Florida Shooters Network

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/2012/02/16/blacklisted-but-not-beaten/

I can't say that I'm surprised. IMO they simply had him on to bash him and not give him an adequate chance to offer rebuttals to their insanity. He was their punching bag for too long.

How could he even stand to be around those people?

In a recent edition of the McLoughlin (sp?) Group on PBS, he practically called those who were using alarmist misinformation or exaggerations to justify American involvement against Iran as "warmongers", adducing that the known facts do not justify yet another American intervention overseas. Whether he was right or wrong, this incident may be a prime candidate for the proximate cause of his dismissal from MSNBC. That toe he should not have stepped on. That toe leads to the puppetmaster.

I think Pat and NSNBC were a good match. I hate both of them like poison.
Buchanan is just a mean old bully and MSNBC is a just plain mean bully. They both suck.

A mean old bully? Elaborate.

Pat Buchanan seems incapable of defending or advancing any position whatsoever without attacking some group he doesn't belong to, jews, blacks, WASPs, gays, immigrants, latinos, women, you name it. He carries an aura of hate, envy, anger with him and is incapable of any rational non-combative discourse.

Below are a few examples:

Hmmm. Took longer and I only found a couple things after I eliminated the usual worthless rants from the Left that aren't worth posting, because they say the same about everyone who isn't a leftist. Pretty near zero comments, even on his books, from Conservative sources, nothing but Buchanan's op-ed pieces touting his books. I'd guess that Pat Buchanan has become the Conservative's crazy old aunt, relegated to the attic, and not mentioned in polite company. The even that stuck Pat in the Conservative attic was probably the publication of his pro-Hitler, pro-Nazi, anti-Churchill book, Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War": How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World.

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/patbucha ... pmAlg3UPat Buchanan

Rabble rouser for the Reform party (Ran against Bush and Gore in 2000)
This article was posted on September 29, 1999.
Born to fight
Since he was a young boy, Pat Buchanan has been something of a rabble rouser, both physically and verbally. His combativeness and moral righteousness were ingrained in him by his autocratic father, William Buchanan, an accountant, who preached to his nine children the importance of faith, family, allegiance, and self defense. The elder Buchanan was a nativist and passionate anti-Communist who idolized Sen. Joseph McCarthy and taught his sons to fistfight.

Pat Buchanan inherited several of his father's controversial views. Many of those are outlined in his new foreign-policy book, A Republic, Not an Empire, in which he says Nazi Germany posed "no physical threat to the United States after 1940" and that because Hitler's aim was to move east, into Russia and other parts of Eastern Europe, the United States should have let him complete his mission because the areas were not significant to the U.S. A vehement isolationist, Buchanan's book also lashes out against intervention in areas such as Kosovo: "We have no vital interest in that blood-soaked peninsula."

He has also been widely accused of being anti-Semitic and racist. In his book, he rails against Jewish influence in foreign policy and the influx of immigrants. "No nation has ever undergone so radical a demographic alteration and survived," he said. Fellow conservative William Buckley labeled him an anti-Semite after he criticized President Bush for U.S. involvement in the Persian Gulf War.


Buchanan's statement to The Huffington Post on his firing:
"Look, for a long period of time the hard left, militant gay rights groups, militant -- they call themselves civil rights groups, but I'm not sure they're concerned about civil rights -- people of color, Van Jones, these folks and others have been out to get Pat Buchanan off TV. This has been done for years and years and years and it's the usual suspects doing the same thing again."

jjk308 wrote:Pat Buchanan seems incapable of defending or advancing any position whatsoever without attacking some group he doesn't belong to, jews, blacks, WASPs, gays, immigrants, latinos, women, you name it. He carries an aura of hate, envy, anger with him and is incapable of any rational non-combative discourse.

Below are a few examples:

Hmmm. Took longer and I only found a couple things after I eliminated the usual worthless rants from the Left that aren't worth posting, because they say the same about everyone who isn't a leftist. Pretty near zero comments, even on his books, from Conservative sources, nothing but Buchanan's op-ed pieces touting his books. I'd guess that Pat Buchanan has become the Conservative's crazy old aunt, relegated to the attic, and not mentioned in polite company. The even that stuck Pat in the Conservative attic was probably the publication of his pro-Hitler, pro-Nazi, anti-Churchill book, Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War": How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World.

