Der Furhrer (Buchanan)
Kevin PArk
Heil Buchanan, National Socialism has Prevailed in Iowa.
Buchanan's family were a bunch of Rebs. Der Furher would be
proud of him. I'm glad he is a Republican. Lincoln will be
rolling in his grave!
X288FILES
CALLING BUCHANAN A SOCIALIST IS TYPICAL OF YOUR INTELLECT.
pat is far from a socialist he detests all they stould for but if
you are looking for a good speachgiver who has the abbillity to lie and
passit off as the truth pat is not your man . your canidate lives at 1600
penn . ave as usual govt housing where he lived all his adult life.
jim
Gary Mathis
Pat B. is a hell-raiser. I support him for that reason. I hope he scares
the hell out of all the establishment Washington scum and the pathetic
sheep that voted for them.
G. Mathis
Citizen - Republic of Texas
stephen voss
social life. What the difference between that and a socialist except he'll
lower the taxes on your lower paycheck. The fact he's willing to tell me this
doesnt make me feel any better.
X288FILES
In article <824350690$31...@atype.com>, LBK...@prodigy.com (Gary Mathis)
writes:
i'm for pat because of all the canidate he's the only one that will change
things
the rest all of them dem and rep with samo samo
jim
X288FILES
X288FILES
Bob Evans
Gary Mathis (LBK...@prodigy.com) wrote:
: Pat B. is a hell-raiser. I support him for that reason. I hope he scares
: the hell out of all the establishment Washington scum and the pathetic
: sheep that voted for them.
Hear! Hear! Give 'em hell Pat!
: G. Mathis
ma...@bandley1.netmanage.com
In Article<824374113$38...@atype.com>, <x288...@aol.com> writes:
>
> In article <824350690$31...@atype.com>, LBK...@prodigy.com (Gary Mathis)
> writes:
>
> >Pat B. is a hell-raiser. I support him for that reason. I hope he scares
>
> >the hell out of all the establishment Washington scum and the pathetic
> >sheep that voted for them.
> >
> >G. Mathis
> >Citizen - Republic of Texas
> >
> >
> >
> i'm for pat because of all the canidate he's the only one that will change
> things
> the rest all of them dem and rep with samo samo
> jim
>
I think a lot of the votes that Pat will wind up getting will be
for this same reason. Many of the Perot voters felt that he would
be the only candidate to endorse actual change, and that there
would be no hope with another Republocrat in office. I suspect that
Pat will pick up a lot of the Perot vote. (of course, if he is not
nominated for the Republican candidate, that point is moot - unless
he runs under Perot's new party..........)
However, the President is only a peice of the puzzle. No matter how
motivated to change things he is, without a willing congress, the
Presidential platform is just a bunch of ideas and PR.
As Billy found out. The big question is, can a change motivated
President AND congress be installed at the same time???
-Matt
Tim Hill
In article <824374099$38...@atype.com>,
x288...@aol.com (X288FILES) wrote:
>
>In article <824350690$31...@atype.com>, LBK...@prodigy.com (Gary
Mathis)
>writes:
>
>>Pat B. is a hell-raiser. I support him for that reason. I hope he
scares
>
>>the hell out of all the establishment Washington scum and the
pathetic
>>sheep that voted for them.
>>
>>G. Mathis
>>Citizen - Republic of Texas
>i'm for pat because of all the canidate he's the only one that will
change
>things
>the rest all of them dem and rep with samo samo
>jim
i'm fer pat cuz i'm an ignernt redneck
Tim Hill
"I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate
is good. . our goal is a Christian nation. We have a biblical
duty, we are called on by God to conquer this country.We
don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism."
-- Randall Terry, head of Operation Rescue
The News-Sentinel, Fort Wayne, Indiana. 8-16-93
Eric Engelmann
Tim Hill wrote:
> i'm fer pat cuz i'm an ignernt redneck
>
> Tim Hill
I never thought you were a redneck, and I'm surprised you've
come out in favor of Pat's candidacy. There's always hope
when the misguided can admit their faults and approach the
light.
Mike Chapman
Eric Engelmann <e...@wdn.com> wrote:
>I never thought you were a redneck, and I'm surprised you've
>come out in favor of Pat's candidacy. There's always hope
>when the misguided can admit their faults and approach the
>light.
Pat's a fascist, just up Tim's alley.
----
* * * * Citizen Chapman, Esq.
* * * * ##******[##########==========() Sic Semper Tyrannis
* * * * * * ## __ //_#### Have a hempy day!
***** ***** # b\/i // |__| Founder, misc.activism.militia
mi...@paranoia.com | mi...@cfw.com | http://www.paranoia.com/~mike
"Did you exchange a walk-on part in the war for a lead role in a cage?"
- Pink Floyd, "Wish You Were Here"
X288FILES
In article <824419093$58...@atype.com>, ma...@bandley1.netmanage.com
writes:
> think a lot of the votes that Pat will wind up getting will be
> for this same reason. Many of the Perot voters felt that he would
> be the only candidate to endorse actual change, and that there
> would be no hope with another Republocrat in office. I suspect
that
> Pat will pick up a lot of the Perot vote. (of course, if he is not
> nominated for the Republican candidate, that point is moot -
unless
> he runs under Perot's new party..........)
>
> However, the President is only a peice of the puzzle. No matter
how
> motivated to change things he is, without a willing congress, the
> Presidential platform is just a bunch of ideas and PR.
>
> As Billy found out. The big question is, can a change motivated
> President AND congress be installed at the same time???
>
> -Matt
>
>
>
>
hey i think buchanan will win but if not i hope he would do the third
party as long as we get ralph nader to run a fourth party to split the dem
vote i'm not sure it woulkd not end like this
team1
buchanan and kemp or someone
team 2 dole and mich gov
team 3 clinton gore and if someone resigns bradley
team 4nadar -jackson
and we get our factories backwith jobs and good pay
Psi co 1
At last the mainstream media in behalf of those in power have shown
there true colors. Their attemps to smear Mr Buchanan as a racist because
of his affiliation with Larry Pratt is nothing more than a feeble effort
to discredit a canidate who apprears
able to protray Sen. Dole as he really is, a gobalist bent on gaining
power so as to futher his political ambitions. Senator Dole's vote on
NAFTA and GATT are a clear message to America. If you wont work for 50
cents an hour, we will send the work somewhere else. These trade
agreements that promised working Americans a better future is only a guise
to fool Americans, nothing could be further from the truth.
Corporate America good care less if you, the adverage worker starves as
long as the stock holders earnings increase each quarter. Americans have
suffered, decreases in their pay, layoffs ( Down sizing ) reduction in
benifits and a lose of job security not seen since the great depression.
