times, though...and not just in the loony, public anti-Semitism of Buchanan.

re: #208 garycooper

You left out, "blockhead." Doubt seriously you're a Marine, btw. You don't sound like any of the Marines I've known over the years, and I'm no spring chickenhawk (49).

Oh, ok. I'll check with your friends, and see if spending 6 years in the service was acceptable. There's an EGA upstairs and an old ID card in my wallet that beg to disagree.

re: #201 thepresenceusmc

re: #203 onepistoffyid

re: #207 madmax517

re: #209 buzzsawmonkey

Ah, I'm beginning to follow, now. For some reason I had assumed that the "neo" in "neocon" meant it was a new KIND of Conservative, a new SCHOOL OF THOUGHT in Conservatism, sorta like a new denomination of Christianity splitting off from one of the other Christian sects to form their own newly named group... Instead all it is is NEWLY BECOME Conservatives who haven't completely accepted all the tenets of classic Conservatism (yet?).

Ron Paul utterly discredited himself by getting into bed with Truthers and Neo-Nazis. And advanced military technology has saved a lot of military and non-military lives, so I favor serious science, research, and development over the creationist hatred of science.

'Nuff said on this thread.

re: #201 thepresenceusmc

A neocon thinks supporting war in Iraq and Iran makes you a conservative, regardless of your other views.

The term neo-conservative has been around since the late 1950's. It generally referred to intellectuals such as Norman Podhoretz and Irving Kristal among others - people who were once on the Left side of the political spectrum but who shifted to the right in response to the Lefts continued embrace of Marxist ideas rather than traditional classical Liberalism.

Most neo-cons support neo-liberal economics, moderate social policies and believe in American exceptionalism.

re: #198 NomadOfNorad

I think words like "conservative" and "liberal" suffer from two-dimensional left/right thinking...there is no depth, there is no spectrum...labels designed for lazy thinking/thinkers...As far the "difference" goes, it's an apples and oranges thing...and I wouldn't want to say the scales go:

Old

re: #211 cyndijane

and our 32 bases they've threatened? they're not in the lower 48...

It might be worth asking whether having all those bases presents a security risk. If we cover the world with bases, we're bound to run into a few enemies, though. We can't conquer the world, nor should we want to, just because a few retards want to threaten us.

hmmm...pimf..the brackets I used hosed my diatribe

Antisemitic hate mail now arriving:

I'm a frequent reader of this blog, and the hate shown towards Pat
Buchanan doesn't really come as surprising. Interestingly enough, it
seems like many conservatives are re-evaluating our stance towards
Israel. Pat Buchanan's articles receive very positive receptions at
many of the sites he is syndicated on. Take a look at the townhall
comments, many conservatives are questioning the wisdom of this
administration's middle East policy, and have noticed the great
influence that Israel holds over both democrat and republican
leadership. With America's turn away from our own best interests, you
can see many conservative republicans advocating for a hard look at
policies that don't benefit this country in any discernible way. Pat
Buchanan has mirrored this feeling in his very thought-out and
articulate columns. I also believe many conservatives are sick of
hearing that criticizing Israel's policies is a criticism of Judaism.
Jumping to claim bigotry when none exists is a staple of the left, and
it's hasn't been sitting well with America-First conservatives. Israel
is only a country, a sovereign country, and one that might not have our
best interests in mind.
Regards,
Ian Condie

re: #218 quickjustice

Ron Paul utterly discredited himself by getting into bed with Truthers and Neo-Nazis. And advanced military technology has saved a lot of military and non-military lives, so I favor serious science, research, and development over the creationist hatred of science.

'Nuff said on this thread.

see my #204...you're correct...enough said

re: #217 NomadOfNorad

NYC Definition of "Neo-con": A liberal who's been mugged. Buckley and his school were paleo-cons. Buckley led the conservative movement away from the John Birch Society into the mainstream. For that alone, he deserves respect.

For the most part, the Neo-cons (term term defined by Kristol) were ethnically Jewish, but were internationalist in their aspirations, breaking away from paleo-con isolationism, such as that evinced by Buchanan.

re: #219 Ringo the Gringo

Most neo-cons support neo-liberal socialist economics, moderate Marxist social policies and believe in American exceptionalism globalism.

