Fish Eaters Traditional Catholic Forum
May 22, 2013, 08:56:PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The man still needs help!
 
   Fish Eaters    Forum Index   Forum Rules   Help Calendar Members Chat Room   Who's Chatting   Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3
 
Author Topic: Pat Gets Smeared Again  (Read 2553 times)
VoxClamantis
Guest
« on: May 22, 2006, 08:13:AM »

From WorldNetDaily:
 

 
 
Pat Buchanan, Fifth Columnist
Posted: February 10, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern
 
 
 
Three years ago, I wrote that Pat Buchanan was "the useful idiot of the liberal establishment" and that his "wisdom and patriotism must be questioned." After I penned those words, I received a barrage of hate mail from supporters of Buchanan. Much of the mail was anti-Semitic, and most of it was ignorant babble.
 
Of course, it is no surprise that Buchanan's supporters compose the anti-Semitic and ignorant wing of the paleo-conservative right. Buchanan himself is anti-Semitic and ignorant. This week, he proved both his moral blindness and his myopic bigotry in a series of columns supporting American foreign aid for Hamas, castigating American presidents from Wilson and FDR and Truman to Kennedy and Bush for their interventionist foreign policies and insulting freedom of the press in Europe. 
 

Quote
Ohhhh no! The "anti-Semitic and ignorant wing of the paleo-conservative right." Golly, Ben, is there any other wing of this nefarious group?

 
First, on Feb. 1, Buchanan stated:

Understandably, the Israelis are close to hysterical over the landslide for Hamas and are on a diplomatic campaign to have all donors end all aid to a Palestinian Authority dominated by Hamas. But that is not in our interests. It is not even in Israel's interest. For it has been Israel's behavior, and uncritical U.S. support for that behavior, that produced this victory for Hamas. To continue on that road is to arrive at, literally, a dead end. 

Buchanan's arrogance is astounding. The idea that monetary support for the terrorist group Hamas is in America's and Israel's best interest is laughable. The very idea that a man who has called Congress "Israeli-occupied territory" can speak for Israel's "best interest" is laughable. Buchanan, the anti-Semite, strikes again. 
 

Quote
OK, Yogi! I guess saying that getting hysterical over the Hamas victory and going on a big campaign to cease donations is the same as saying that monetary support for Hamas is in America's best interests (and Israel shouldn't be an American concern anyway).

 
At least Buchanan is consistent. He believes that capitulation to Arab terror is the best solution across the board. On Feb. 3, he condemned President Bush's State of the Union address, averring, "His victory in Iraq, like the wars of Wilson and FDR, has turned to ashes in our mouths ... Bush seeks to counter critics who warned him not to go in by associating them with the demonized and supposedly discredited patriots of the America First movement of 1940-1941 ... Who has done more to empower Islamic radicals than Bush with his clamor for elections across a region radicalized by our own policies?"
 
Yes, you read that correctly: Buchanan feels that World War II was a defeat for America and identifies himself with the fully discredited America First movement. Of course, this is nothing new from Buchanan – he has already declared that World War II was not worth fighting. At least Buchanan's revolting and shameful betrayal of the hundreds of thousands who died for freedom in World War II and the millions who died in death camps makes clear one thing: The same folks who despise America's interventionism on behalf of freedom in the Middle East would have let Britain fall to Hitler and the chimneys of Auschwitz spew forth the ashes of every last Jew. 
 
Quote
"Discredited" by whom? And how is it "betrayal" of our brave soldiers to know that their deaths were unecessary (may they rest in peace)?

 
But Buchanan wasn't done yet. On Feb. 6, he blamed European freedom of the press for Muslim rampaging across the globe. European newspapers, he explained, had provoked Muslim rage by reprinting a controversial Danish cartoon depicting the Muslim prophet Mohammed with his turban shaped like a bomb. "What was the purpose of this juvenile idiocy by the Europress?" Buchanan asked. "Is this what freedom of the press is all about – the freedom to insult the faith of a billion people and start a religious war?" Of course, no Buchanan column would be complete without a reference to Jews, so Buchanan added this gem: "What hypocrisy ... Skeptics and deniers of the Holocaust are prosecuted, fined and imprisoned in Europe with the enthusiastic endorsement of the European press."
 
Apparently, Buchanan is upset that Europeans would deign to be more sensitive about a Holocaust they perpetrated than a cartoon labeling Islam as violent. 
 
Quote
Occupied Denmark perpetrated the "Holocaust"? Wow.

 
Buchanan is upset that European governments have not followed the lead of the spineless State Department, deploring the cartoon while upholding the rights of the press. Note to Pat: Radical Muslims aren't really upset about the cartoon. The cartoon is a stand-in for Western freedoms as a whole.
 
Quote
I am glad Shapiro is here to remind us that they "hate us because of our freedom"; I almost forgot!