In short the rich get richer and the poor get poorer,
but don't fret our government will just increase the taxes of those in the
middle class
so as we may all enjoy a life on the dole ( unemployment, welfare,
foodstamps ).
I've been associated with Gun Owners Of America for the last four years
and have never recieved one peice of information that ever hinted at
racism. When Comrade Klinton began his efforts concerning gun control,
we who organized used every media source as a forum for rebuttal.Can
anyone be responsible for the beliefs of others. NO.
If you where to donate blood to the American Red Cross and while in the
process
notice someone who in your opinion appeared to be a skinhead or neo-nazi,
would you
conclude that the American Red Cross must be a RACIST organizion. Also
considering the fact that Elizabeth Dole ( at a salary of 500,000 a year )
is the wife wife of Robert Dole, wouldn,t he be considered a racist by
affiliation?
LANCE
Psi co 1
>i'm fer pat cuz i'm an ignernt redneck
>
>Tim Hill
Thats correct cheese boy. You certainly are just that !
Mike Chapman
psi...@aol.com (Psi co 1) wrote:
> At last the mainstream media in behalf of those in power have shown
>there true colors. Their attemps to smear Mr Buchanan as a racist because
>of his affiliation with Larry Pratt is nothing more than a feeble effort
>to discredit a canidate who apprears
Pat's a religious zealot. I think he's less trustworthy than the
average lying politicians. I like plenty of what he says, but he just
has this fascist air about him. He's interested only in protecting
his culture.
Eric Engelmann
Mike Chapman wrote:
> Pat's a fascist, just up Tim's alley.
We must have different definitions of "fascist." What characteristics
of Pat's speech or platform support this assertion?
He seems a typical Amercian populist who believes unborn children
are not just "lumps of flesh."
John Luebbers
In <824433496$63...@atype.com> ti...@halcyon.com (Tim Hill) writes:
>
>
>In article <824374099$38...@atype.com>,
> x288...@aol.com (X288FILES) wrote:
>>
>>In article <824350690$31...@atype.com>, LBK...@prodigy.com (Gary
>Mathis)
>>writes:
>>
>>>Pat B. is a hell-raiser. I support him for that reason. I hope he
>scares
>>
>>>the hell out of all the establishment Washington scum and the
>pathetic
>>>sheep that voted for them.
>>>
>>>G. Mathis
>>>Citizen - Republic of Texas
>
>>i'm for pat because of all the canidate he's the only one that will
>change
>>things
>>the rest all of them dem and rep with samo samo
>>jim
>
>
>Tim Hill
>
>is good. . our goal is a Christian nation. We have a biblical
> duty, we are called on by God to conquer this country.We
> don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism."
>-- Randall Terry, head of Operation Rescue
> The News-Sentinel, Fort Wayne, Indiana. 8-16-93
>
John Luebbers
In <824453303$71...@atype.com> mi...@cfw.com (Mike Chapman) writes:
>
>
>Eric Engelmann <e...@wdn.com> wrote:
>>I never thought you were a redneck, and I'm surprised you've
>>come out in favor of Pat's candidacy. There's always hope
>>when the misguided can admit their faults and approach the
>>light.
>
>
> * * * * Citizen
Chapman, Esq.
> * * * * ##******[##########==========() Sic Semper
Tyrannis
> * * * * * * ## __ //_#### Have a
hempy day!
> ***** ***** # b\/i // |__| Founder,
misc.activism.militia
> mi...@paranoia.com | mi...@cfw.com | http://www.paranoia.com/~mike
>
>"Did you exchange a walk-on part in the war for a lead role in a
cage?"
> - Pink Floyd, "Wish You Were Here"
>
state. What makes Buchanan a fascist? That is just an ADL buzzword. Can
anyone cite one Buchanan statement that makes him fascist or nazi?
John Luebbers
called Pat a fascist. Kemp is a liberal with a big L. Those are in
kemps own words.
John Luebbers
In <824493802$90...@atype.com> mi...@cfw.com (Mike Chapman) writes:
>
>
>psi...@aol.com (Psi co 1) wrote:
>> At last the mainstream media in behalf of those in power have
shown
>>there true colors. Their attemps to smear Mr Buchanan as a racist
because
>>of his affiliation with Larry Pratt is nothing more than a feeble
effort
>>to discredit a canidate who apprears
>
>Pat's a religious zealot. I think he's less trustworthy than the
>average lying politicians. I like plenty of what he says, but he just
>has this fascist air about him. He's interested only in protecting
>his culture.
>
> * * * * Citizen
Chapman, Esq.
> * * * * ##******[##########==========() Sic Semper
Tyrannis
> * * * * * * ## __ //_#### Have a
hempy day!
> ***** ***** # b\/i // |__| Founder,
misc.activism.militia
> mi...@paranoia.com | mi...@cfw.com | http://www.paranoia.com/~mike
>
>"Did you exchange a walk-on part in the war for a lead role in a
cage?"
> - Pink Floyd, "Wish You Were Here"
>
bigot.
RYK an1
In article <824367795$36...@atype.com>, vo...@icanect.net (stephen voss)
writes:
>Buchanan is for harsh protectionism and for government minding
everyobodys
>social life. What the difference between that and a socialist except
he'll
>lower the taxes on your lower paycheck. The fact he's willing to tell me
this
>
>doesnt make me feel any better.
I do have a serious question about all this, I dont like Buchannon by the
way, but can anybody tell me whats wrong with protectionism. I've been
hearing this alot on the :NEWS:
My understanding, which may be incorrect, is that by being a protectionist
is that you wish to protect our economy and jobs from Foriegn competition.
To me keeping a job here at the expense of hurting say Japan, dosen't
bother me too much.
My idea on the whole thing is if you want to trade, will trade, but you
had better play fair, cause we grow a majority of the food right here in
America, and if you want to eat then you better be fair with us.
The Japanese might figure this out in a while, when their Population goes
up some more and they have to look to us to make up that supply that they
need to feed their people, and we play hard ball. 'Sides what are they
going to do Invade Kansas.
Lance R. Crowe II
RYK an1
RYK an1
RYK an1
X288FILES
In article <824531604$10...@atype.com>, fir...@ix.netcom.com (John
Luebbers ) writes:
>im? Fascists I believe want a partnership between big business and the
>state. What makes Buchanan a fascist? That is just an ADL buzzword. Can
>anyone cite one Buchanan statement that makes him fascist or nazi?