There you go! Just wanted to clarify.

re: #221 thepresenceusmc

Why would the constitute a security risk? It's not like Just Anyone can walk into one of those military bases we have in other countries: You have to have legitimate REASON to be there, and have the right kind of IDs, credentials and stuff to get IN.

re: #208 garycooper

I checked his blog out a while ago. Unless he's looking for some time in a federal prison he really is USMC.

But so were John Murtha, Lee Harvey Oswald, and Clayton Lonetree...

KILL
AND
BURN,
R

re: #223 Charles

Israel is only a country, a sovereign country, and one that might not have our best interests in mind.

I guess we know where America First and Ian stand. Katie-bar-the-door.

re: #226 thepresenceusmc

There you go! Just wanted to clarify.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

re: #223 Charles

Does Mr. Condie understand the implications of the phrase "America First", harkening back to Charles Lindberg, the German-American Bund, and the pro-Nazi politics of the 1930s?

Sheesh! These people are modern-day Rip Van Winkles!

Hear, hear, Ross. Nicely done.

re: #231 Ringo the Gringo

Hmmm.... I dinged up #226 when I shoulda dinged it down. But I see three others (so far) have dinged it down... Good.

re: #228 buzzsawmonkey

re: #207 madmax517

re: #209 buzzsawmonkey

In Spain, after the Expulsion in 1492, the Jews and Moors who converted and stayed became "New Christians."

It was not long before Spain began enacting purity of descent laws to ensure that the "New Christians" were excluded from various honors and positions. The Nuremberg Laws were, in fact, modeled on the Spanish "Limpia de Sangre" (literally, "clean blood") laws. In Spain a healthy business in falsified geneologies sprang up, to prove that you were an "hijo de algo," i.e., a "son of someone", which is where the term "hidalgo" comes from.

Now see....THAT is one of the main reasons I come here. So many really smart posters. Thanks BSM.

/learn something new every day

When you hear someone using "neocon," i.e., "New Conservative," you are hearing an echo through the ages from post-Expulsion Spain.

Alright, guys, it's been fun. Have a good one! G'night.

re: #214 Olderthandirt

Hear, hear, for Mr. Kennedy and for Charles too. I sent my own email to Pat Buchanan explaining in civil terms why I will not browse Townhall's blogs (Implied but unfortunately not clearly stated is that I also will not use Townhall's other web facilities!) while he is associated with Townhall.

I had previously stopped reading Hugh Hewitt's blog because of the campaign he and Generalissimo Duane had waged against Rev. Wright. While I dislike, and disagree with, Rev. Wright's views on almost everything, HH and GD's campaign made no sense and it seemed to be waged in order to raise racial outrage against Trinity UCC and its pastor. It was a senseless and dysfunctional campaign in every way; IMHO.

Townhall is in close danger of becoming an outlet for irrational rage as expressed by Pat Buchanan and also occasionally by HH and GD.

If others disagree with my views, so be it.

I find that a touch ironic, because what Hugh was trying to do, I think, and I didn't follow his blog much but listened to his program, was similar to what Charles is trying to do. Kick a nut out of your group. In Buchanan's case, out of conservatism, in Wright's case, Christianty. Or if not out of it, to discredit them as spokesmen, because they tar others by association.

re: #232 quickjustice

Just thinking that we've returned to the thirties myself. Everything old is new again.

'Re-evaluating our stance?' Not this conservative, Mr. Condie.

re: #236 thepresenceusmc

Alright, guys, it's been fun. Have a good one! G'night.

Eh? What? It's only 6:39 here, and 3:39 on the Left Coast... What time is it there?

This is kinda getting interesting because it keeps digging itself in deeper. Chickenhawks, trooferism, Ron Paul, neo-cons, and now this.

I wonder who exactly are supposed to be the Marxists? Bush? Condi? Rove, maybe?