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/patbucha ... pmAlg3UPat Buchanan

Rabble rouser for the Reform party (Ran against Bush and Gore in 2000)
This article was posted on September 29, 1999.
Born to fight
Since he was a young boy, Pat Buchanan has been something of a rabble rouser, both physically and verbally. His combativeness and moral righteousness were ingrained in him by his autocratic father, William Buchanan, an accountant, who preached to his nine children the importance of faith, family, allegiance, and self defense. The elder Buchanan was a nativist and passionate anti-Communist who idolized Sen. Joseph McCarthy and taught his sons to fistfight.

Pat Buchanan inherited several of his father's controversial views. Many of those are outlined in his new foreign-policy book, A Republic, Not an Empire, in which he says Nazi Germany posed "no physical threat to the United States after 1940" and that because Hitler's aim was to move east, into Russia and other parts of Eastern Europe, the United States should have let him complete his mission because the areas were not significant to the U.S. A vehement isolationist, Buchanan's book also lashes out against intervention in areas such as Kosovo: "We have no vital interest in that blood-soaked peninsula."

He has also been widely accused of being anti-Semitic and racist. In his book, he rails against Jewish influence in foreign policy and the influx of immigrants. "No nation has ever undergone so radical a demographic alteration and survived," he said. Fellow conservative William Buckley labeled him an anti-Semite after he criticized President Bush for U.S. involvement in the Persian Gulf War.


Buchanan's statement to The Huffington Post on his firing:
"Look, for a long period of time the hard left, militant gay rights groups, militant -- they call themselves civil rights groups, but I'm not sure they're concerned about civil rights -- people of color, Van Jones, these folks and others have been out to get Pat Buchanan off TV. This has been done for years and years and years and it's the usual suspects doing the same thing again."

The fact that you called Buchanan's book pro-Nazi suggests to me that you haven't read it. It isn't. In part, it's about the pointlessness of that war. Contrary to the history many people were taught in school, the war wasn't about slaying some unholy, demonic Jew-murdering psychopaths in order to stop the genocide. We didn't know about their horrific atrocities until later and putting a halt to some of those crimes was simply one of the few benefits of besting Germany in our second fight with them.

No, the book is in large part about the decisions made by the British and French that pulled us all into an unnecessary war with a country that wanted territory back that it lost unjustly during the First World War and the resulting Treaty of Versailles. Well, that and some living space in the Soviet Union, which shouldn't have been any concern of ours seeing how we were locked in the beginnings of the Cold War with them since the October Revolution, and the British and French had empires of their own.

In any case, you should read the book. You have nothing to lose but a few dollars and some time.

I have some issues with it but the book being pro-Nazi isn't one of them, because it isn't.

jjk308 wrote:Pat Buchanan seems incapable of defending or advancing any position whatsoever without attacking some group he doesn't belong to, jews, blacks, WASPs, gays, immigrants, latinos, women, you name it. He carries an aura of hate, envy, anger with him and is incapable of any rational non-combative discourse.

Below are a few examples:

Hmmm. Took longer and I only found a couple things after I eliminated the usual worthless rants from the Left that aren't worth posting, because they say the same about everyone who isn't a leftist. Pretty near zero comments, even on his books, from Conservative sources, nothing but Buchanan's op-ed pieces touting his books. I'd guess that Pat Buchanan has become the Conservative's crazy old aunt, relegated to the attic, and not mentioned in polite company. The even that stuck Pat in the Conservative attic was probably the publication of his pro-Hitler, pro-Nazi, anti-Churchill book, Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War": How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World.

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/patbucha ... pmAlg3UPat Buchanan

Rabble rouser for the Reform party (Ran against Bush and Gore in 2000)
This article was posted on September 29, 1999.
Born to fight
Since he was a young boy, Pat Buchanan has been something of a rabble rouser, both physically and verbally. His combativeness and moral righteousness were ingrained in him by his autocratic father, William Buchanan, an accountant, who preached to his nine children the importance of faith, family, allegiance, and self defense. The elder Buchanan was a nativist and passionate anti-Communist who idolized Sen. Joseph McCarthy and taught his sons to fistfight.

Pat Buchanan inherited several of his father's controversial views. Many of those are outlined in his new foreign-policy book, A Republic, Not an Empire, in which he says Nazi Germany posed "no physical threat to the United States after 1940" and that because Hitler's aim was to move east, into Russia and other parts of Eastern Europe, the United States should have let him complete his mission because the areas were not significant to the U.S. A vehement isolationist, Buchanan's book also lashes out against intervention in areas such as Kosovo: "We have no vital interest in that blood-soaked peninsula."