>
>
>
NO THEY CAN'T UNLESS ITS A ONE LINER OUT of contest sorry for yelling
Joseph T. Adams
RYK an1 (ryk...@aol.com) wrote:
: I do have a serious question about all this, I dont like Buchannon by the
: way, but can anybody tell me whats wrong with protectionism. I've been
: hearing this alot on the :NEWS:
The best answer I have ever seen to that question is contained in
Frederic Bastiat's "The Law," a copy of which is located at:
http://www.jim.com/jamesd/bastiat.html
While this document is very long, it should be required reading for
patriots, as it is also among the best treatises on socialism and
communism, why sincere and honest people sometimes support them, and
why all three are but "basically the same plant at different stages in
its growth" and are ultimately doomed to failure.
Joe
Tom
In article <824493802$90...@atype.com> mi...@cfw.com (Mike Chapman) writes:
>From: mi...@cfw.com (Mike Chapman)
>Date: Fri, 16 Feb 96 18:03:22 GMT
>Subject: Re: Der Furhrer (Buchanan)
>psi...@aol.com (Psi co 1) wrote:
>> At last the mainstream media in behalf of those in power have shown
>>there true colors. Their attemps to smear Mr Buchanan as a racist because
>>of his affiliation with Larry Pratt is nothing more than a feeble effort
>>to discredit a canidate who apprears
>Pat's a religious zealot. I think he's less trustworthy than the
>average lying politicians. I like plenty of what he says, but he just
>has this fascist air about him. He's interested only in protecting
>his culture.
>----
Like Buchanan or not, at least he's stayed on track with his message and
beliefs. More than I can say for any of the others who want to be at 1600
Penn. Ave. What's the old saying? "Better the devil I know than the one I
don't," or close to that.
Saw the debates the other night (yawn) and really, Keyes (sp?) came off the
best IMHO.
Tom
Walter Ulrich
> ryk...@aol.com (RYK an1) writes:
[snip]
> I do have a serious question about all this, I dont like Buchannon by the
> way, but can anybody tell me whats wrong with protectionism. I've been
> hearing this alot on the :NEWS:
>>>>
"Protectionism" goes against the desires of the large, multi-national
corporations which want cheap labor, cheap resources and a world-
wide market, and don't give a fig about how the American worker
fairs. Anyone who supports GATT/NAFTA is either in their pay or is
a "One Worlder" at heart (or is just plain stupid). Only Perot and
Buchanan have really come out against this "neat" idea.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"medintz@falco...@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Relay-Version: ANU News - V6.1B10 04/18/95 OpenVMS AXP; site kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Path: falcon.cc.ukans.edu!medintz
Newsgroups: misc.activism.militia
Subject: Re: Der Furhrer (Buchanan)
From: "Mike S. Medintz" <med...@falcon.cc.ukans.edu>
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 1996 14:47:18 -0600
References: <824367795$36...@atype.com> <824546917$10...@atype.com>
Nntp-Posting-Host: falcon.cc.ukans.edu
In-Reply-To: <824546917$10...@atype.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Lines: 53
On Sat, 17 Feb 1996, RYK an1 wrote:
> In article <824367795$36...@atype.com>, vo...@icanect.net (stephen voss)
> writes:
>
> >Buchanan is for harsh protectionism and for government minding
> everyobodys
> >social life. What the difference between that and a socialist except
> he'll
> >lower the taxes on your lower paycheck. The fact he's willing to tell me
> this
> >
> >doesnt make me feel any better.
>
> I do have a serious question about all this, I dont like Buchannon by the
> way, but can anybody tell me whats wrong with protectionism. I've been
> hearing this alot on the :NEWS:
>
> My understanding, which may be incorrect, is that by being a protectionist
> is that you wish to protect our economy and jobs from Foriegn competition.
The theory about free trade is that it also expands markets for American
produced goods, which explains why the GMC Jimmy is the most popular MPV
in Japan(g). One thing to be careful about, in this debate as well as in
life in general, is over-generalization. Total isolation is one of the
worst things that can happen to the American economy if we're serious
about trying to feed a quarter-billion citizens within our own borders.
> To me keeping a job here at the expense of hurting say Japan, dosen't
> bother me too much.
Japan is one thing, Mexico is another. By aiding development in Mexico,
and increasing the amount of jobs there, we can stem the tide of illegal
immigration (which will make Milton Kleim happy, anyway.)
> My idea on the whole thing is if you want to trade, will trade, but you
> had better play fair, cause we grow a majority of the food right here in
> America, and if you want to eat then you better be fair with us.
> The Japanese might figure this out in a while, when their Population goes
> up some more and they have to look to us to make up that supply that they
> need to feed their people, and we play hard ball. 'Sides what are they
> going to do Invade Kansas.
Invade Kansas? If they really try that, I'm waiting.(g)
> Lance R. Crowe II
>
>
>
Mike S. Medintz
God bless America. Let's try and save some of it.
Mike Chapman
fir...@ix.netcom.com (John Luebbers ) wrote:
>Tim? Fascists I believe want a partnership between big business and the
>state. What makes Buchanan a fascist? That is just an ADL buzzword. Can
>anyone cite one Buchanan statement that makes him fascist or nazi?
Okay, if you want to pick nits, Pat's a religious zealot who cares
only about the promotion of his own culture through law. That's some
other sort of tyrant than a fascist I guess. For all his talk of
reducing government intrusion, Pat cannot help take every opportunity
to think of how he can use the law to enforce his personal "morality"
(tastes).
Fascists don't want a "partnership" with big business. Fascism is
national socialism - communism without the liberalism and equal
rights.
Mike Chapman
>bigot.
A fascist is a national socialist. Someone who believes that they can
use the government to promote their idea of "nation" over any sense of
individual rights or private property.
So Pat's not a fascist I guess, he wants to reduce many aspects of
government. However, he does not in any substantial way support my
right to live and let live. Pat wants the government to enforce HIS
tastes and HIS culture, when it should enforce no one's. He's a
tyrant.
Mike Chapman
e14...@teleport.com (Walter Ulrich) wrote:
> "Protectionism" goes against the desires of the large, multi-national
>corporations which want cheap labor, cheap resources and a world-
>wide market, and don't give a fig about how the American worker
>fairs. Anyone who supports GATT/NAFTA is either in their pay or is
>a "One Worlder" at heart (or is just plain stupid). Only Perot and
>Buchanan have really come out against this "neat" idea.
What ever happened to capitalism? Is the government now to dictate
the terms of supply and demand? Is the government now responsible for
the productivity of its workers?
JHistorian
From: psi...@aol.com (Psi co 1)
* At last the mainstream media in behalf of
* those in power have shown there true colors.