It's like a car crash. I can't turn away.

re: #228 buzzsawmonkey

re: #207 madmax517

re: #209 buzzsawmonkey

In Spain, after the Expulsion in 1492, the Jews and Moors who converted and stayed became "New Christians."

It was not long before Spain began enacting purity of descent laws to ensure that the "New Christians" were excluded from various honors and positions. The Nuremberg Laws were, in fact, modeled on the Spanish "Limpia de Sangre" (literally, "clean blood") laws. In Spain a healthy business in falsified geneologies sprang up, to prove that you were an "hijo de algo," i.e., a "son of someone", which is where the term "hidalgo" comes from.

When you hear someone using "neocon," i.e., "New Conservative," you are hearing an echo through the ages from post-Expulsion Spain.

(ooops. Charles can you clean my last post up?)

Now see, THAT is one of the main reasons I come here. There are some really smart people here. Thanks BSM.

/learn something new every day.

re: #210 yochanan

If you consider I.D. a theological issue and not a science one. As a theological issue I don't have a issue with it. i still don't care about it but don't find it offensive to call it a religious issue.

I think one's view of the origins of everything is a religious or theological view, or sometimes a scientific one. I think "Intelligent Design" is a political issue. If a person believes that "Intelligent Design" describes their view of the origins of everything, they should call it something else unless they are arguing for it to be taught in public schools. The term as used by the Discovery Institute is a political position, as far as I can tell.

re: #193 Ringo the Gringo

Dennis Prager believes in ID as well, but does not think that it meets the scientific standards required to teach it in a science classroom.

He believes in ID from a theological and philosophical standpoint.

Let's differentiate here, there's lots of folks who believe in a creator, and think that it's of value to be able to mention G-D in school. Then there's a crew who are actively following DI's lead of deconstructing science.
Prager and Limbaugh aren't out to destroy empiricism, Medved has me wondering now that he's actively working for DI.
There's a lot of big cash from a few sources, I'm not going to be surprised to find that some are willing to sell their intellectual soul.

By adding MMGW, Cloning, and Stem Cell research to the agenda as their PR flacks advised them to, DI has notably increased their appeal in conservative groups. Some are going to regret that later I think.

I was very surprised to learn that Medved pushes ID. Lost a lot of respect for him because of it.

re: #123 thepresenceusmc

Chickenhawks are a pretty diverse group. As a vet, though, they are a constant source of frustration and annoyance.

Why? Did you only join the service to serve the causes you agreed with?

re: #223 Charles

Scary.
Evil from all corners; Libs, jihadists, Ron Paul and Buchanan.

Dennis Prager supports ID from a religious viewpoint, but he doesn't support teaching it as science as far as I know.

re: #244 Charles

I was very surprised to learn that Medved pushes ID. Lost a lot of respect for him because of it.

WTF I don't believe it....!

re: #246 Age Of Freedom

Scary.
Evil from all corners; Libs, jihadists, Ron Paul and Buchanan.

This is only going to get worse as the economy worsens....remember Hitler considered a fringe lunatic prior to the depression....I am deeply concerned and I have a good track record for seeing things years before they occur.

re: #247 Charles

And Rush? Did he just fall for the propaganda in Ben Stein's movie? He said he thought the movie was great.

Spot on, sir.

re: #250 wrenchwench

And Rush? Did he just fall for the propaganda in Ben Stein's movie? He said he thought the movie was great.

Apparently, he did fall for the propaganda because he was on record earlier as calling IDers disingenuous for trying to pimp creationism under a brand new name while pretending they weren't one and the same.

Ian Condie? Sounds like someone from the UK or Canada just judging from the name. A lot of our hate group supporters and apologists really come from offshore since it doesn't fly too well here.

Anyway to track that back?

re: #254 buzzsawmonkey

The things that Pat Buchanan writes
They cause the mind to boggle
If unlike him, you don't see life
Through a pair of demagoggles.

Heh! I like this one! LOL!

Brit Hume to retire soon ...

[Link: www.washingtonpost.com...]

His show "Special Report" is far and away the best news hour on TV. I hope this show doesn't retire with him :(

This kind conspiracy-mongering is increasingly typical for Mr. Buchanan

I'm starting to feel very old.