He has also been widely accused of being anti-Semitic and racist. In his book, he rails against Jewish influence in foreign policy and the influx of immigrants. "No nation has ever undergone so radical a demographic alteration and survived," he said. Fellow conservative William Buckley labeled him an anti-Semite after he criticized President Bush for U.S. involvement in the Persian Gulf War.


Buchanan's statement to The Huffington Post on his firing:
"Look, for a long period of time the hard left, militant gay rights groups, militant -- they call themselves civil rights groups, but I'm not sure they're concerned about civil rights -- people of color, Van Jones, these folks and others have been out to get Pat Buchanan off TV. This has been done for years and years and years and it's the usual suspects doing the same thing again."

I see nothing wrong with what was said in the parts you quoted. Just because he doesn't suck up to Israel and resents the amount of lobbying power a foreign country has in our own government doesn't mean he's anti-Semitic. No, he's friends with various conservative Jews including radio talk show host Michael Medved. If they thought that he was anti-Semitic I doubt they'd even let him on their shows.

As for being non-interventionist and against unnecessary foreign wars, what's wrong with that? The man is consistent if nothing else. He doesn't believe we should be an empire or have our military all over the world defending countries that can defend themselves. Hint: a lot of Americans think that these days.

MikeFL86 wrote:As for being non-interventionist and against unnecessary foreign wars, what's wrong with that? The man is consistent if nothing else. He doesn't believe we should be an empire or have our military all over the world defending countries that can defend themselves. Hint: a lot of Americans think that these days.

Nothing wrong with that per se. Iran, however, it not a situation that rewards doing nothing. Having any Islamic country with nukes is bad enough, but having one whose sect specifies that the return of their "Twelfth Imam" (the Mahdi) will only occur when something like 1/3 of the world is dead is frightening. That they (Iran) might all be dead as a result is of no consequence, because in fighting and dying for Allah they are guaranteed entry into heaven. Indeed, that is the only guaranteed method for a Muslim to get to Allah's heaven. The assumption of 1st world elites, that they cannot possibly want to cause what their religion demands, is a fools errand.

MikeFL86 wrote:No, the book is in large part about the decisions made by the British and French that pulled us all into an unnecessary war with a country that wanted territory back that it lost unjustly during the First World War and the resulting Treaty of Versailles........

As for being non-interventionist and against unnecessary foreign wars, what's wrong with that? The man is consistent if nothing else. He doesn't believe we should be an empire or have our military all over the world defending countries that can defend themselves. Hint: a lot of Americans think that these days.

In the first statement, Mike, please explain why that lost territory include ALL of Austria, all of Czechoslovakia and half of Poland? And why you can't recognize a megalomaniac when you read about him?

The second statement kind of reminds me of Abraham Lincoln's story about the cat who sat on a hot stove. He wouldn't sit on a hot stove after that. Or a cold stove either.

The military is often criticized for always preparing to fight the last war. Ditto for folks who want to fight AGAINST the last war.

jjk308 wrote:

MikeFL86 wrote:No, the book is in large part about the decisions made by the British and French that pulled us all into an unnecessary war with a country that wanted territory back that it lost unjustly during the First World War and the resulting Treaty of Versailles........

As for being non-interventionist and against unnecessary foreign wars, what's wrong with that? The man is consistent if nothing else. He doesn't believe we should be an empire or have our military all over the world defending countries that can defend themselves. Hint: a lot of Americans think that these days.

In the first statement, Mike, please explain why that lost territory include ALL of Austria, all of Czechoslovakia and half of Poland? And why you can't recognize a megalomaniac when you read about him?

The second statement kind of reminds me of Abraham Lincoln's story about the cat who sat on a hot stove. He wouldn't sit on a hot stove after that. Or a cold stove either.

The military is often criticized for always preparing to fight the last war. Ditto for folks who want to fight AGAINST the last war.

The union of Germany and Austria was pretty harmonious. As for Czechoslovakia? It was an artificial country that was created by the Treaty of Versailles. 23% of the population was German and the Germans rightfully wanted the Sudetenland as part of their country. Besides, it was no skin off Britain or France's back to give them it.

Poland? Well, the Poles weren't just going to give Danzig back to Germany. War is war and to the victors go the spoils.

I hearby invoke Godwin's Law of Hitler analogies and ask that this thread be shut down before I violate its provisions, thus stopping all rational discourse.