* Their attemps to smear Mr Buchanan as a
* racist because of his affiliation with Larry
* Pratt is nothing more than a feeble effort
* to discredit a canidate who apprears . . . .
*
Your own "feeble effort" at spin control is not working very well.
In the last few days--
(1) The Buchanan campaign has had one of its "leaders" resign
because of her position with David Duke's Klan front organization, the
so-called "National Assocaition for the Advancement of White People";
(2) The Buchanan campaign has been charged by Gramm (with what is
said to be "common knowlege" around here) with circulating a pamphlet
prior to the Louisiana caucas that disparages Mrs. Gramm's Asian heritage.
Not to mention the "patriotic" rhetoric attributed to Buchanan at
the last GOP Presidential Convention.
J. Vargas
Dept of History * Div of Social Sciences
Dillard University
New Orleans, LA
JHistorian
JHistorian
JHistorian
M Huber
mi...@cfw.com (Mike Chapman) wrote:
>
>
>Eric Engelmann <e...@wdn.com> wrote:
>>I never thought you were a redneck, and I'm surprised you've
>>come out in favor of Pat's candidacy. There's always hope
>>when the misguided can admit their faults and approach the
>>light.
>
>Pat's a fascist, just up Tim's alley.
>
> * * * * Citizen Chapman,
Esq.
I wonder which group the above two twits belong to???
X288FILES
In article <824616207$12...@atype.com>, mi...@cfw.com (Mike Chapman)
writes:
>What ever happened to capitalism? Is the government now to dictate
>the terms of supply and demand? Is the government now responsible for
>the productivity of its workers?
there are different types of capitalism we just dont believe in preditory
capitalism where you shoot your foot of to spite your nose
jim
Psi co 1
>psi...@aol.com (Psi co 1) wrote:
>> At last the mainstream media in behalf of those in power have shown
>>there true colors. Their attemps to smear Mr Buchanan as a racist
because
>>of his affiliation with Larry Pratt is nothing more than a feeble effort
>>to discredit a canidate who apprears
>
>Pat's a religious zealot. I think he's less trustworthy than the
>average lying politicians. I like plenty of what he says, but he just
>has this fascist air about him. He's interested only in protecting
>his culture.
Your above statement implies there's something wrong with being proud of
ones past, culture and heritage. There's nothing wrong with believing in
ones past as long as you don't oppress others because of your opinions.
Pat understands that majority rule
is the rule of the day. We in the MM are striving to take control through
the political system.
Most of us believe that those in power will not allow this to happen.
Thus we prepare.
LANCE
Psi co 1
>
>In Article<824374113$38...@atype.com>, <x288...@aol.com> writes:
>
>>
>> In article <824350690$31...@atype.com>, LBK...@prodigy.com (Gary
Mathis)
>> writes:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> i'm for pat because of all the canidate he's the only one that will
change
>> things
>> the rest all of them dem and rep with samo samo
>> jim
>>
>
> I think a lot of the votes that Pat will wind up getting will be
Tom
In article <824646788$14...@atype.com> x288...@aol.com (X288FILES) writes:
>From: x288...@aol.com (X288FILES)
>Date: Sun, 18 Feb 96 12:33:08 GMT
>Subject: Re: Der Furhrer (Buchanan)
>In article <824616207$12...@atype.com>, mi...@cfw.com (Mike Chapman)
>writes:
>>What ever happened to capitalism? Is the government now to dictate
>>the terms of supply and demand? Is the government now responsible for
>>the productivity of its workers?
>there are different types of capitalism we just dont believe in preditory
>capitalism where you shoot your foot of to spite your nose
>jim
Who's "we"?
Tom
Mike Chapman
psi...@aol.com (Psi co 1) wrote:
>In article <824493802$90...@atype.com>, mi...@cfw.com (Mike Chapman) writes:
>>Pat's a religious zealot. I think he's less trustworthy than the
>>average lying politicians. I like plenty of what he says, but he just
>>has this fascist air about him. He's interested only in protecting
>>his culture.
> Your above statement implies there's something wrong with being proud of
>ones past, culture and heritage. There's nothing wrong with believing in
>ones past as long as you don't oppress others because of your opinions.
And Pat wants to. He wants government socialism to support only his
culture and his personal tastes. There is something very wrong with
this. He would steal from all of us to promote only his social goals.
That's worse than just being a socialist.
I think that politicians who believe in traditional (pre-20th century)
American values are great! People who believe in strong families and
sound religion are great! People who want to force their personal
opinions on these matters on others, beyond live and let live, are
fascists or some other form of tyrants.
>Pat understands that majority rule
>is the rule of the day. We in the MM are striving to take control through
>the political system.
Never going to happen in the entire country.
> Most of us believe that those in power will not allow this to happen.
>Thus we prepare.
You don't need to beleive it, you KNOW it. Prepare for the one real
option - secession.
----
* * * * Citizen Chapman, Esq.
"medintz@falco...@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Relay-Version: ANU News - V6.1B10 04/18/95 OpenVMS AXP; site kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Path: falcon.cc.ukans.edu!medintz
Newsgroups: misc.activism.militia
References: <824283201$12...@atype.com> <824476708$78...@atype.com><824493802$90...@atype.com> <824581987$12...@atype.com>
Nntp-Posting-Host: falcon.cc.ukans.edu
In-Reply-To: <824581987$12...@atype.com>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Sat, 17 Feb 1996, Tom wrote:
> Like Buchanan or not, at least he's stayed on track with his message and
> beliefs. More than I can say for any of the others who want to be at 1600
> Penn. Ave. What's the old saying? "Better the devil I know than the one I
> don't," or close to that.
Better honest incompetence than corrupt expertise, or at least that's
how I vote. Unfortunately for those of us who prefer the incompetent but
honest over the criminal experts, Carter isn't running again.
> Saw the debates the other night (yawn) and really, Keyes (sp?) came off the
> best IMHO.
>
> Tom
>
>
>
Mike S. Medintz
ing...@bnr.ca
In article <824586506$12...@atype.com>, e14...@teleport.com (Walter Ulrich) writes:
|>
|> > ryk...@aol.com (RYK an1) writes:
|> [snip]
|> > I do have a serious question about all this, I dont like Buchannon by the
|> > way, but can anybody tell me whats wrong with protectionism. I've been
|> > hearing this alot on the :NEWS:
|> [snip]
|>
|> >>>>
|>
|> "Protectionism" goes against the desires of the large, multi-national
|> corporations which want cheap labor, cheap resources and a world-
|> wide market, and don't give a fig about how the American worker
|> fairs. Anyone who supports GATT/NAFTA is either in their pay or is
|> a "One Worlder" at heart (or is just plain stupid). Only Perot and
|> Buchanan have really come out against this "neat" idea.