 
Islamists are just as offended by the very existence of an elderly white Jesuit who tends to support their hatred of Jews. 
 
Quote
Pat's a Jezzie? Who knew?

  
Unfortunately, Pat Buchanan represents many people on both sides of the political aisle. He is the representative of a constituency that seeks American isolationism and appeasement. He is the representative of a constituency that always blames America – unless Israel is available as a first-option scapegoat. He is more left than right, and more nuts than sane. He is important for one reason, and one reason only: He reveals the mindset of America's fifth columnists.
 
Quote
I think Pat represents those Americans who want to put America's interests first, want America to mind its own business and look out for its own, and for America to be run by Americans, not those who put Israel first. I know that makes him a "Jew-hater," but whaddyagonnado? If that's the false dichotomy they want to put out -- either watch America fall or be a "Jew-hater" -- I'll put up with the lying slurs. I like my country enough to withstand a little bashing.

Logged
royalcello
Guest
« Reply #1 on: May 22, 2006, 08:23:AM »

Ben Shapiro of course is a pompous neocon twit who has about as much qualification to be a syndicated columnist as I do to be the King of France.

That said, I strongly disagreed with Buchanan's take on the Danish cartoons issue and he deserved to be criticized on this, though preferably by commentators of a higher calibre than Shapiro.
Logged
GregPotemkin
Tokenus Protestantus
Member

Posts: 209


« Reply #2 on: May 22, 2006, 11:41:PM »

Quote from: royalcello
Ben Shapiro of course is a pompous neocon twit who has about as much qualification to be a syndicated columnist as I do to be the King of France.

That said, I strongly disagreed with Buchanan's take on the Danish cartoons issue and he deserved to be criticized on this, though preferably by commentators of a higher calibre than Shapiro.

I disagree with you on both counts Royal.

 

1st - I think that Pat's approach to the Danish cartoon controversy was very well reasoned and logical.  It serves no purpose to insult people's religious beliefs with calumnies and cartoons like that.  Serious, and reasoned discourse is preferable.

 

2nd - I think Ben Shapiro is eminently qualified to be a columnist at Worldnetdaily - he is obviously a nitwit, which is probably why they hired him.

 

By the way - I appreciated your comments Vox - I think you typed up what i was thinking.

 

Logged

vae qui dicitis malum bonum et bonum malum
Isaiah - Chapter 5 verse 20
royalcello
Guest
« Reply #3 on: May 22, 2006, 11:48:PM »

Buchanan was so blinded by his hatred of secular liberalism that he effectively sided with alien infidel invaders against his own people.  That was inexcusable.

The European newspapers who printed those cartoons were quite properly demonstrating that Muslims have no right whatsoever to determine what we in the West will or will not print in our newspapers.  Those editors deserved support, not condemnation, from right-wingers.  Buchanan, who has written a whole book on The Death of the West, ought to have understood that.  Most of those cartoons were not particularly funny or insightful, but a few of them made perfectly legitimate points.

The enemy of one's enemy is NOT necessarily one's friend.  Why do people have such a hard time grasping that principle?
Logged
GregPotemkin
Tokenus Protestantus
Member

Posts: 209


« Reply #4 on: May 23, 2006, 12:06:AM »

Quote from: royalcello
Buchanan was so blinded by his hatred of secular liberalism that he effectively sided with alien infidel invaders against his own people. That was inexcusable.

The European newspapers who printed those cartoons were quite properly demonstrating that Muslims have no right whatsoever to determine what we in the West will or will not print in our newspapers. Those editors deserved support, not condemnation, from right-wingers. Buchanan, who has written a whole book on The Death of the West, ought to have understood that. Most of those cartoons were not particularly funny or insightful, but a few of them made perfectly legitimate points.

The enemy of one's enemy is NOT necessarily one's friend. Why do people have such a hard time grasping that principle?

 

A couple of points here Royal.

 

1st - I don't think that Muslims in Europe are invaders.  Our troops in Iraq are invaders, the Muslims in Europe are either immigrants, guest workers, or visitors.

 

2nd - I certainly wouldn't appreciate it if a Muslim newspaper drew vulgar cartoons depicting the virgin Mary in an insulting manner (that would never happen, of course, since Muslims rever the virgin Mary in almost the same way that we do, but you get the point).  To vociferously state that we are Christians and we reject Islam, because it conflicts with our faith is the proper thing to do, but we need not do it with insults.

 

3rd - I agree that "the enemy of one's enemy is NOT necessarily one's friend", but I think that Pat's point (and mine) is that it serves no purpose to make people into enemies if they need not be so.