This is NOT something new for Mr. Buchanan. What we're seeing is some sort of effort to rehabilitate Buchanan and it is tragic to see.
I note the passing of William Buckley who had a word or two about Mr. Buchanan's conservative "populism" and wonder if that has had
anything to do with this resurgence of the "populist" right.

Pat Buchanan kept his controversial views to himself while on the "Crossfire" show probably because he knew it would get him in trouble. Now that he's free from those constraints, he's doing for the Right what the "Zionist"-haters did for the Left.

I now believe it is a maxim -- the more extreme one end of the political spectrum gets, the other end reacts by also getting more
extreme but, in too many cases, the ideology is exactly the same (or, at least, the results will be).

It is important that people of conscience, on either the left or right
(and I hope there are still some on the left), continue to shine a
light on this age-old shibboleth.

Arnold

Speaking of cleansing Internet sites, it wouldn't bother me at all to see thepresenceusmc banned from LGF, just on general principles.

re: #253 Wendya

Apparently, he did fall for the propaganda because he was on record earlier as calling IDers disingenuous for trying to pimp creationism under a brand new name while pretending they weren't one and the same.

I'm glad to read he said that earlier, and I hope he gets back to that understanding. I got the feeling from his interview with Stein that Rush believed teachers were being persecuted for mentioning God in school. And he's a big fan of Bobby Jindal. I'd just hate to see Rush pushing ID as a proper part of conservatism.

re: #247 Charles

Dennis Prager supports ID from a religious viewpoint, but he doesn't support teaching it as science as far as I know.

That is correct...I have heard him say this a few years ago when he had Gerald Schroeder on his radio program.

Schroeder, BTW, feels the same way. When he works as a physicist he is strictly working as a scientist. When he writes books, he is writing as a theologian and a philosopher. He makes the distinction quite clear. Unlike Behe, Schroeder has never attempted to form any type of "scientific" theory to prove ID, in fact Schroeder's writings, for the most part, do not even deal with the theory of evolution. What he writes about mostly are the laws that control the behavior of sub-atomic particles and theories about the nature of time and space.

I don't know if Schroeder has any connection to the discovery institute, but I hope he doesn't.

re: #248 onepistoffyid

[Link: findarticles.com...]

SORRY,
R

re: #229 Render

And only one of those was a good shot. (could not resist)

re: #209 buzzsawmonkey

I dinged this up because it's a really good explanation but it's only a part of the picture. Neo-con doesn't mean "new Conservative." The guy who coined the phrase (Bill Kristol) has been a Conservative for a very long time. He was Dan Quayle's chief of staff, for pete's sake. Doug Feith also comes to mind. His mentor at Harvard was Richard Pipes.

quickjustice (#225) covers it really well. IMO

re: #257 _remembertonyc

Brit Hume to retire soon ...

[Link: www.washingtonpost.com...]

His show "Special Report" is far and away the best news hour on TV. I hope this show doesn't retire with him :(

Yaaaagghhhhh! More bad news.

re: #261 Ringo the Gringo

I think the simplest way to say it is, "I believe in God. I believe God made the universe and everything in it. I just don't know really how he did it and how everything really works."

re: #265 Lynn B.

I still think Brit Hume looks like Sam the Eagle from the Muppet Show.

#237 nikis-knight: I followed many of Duane's post about Trinity's newsletter and never once did he explain, on the blog, what he was trying to do. I challenged him directly and know that others did so too without a response. Left to view only what was presented, I concluded as described above, as I believe others so concluded.

re: #183 Render

Michael Medved is on the wrong side of the ID issue.

I've heard Michael Medved's position in detail and I am not sure I can disagree with it. He takes no issue with evolution or the big bang theory; he just thinks that a creator set these things in motion. My understanding is that what he wants tought is the notion that belief in evolution and the big bang does not logically require that you be an atheist. He would like that students be tought that by its nature, the big bang theory means we cannot know what existed prior to the big bang, and that there is room there for a creator, if you want to believe in one.