And at the end of the day, this is why I favor Buchannan. It is about time
someone started supporting the American people. Buchannan's only sore point
with me is his anti-choice stand. It seems to run totally contrary to the
basic principles of choice this country was founded upon. But can he do it?
I think not. First there is the Supreme Court. They will not overturn Roe v
Wade as they sit now. He says he will seek to replace retiring justices with
those that will. Can he? No. He can select them but the Leg. branch will not
confirm them which leads me to reason number 2 why he won't get abortion banned.
The Legislature. He and his ideals will be political poison to them in 98. Pat
will have an open calendar, as few will want to be associated with him should
he be actively persuing Roe's demise.
While there are commonalities between RKBA and abortion, there is a huge
difference as well. Both are constitutionally protected, but if a policy that is
effective against crime can be created, HCI & co. lose vast amounts of gun banning support. OTOH, if abortion is banned, the policy maker will lose entire blocks of voters. One loses funding for a private org., but the other loses
voters. Which one do you think politicians care more about?
Anyone know Pats position on the War on Drugs?
"If it isn't about money, power, corruption, and abuse then why do folks spend
miliions getting a job that pays thousands?" - Me! On US politics.
All opinions posted by me are mine, mine, all mine and not those of
NORTEL, BNR, or any other body, corporate or otherwise. HART...@bnr.ca
Eric Engelmann
> * those in power have shown there true colors.
> * Their attemps to smear Mr Buchanan as a
> * racist because of his affiliation with Larry
> * Pratt is nothing more than a feeble effort
> * to discredit a canidate who apprears . . . .
> *
>
> Your own "feeble effort" at spin control is not working very well.
>
> In the last few days--
>
> (1) The Buchanan campaign has had one of its "leaders" resign
> because of her position with David Duke's Klan front organization, the
the liberal media. Don't like someone's ideas? Well, they must be
homophobic, racist and anti-semitic. Paint and smear them any way
you like, because the "boobs" and "redneck hillbillies" who might
believe a Buchanan believe whatever they are told by the media.
Problem is, this tactic just doesn't work any more, and will
probably just create a backlash against the media spin doctors. To
kill Buchanan's campaign, "they'll" probably have to add him to
Clinton's list of statistically abnormal deaths.
Makes me wonder if Zhirinovsky (sp?) is being savaged similarly.
your real name goes here
> > Saw the debates the other night (yawn) and really, Keyes (sp?) came off the
> > best IMHO.
> >
I heard (may be just a rumor) that Buchanan plans to take Keyes as his running mate. What a great combination!
Walter Ulrich
> mi...@cfw.com (Mike Chapman) writes:
> e14...@teleport.com (Walter Ulrich) wrote:
> > "Protectionism" goes against the desires of the large, multi-national
> >corporations which want cheap labor, cheap resources and a world-
> >wide market, and don't give a fig about how the American worker
> >fairs. Anyone who supports GATT/NAFTA is either in their pay or is
> >a "One Worlder" at heart (or is just plain stupid). Only Perot and
> >Buchanan have really come out against this "neat" idea.
> What ever happened to capitalism? Is the government now to dictate
> the terms of supply and demand? Is the government now responsible for
> the productivity of its workers?
>>>>
"Capitalism"? Is Social Security "capitalism"? Is the cozy relationship
between McDonald-Douglas/General Electric/et.al. and the Defence Dept.
"capitalism"? How about the parasitic relationship between big government
and the oil cartel (seen any new, effecient means of producing energy
developed recently??)? Anytime someone comes up with an idea which
promises to provide cheap, clean power (wind/solar/geothermal/tidal)
they're stomped on. If only 10% of the money spent on the nuclear energy
were spent on alternative research we'd all be paying pennies on the
dollar for electricity. But no, Uncle Sam is just a puppet of the power
elite. Anyone who thinks we live in a genuine capitalistic nation is deluded.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Bob Evans
Mike Chapman (mi...@cfw.com) wrote:
: psi...@aol.com (Psi co 1) wrote:
: > At last the mainstream media in behalf of those in power have shown
: >there true colors. Their attemps to smear Mr Buchanan as a racist because
: >of his affiliation with Larry Pratt is nothing more than a feeble effort
: >to discredit a canidate who apprears
: Pat's a religious zealot. I think he's less trustworthy than the
: average lying politicians. I like plenty of what he says, but he just
: has this fascist air about him. He's interested only in protecting
: his culture.
And just who else's should he be worrying about?
: ----
frankenchrist
jhist...@aol.com writes:
j> (2) The Buchanan campaign has been charged by Gramm (with
j> what is said to be "common knowlege" around here) with
j> circulating a pamphlet prior to the Louisiana caucas that
j> disparages Mrs. Gramm's Asian heritage.
Buchannan claims that this was a liberal smear campaign against
him by the Gramm camp.
Not quite a lie,but..
Anyone who does not question the mental stability of Buchannan
should be aware of the fact that he's an admitted creationist,
a belief that the biblical myth of creation is a scientific
fact, a belief unique to fundamentalist cults..
Buchannan is not a typical Catholic.If he believes in
creationism does he then believe in the coming apocalypse?
<- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ->
"Chaos engineering is a team sport" - Timothy Leary
---
ş KWQ/2 1.2i ş You cannot consistently believe this sentence.
Dave Brickner
I think that Buchanan probably plays to those who are conservative as he says
he does. There are many who do believe or think that they believe in
creationism. I know too much about archaeology to blindly say that the world
was created in 7 days or whatever, but who is to say how long a "day" is.
Buchanan sounds different to many because in todays politically correct
atmosphere illegal immigrants are "entitled refugees", barbaric punks are
"misunderstood children" and patriotism is outmoded extremism. We need a
change from business as usual and while Buchanan is not too great in the views
of some, he is refreshing relative to the criminals and deadheads also
running. If we don't elect someone who is willing to make some radical
changes, then things nay be such in 8-10 years that a VERY unhappy people
may select a leader by vote or worse procedure who will make Buchanan seem
moderate. Remember that HITLER was ELECTED by the people who were frustrated
with their state at the time. We need change BADLY!!!!!!!!!!
Dave Brickner
I hate to mention this, but I heard that Perot was also on the Council of
Foreign Relations. I sure would like to ask him about this.
Dave Brickner
We is Larry Bossidy CEO of AlliedSignal for whom I work who led the NAFTA
train several years ago. He preaches that our compnay is a "people company"
but tended to stab us in the back for international profits and personal
power.