Logged

vae qui dicitis malum bonum et bonum malum
Isaiah - Chapter 5 verse 20


DominusTecum
Guest
« Reply #5 on: May 23, 2006, 12:18:AM »

yeah, but the Mussulmans are, and have always been, the enemies of Christendom, Christianity, and Western Civilization. They have no business being in Europe, and are not assimilating into secular westernism, but are sitting there longing to rename Paris and Detroit as "Parabia" and "West Mecca," respectively. "A plague on both their houses" would aptly describe our ideal attitude. We have an absolute truth in the Catholic faith (you, as a nominal protestant, should at least agree with me that we have an absolute truth in "Christianity") and therefore, objectively speaking, we have every right to bash their religion in our newspapers all we want, and make accurate points about it. We then have every right to be incensed when they do the same to us, because we are "bashing" pagan idolatry, error, and blasphemy, while they are blaspheming the holy truths given to us by God Himself.

 

 

Logged
orangemetal
Member

Posts: 505


« Reply #6 on: May 23, 2006, 12:20:AM »

Quote from: royalcello
Buchanan was so blinded by his hatred of secular liberalism that he effectively sided with alien infidel invaders against his own people. That was inexcusable.

The European newspapers who printed those cartoons were quite properly demonstrating that Muslims have no right whatsoever to determine what we in the West will or will not print in our newspapers. Those editors deserved support, not condemnation, from right-wingers. Buchanan, who has written a whole book on The Death of the West, ought to have understood that. Most of those cartoons were not particularly funny or insightful, but a few of them made perfectly legitimate points.

The enemy of one's enemy is NOT necessarily one's friend. Why do people have such a hard time grasping that principle?

The problem i have with those cartoons is that they and things like them just fuel the fire of conflict between Christians and muslims. They are absolutely started by "Jews" of the highest rank just to make most Christians and muslims murder each other and that is exactly what happened. We must stop bashing muslims and start converting muslims. Before people start flaming me I will add that i said "stop bashing muslims" not stop "bashing" evil satanic Islam. I ask all what service does it do to God and the Church if we bash Mohammed, none whatsoever. We must rebuke him beyond the grave absolutely and even more so his followers but mocking and making fun of Mohammed will not convert these idolaters.

 

Kyrie eleison

Jonathan

Logged

O My God, I believe in Thee, I love Thee, I hope in Thee and I adore Thee and i beg pardon for all those who do not believe in Thee, do not love Thee, do not hope in Thee and do not adore Thee.
DominusTecum
Guest
« Reply #7 on: May 23, 2006, 12:25:AM »

Of course it won't convert them but the very nature of a cartoon is to exaggerate to make valid points. As RC alludes, several of these did indeed do this, and consequently we should have better things to do than to attack them and condemn them. The press should NOT be free, but those cartoons are perhaps the first decent or acceptible thing printed by the mainstream european press in decades.

 

 

Logged
GregPotemkin
Tokenus Protestantus
Member

Posts: 209


« Reply #8 on: May 23, 2006, 12:27:AM »

Quote from: DominusTecum

yeah, but the Mussulmans are, and have always been, the enemies of Christendom, Christianity, and Western Civilization. They have no business being in Europe, and are not assimilating into secular westernism, but are sitting there longing to rename Paris and Detroit as "Parabia" and "West Mecca," respectively. "A plague on both their houses" would aptly describe our ideal attitude. We have an absolute truth in the Catholic faith (you, as a nominal protestant, should at least agree with me that we have an absolute truth in "Christianity") and therefore, objectively speaking, we have every right to bash their religion in our newspapers all we want, and make accurate points about it. We then have every right to be incensed when they do the same to us, because we are "bashing" pagan idolatry, error, and blasphemy, while they are blaspheming the holy truths given to us by God Himself.

 

 

 

Well, 1st off I reject "secularism".  I am certainly not going to argue with muslims about the dleterious effects on society caused by that.

 

But beyond this, I don't think that we promote our religion by bashing theirs.

 

You don't have to make vulgar comments about Pepsi, to say that Coke is good.

Logged

vae qui dicitis malum bonum et bonum malum
Isaiah - Chapter 5 verse 20
orangemetal
Member

Posts: 505


« Reply #9 on: May 23, 2006, 12:45:AM »

Quote from: DominusTecum

Of course it won't convert them but the very nature of a cartoon is to exaggerate to make valid points. As RC alludes, several of these did indeed do this, and consequently we should have better things to do than to attack them and condemn them. The press should NOT be free, but those cartoons are perhaps the first decent or acceptible thing printed by the mainstream european press in decades.

What "valid points" are those? How are those cartoons decent and acceptible? how is it acceptible to bash a person who lived several hundred years ago? St. Peter said "honor all men" do you think he would have thought it acceptible?

Logged

O My God, I believe in Thee, I love Thee, I hope in Thee and I adore Thee and i beg pardon for all those who do not believe in Thee, do not love Thee, do not hope in Thee and do not adore Thee.
Pages: [1] 2 3
 
 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.8 | SMF © 2006-2008, Simple Machines LLC