Bob Evans
JHistorian (jhist...@aol.com) wrote:
: From: psi...@aol.com (Psi co 1)
: * At last the mainstream media in behalf of
: * those in power have shown there true colors.
: * Their attemps to smear Mr Buchanan as a
: * racist because of his affiliation with Larry
: * Pratt is nothing more than a feeble effort
: * to discredit a canidate who apprears . . . .
: *
: Your own "feeble effort" at spin control is not working very well.
: In the last few days--
: (1) The Buchanan campaign has had one of its "leaders" resign
: because of her position with David Duke's Klan front organization, the
: so-called "National Assocaition for the Advancement of White People";
The Dullard lies again. She was an UNPAID volunteer.
Nice setup, by the way.
: (2) The Buchanan campaign has been charged by Gramm (with what is
: said to be "common knowlege" around here) with circulating a pamphlet
: prior to the Louisiana caucas that disparages Mrs. Gramm's Asian heritage.
: Not to mention the "patriotic" rhetoric attributed to Buchanan at
X288FILES
In article <824654888$14...@atype.com>, ter...@cybergate.net (Tom
)
writes:
>there are different types of capitalism we just dont believe in preditory
>>capitalism where you shoot your foot of to spite your nose
>>jim
>
>Who's "we"?
>
>Tom
>
>
we the people who follow pat for the reasons stated
Psi co 1
In article <824633290$13...@atype.com>, jhist...@aol.com (JHistorian)
writes:
Hello Jim
> Your own "feeble effort" at spin control is not working very well.
Sounds as good as anything you'll hear on the major networks.
>
> The Buchanan campaign has been charged by Gramm (with what is
>said to be "common knowlege" around here) with circulating a pamphlet
>prior to the Louisiana caucas that disparages Mrs. Gramm's Asian
heritage.
>
> Not to mention the "patriotic" rhetoric attributed to Buchanan at
>the last GOP Presidential Convention.
First of all whats wrong with political rhetoric? Isn't that what runs
campaigns.
Common Knowledge? Isn't hearsay evidence inadmissable in a court of
LAW.
Did you wittness Buchanan handing out the material in question?
We have only a few choices in this election.
1. William Jefferson Clinton ? No thanks. I want him out if office
ASAP.
2. Lamar Alexander? No thanks .Just putting on a red flannel shirt and
saying your one of the working class wont get it in this day and
age.
3. Robert Dole ? His votes for the NAFTA and GATT have shown his
stance concerning the American worker.
Dole and Lamar on their best days couldn't whip Slick Willie.
The difference between you and the majority of American's is that you
do not
have to worry about your job being sent overseas. You only have to worry
about
whether we as citizens will still be able to send our children to college
in the future.
If you wish to believe Clintons promises of pie in the sky for
everyone, then do so at your own risk. I only know that if we on the right
do not consolidate our power behind someone who even remotely represents
the veiw points of the adverage American
then all will be lost concerning the use of the ballot box.
A Republician Congress can keep anyone elected to the White House in
check. This has has been proven since Nov. of 1994. I plan to be the fox
watching the chicken coop. We in America are at a crossroads. Any choice
we make at this point will be a difficult journey. We can only tread
slowly watching each step as if our lives depended upon the decisions we
make.
If those of who I disapprove, yes even those nasty liberals wish to
support Buchanan, then so be it. You and I have no control over others. I
only wish to avoid what I saw on
the news tonight. I do not wish to see events in America compared to those
occuring in Great Britian.
Lance
Psi co 1
>Subject: Re: Der Furhrer (Buchanan)
>From: mi...@cfw.com (Mike Chapman)
>Date: Fri, 16 Feb 96 18:03:22 GMT
>
>
>psi...@aol.com (Psi co 1) wrote:
>> At last the mainstream media in behalf of those in power have shown
>>there true colors. Their attemps to smear Mr Buchanan as a racist
because
>>of his affiliation with Larry Pratt is nothing more than a feeble effort
>>to discredit a canidate who apprears
>
>Pat's a religious zealot. I think he's less trustworthy than the
>average lying politicians. I like plenty of what he says, but he just
>has this fascist air about him. He's interested only in protecting
>his culture.
This is true, But do you really think Bob or Lamar have a snowballs
chance in
Hades of beating Slick Willie?
Lance
"medintz@falco...@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Relay-Version: ANU News - V6.1B10 04/18/95 OpenVMS AXP; site kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Path: falcon.cc.ukans.edu!medintz
Newsgroups: misc.activism.militia
References: <824789890$18...@atype.com>
Nntp-Posting-Host: falcon.cc.ukans.edu
In-Reply-To: <824789890$18...@atype.com>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Lines: 36
On Tue, 20 Feb 1996, frankenchrist wrote:
> Buchannan claims that this was a liberal smear campaign against=20
> him by the Gramm camp.
>=20
> Not quite a lie,but..
>=20
> Anyone who does not question the mental stability of Buchannan
> should be aware of the fact that he's an admitted creationist,
> a belief that the biblical myth of creation is a scientific
> fact, a belief unique to fundamentalist cults..
And the fact that he's ignorant of widely-accepted biology theory proves=20
what about the previous point about rascist remarks? BTW, Creationism=20
(typically, in my Intro to Systematics class, creationism was described=20
as generally meaning any form of creation of the universe orchistrated by=
=20
a divine hand, and generally involves an instantaneous speciation, or=20
formation of different forms of life in an extremely short time) is a=20
part of most if not all religions. It's not limited to fundamentalist=20
Christianity. (Not that I'm endorsing it-I believe in evolution myself.)
> Buchannan is not a typical Catholic.If he believes in
> creationism does he then believe in the coming apocalypse?=20
>=20
> <- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ->
> "Chaos engineering is a team sport" - Timothy Leary
>=20
> ---
> =FE KWQ/2 1.2i =FE You cannot consistently believe this sentence. =
=
=20
"medintz@falco...@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Relay-Version: ANU News - V6.1B10 04/18/95 OpenVMS AXP; site kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Path: falcon.cc.ukans.edu!medintz
Newsgroups: misc.activism.militia
Subject: Re: Der Furhrer (Buchanan)
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.91.960220...@falcon.cc.ukans.edu>
From: "Mike S. Medintz" <med...@falcon.cc.ukans.edu>
References: <824633290$13...@atype.com> <824819591$19...@atype.com>
Nntp-Posting-Host: falcon.cc.ukans.edu
In-Reply-To: <824819591$19...@atype.com>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Tue, 20 Feb 1996, Psi co 1 wrote:
> 1. William Jefferson Clinton ? No thanks. I want him out if office
> ASAP.
Even his own party isn't too keen on him. Too bad he isn't facing any
challengers.
> 2. Lamar Alexander? No thanks .Just putting on a red flannel shirt and
> saying your one of the working class wont get it in this day and
> age.
And it's not every day that ex-Cabinet-Secretaries claim to be outsiders.
> 3. Robert Dole ? His votes for the NAFTA and GATT have shown his
> stance concerning the American worker.
Nevermind his cave-in on Brady, the CDA, and how he whores for ADM.
> Dole and Lamar on their best days couldn't whip Slick Willie.
>
> The difference between you and the majority of American's is that you
> do not
> have to worry about your job being sent overseas. You only have to worry
> about
> whether we as citizens will still be able to send our children to college
> in the future.
Putting him downstream. As happens to us will happen to him, but there'll
probably be a few year's lag.
> If you wish to believe Clintons promises of pie in the sky for
> everyone, then do so at your own risk. I only know that if we on the right
> do not consolidate our power behind someone who even remotely represents
> the veiw points of the adverage American
> then all will be lost concerning the use of the ballot box.
I've already figured it out. If Dole wins the nomination, Clinton will
win in November by a small majority, and we'll be completely ready for a
third-party candidate in 2000. If Buchanan wins the nomination, then
Clinton will win by a plurality, and the Libertarian party will be on the
map for the first time in history, and positioned to actually get someone
elected to national office in 2000. Either way, it'll get worse before it
gets better.
> A Republician Congress can keep anyone elected to the White House in
> check. This has has been proven since Nov. of 1994. I plan to be the fox
> watching the chicken coop. We in America are at a crossroads. Any choice
> we make at this point will be a difficult journey. We can only tread
> slowly watching each step as if our lives depended upon the decisions we
> make.
True. The more time that the President and the Congress spend fighting
with each other, the less time that they spend hassling the rest of us.
> If those of who I disapprove, yes even those nasty liberals wish to
> support Buchanan, then so be it. You and I have no control over others. I
> only wish to avoid what I saw on
> the news tonight. I do not wish to see events in America compared to those
> occuring in Great Britian.
No joke.
> Lance
pio...@teleport.com
JHistorian (jhist...@aol.com) wrote:
: From: psi...@aol.com (Psi co 1)
: * At last the mainstream media in behalf of
: * those in power have shown there true colors.
: * Their attemps to smear Mr Buchanan as a
: * racist because of his affiliation with Larry
: * Pratt is nothing more than a feeble effort
: * to discredit a canidate who apprears . . . .
: *
: Your own "feeble effort" at spin control is not working very well.
: In the last few days--
: (1) The Buchanan campaign has had one of its "leaders" resign
: because of her position with David Duke's Klan front organization, the
: so-called "National Assocaition for the Advancement of White People";
>
> We could use alittle advancement. Your attacks on "Whitie" make you like
> David Duke in reverse. I guess, Being black, gives you the right to trash
> everything and everybody. If you want to know why our educational
> system is in trouble, take a long hard look in a mirror. It's garbage
> peddlars, like you, that corrupt young minds. Garbage in! Garbage out!
Joe Sylvester
In article <824633290$13...@atype.com>, jhist...@aol.com says...
>
> (2) The Buchanan campaign has been charged by Gramm (with what is
>said to be "common knowlege" around here) with circulating a pamphlet
>prior to the Louisiana caucas that disparages Mrs. Gramm's Asian heritage.
What's common knowledge is often wrong. Sometimes it's disinformation, active
measures in other words.
--
The Second Amendment is the RESET button
of the United States Constitution.
("Doug McKay" <mcka...@maroon.tc.umn.edu>)
Joe Sylvester
DON'T TREAD ON ME!
Walter Ulrich
> hemp...@io.org (frankenchrist) writes:
[snip]
> Anyone who does not question the mental stability of Buchannan
> should be aware of the fact that he's an admitted creationist,
> a belief that the biblical myth of creation is a scientific
> fact, a belief unique to fundamentalist cults..
>
> creationism does he then believe in the coming apocalypse?
>>>>
Who gives a rat's ass?
Kind of scary to have a candidate running for high office who
ACTUALLY BELIEVES IN SOMETHING, eh? Anyway, what's it to
you, Dudleyboy?
BTW, offer one iota of >proof< that Creationism is wrong and
that "scientific", approved by atheists, >theory< is right.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
company account
:> hemp...@io.org (frankenchrist) writes:
:> Anyone who does not question the mental stability of Buchannan
:> should be aware of the fact that he's an admitted creationist,
:> a belief that the biblical myth of creation is a scientific
:> fact, a belief unique to fundamentalist cults..
:>
:> Buchannan is not a typical Catholic.If he believes in
:> creationism does he then believe in the coming apocalypse?
: Who gives a rat's ass?
: Kind of scary to have a candidate running for high office who
:ACTUALLY BELIEVES IN SOMETHING, eh? Anyway, what's it to
:you, Dudleyboy?
: BTW, offer one iota of >proof< that Creationism is wrong and
:that "scientific", approved by atheists, >theory< is right.
Note: There are creation scientist who are fully qualified
in their fields and can show the validity of creationist beliefs.
If Buchanan is a creationist (I had not heard this before) it
makes him look better in my book. We should thank the Hempster
for sharing the info ;)
-McDaniel -- speaking for himself.
F. Cowart
JHistorian (jhist...@aol.com) wrote:
: From: psi...@aol.com (Psi co 1)
: * At last the mainstream media in behalf of
: * those in power have shown there true colors.
: * Their attemps to smear Mr Buchanan as a
: * racist because of his affiliation with Larry
: * Pratt is nothing more than a feeble effort
: * to discredit a canidate who apprears . . . .
: *
Raceist = Someone who is winning an argument with a liberal Black.
Anti Seminite = Someone who is winning an argument with a liberal jew.
Homophobe = someone winning an argument with a liberal homosexual.
Sexist = someone winning an argument with a feminist.
F. Cowart
: Not to mention the "patriotic" rhetoric attributed to Buchanan at
: the last GOP Presidential Convention.
:
:
Much better he should have voiced un "patriotic" rhetoric?
F. Cowart
Mike Chapman (mi...@cfw.com) wrote:
: psi...@aol.com (Psi co 1) wrote:
: >In article <824493802$90...@atype.com>, mi...@cfw.com (Mike Chapman) writes:
Farakhans a religious zealot. I think he's less trustworthy than the
: >>average lying politicians. I like plenty of what he says, but he just
: >>has this fascist air about him. He's interested only in protecting
: >>his culture.
: > Your above statement implies there's something wrong with being proud of
: >ones past, culture and heritage. There's nothing wrong with believing in
: >ones past as long as you don't oppress others because of your opinions.
: And Pat wants to. He wants government socialism to support only his
: culture and his personal tastes. There is something very wrong with
: this. He would steal from all of us to promote only his social goals.
: That's worse than just being a socialist.
: I think that politicians who believe in traditional (pre-20th century)
: American values are great! People who believe in strong families and
: sound religion are great! People who want to force their personal
: opinions on these matters on others, beyond live and let live, are
: fascists or some other form of tyrants.
: >Pat understands that majority rule
: >is the rule of the day. We in the MM are striving to take control through
: >the political system.
: Never going to happen in the entire country.
: > Most of us believe that those in power will not allow this to happen.
: >Thus we prepare.
: You don't need to beleive it, you KNOW it. Prepare for the one real
: option - secession.
That maggot linkhon didn't let us do it the last time. ;)
F. Cowart
ing...@bnr.ca wrote:
: In article <824586506$12...@atype.com>, e14...@teleport.com (Walter Ulrich) writes:
: |>
: |> > ryk...@aol.com (RYK an1) writes:
: |> [snip]
: |> > I do have a serious question about all this, I dont like Buchannon by the
: |> > way, but can anybody tell me whats wrong with protectionism. I've been
: |> > hearing this alot on the :NEWS:
: |> [snip]
: |>
: |> >>>>
: |>
: |> "Protectionism" goes against the desires of the large, multi-national
: |> corporations which want cheap labor, cheap resources and a world-
: |> wide market, and don't give a fig about how the American worker
The problem with "Protectionism" is that we are not the only ones that
can play that game. Look into the balance of trade between us and japan.
If we try to stop them selling us stuff then they will stop letting us
sell them stuff.
Mike Chapman
madh...@smarty.smart.net (F. Cowart) wrote:
>Raceist = Someone who is winning an argument with a liberal Black.
>Anti Seminite = Someone who is winning an argument with a liberal jew.
>Homophobe = someone winning an argument with a liberal homosexual.
>Sexist = someone winning an argument with a feminist.
So there aren't any haters of blacks, jews, gays and women?
Tom
In article <824616207$12...@atype.com> mi...@cfw.com (Mike Chapman) writes:
>From: mi...@cfw.com (Mike Chapman)
>Subject: Re: Der Furhrer (Buchanan)
>e14...@teleport.com (Walter Ulrich) wrote:
>> "Protectionism" goes against the desires of the large, multi-national
>>corporations which want cheap labor, cheap resources and a world-
>>wide market, and don't give a fig about how the American worker
>>fairs. Anyone who supports GATT/NAFTA is either in their pay or is
>>a "One Worlder" at heart (or is just plain stupid). Only Perot and
>>Buchanan have really come out against this "neat" idea.
>What ever happened to capitalism? Is the government now to dictate
>the terms of supply and demand? Is the government now responsible for
>the productivity of its workers?
Not to put too fine a point on it, but the government IS responsible for the
productivity of *its* workers. Seems as though they haven't done very well
living up to their responsibility.
As far as the government being responsible for the general productivity of the
rest of us, the government can only decrease our productivity by placing
impediments in our path, but cannot legislate higher productivity.
Tom
Awesome1
In article <824633290$13...@atype.com>, jhist...@aol.com (JHistorian) says:
>
>
>From: psi...@aol.com (Psi co 1)
>
>* At last the mainstream media in behalf of
>* those in power have shown there true colors.
>* Their attemps to smear Mr Buchanan as a
>* racist because of his affiliation with Larry
>* Pratt is nothing more than a feeble effort
>* to discredit a canidate who apprears . . . .
>*
>
>
> In the last few days--
>
> (1) The Buchanan campaign has had one of its "leaders" resign
>because of her position with David Duke's Klan front organization, the
>so-called "National Assocaition for the Advancement of White People";
Yeah those racist organizations like the NAACP should be exposed up for what
they really are, eh comrade?
>
> (2) The Buchanan campaign has been charged by Gramm (with what is
>said to be "common knowlege" around here) with circulating a pamphlet
>prior to the Louisiana caucas that disparages Mrs. Gramm's Asian heritage.
Well why not just accept that baseless assertion at face value, anything for the
cause, eh comrade?
>
> Not to mention the "patriotic" rhetoric attributed to Buchanan at
>the last GOP Presidential Convention.
We all know that to be a patriot is a >bad< thing, to be a >socialist< is a good
thing. Not difficult to see where your twisted little world resides, eh comrade?
E. Vigilance
Bob Evans
F. Cowart (madh...@smarty.smart.net) wrote:
: ing...@bnr.ca wrote:
: : In article <824586506$12...@atype.com>, e14...@teleport.com (Walter Ulrich) writes:
: : |>
: : |> > ryk...@aol.com (RYK an1) writes:
: : |> [snip]
: : |> > I do have a serious question about all this, I dont like Buchannon by the
: : |> > way, but can anybody tell me whats wrong with protectionism. I've been
: : |> > hearing this alot on the :NEWS:
: : |> [snip]
: : |>
: : |> >>>>
: : |>
: : |> "Protectionism" goes against the desires of the large, multi-national
: : |> corporations which want cheap labor, cheap resources and a world-
: : |> wide market, and don't give a fig about how the American worker
: The problem with "Protectionism" is that we are not the only ones that
: can play that game. Look into the balance of trade between us and japan.
: If we try to stop them selling us stuff then they will stop letting us
: sell them stuff.
Huh? They (the Japanese) get very little imports from us.
That is where the trade imbalance comes from - they keep
us out of their markets, and the Doles and Gingrichs open
our markets to them. Putting a tariff on Japanese goods
would wreck their economy muy pronto. If they retaliated
in kind, how could we get hurt? We don't sell much there!!
Of course this is simplistic, and lots of other factors
could make this scenario much more destructive.
JHistorian
hemp...@io.org (frankenchrist) wrote:
j> (2) The Buchanan campaign has been charged
j> by Gramm (with what is said to be "common
j> knowlege" around here) with circulating a
j> pamphlet prior to the Louisiana caucas that
j> disparages Mrs. Gramm's Asian heritage.
j>
* Buchannan claims that this was a liberal smear
* campaign against him by the Gramm camp.
*
Yes, of course -- we've all noticed what a raging liberal is Gramm,
didn't we?
JHistorian
psi...@aol.com (Psi co 1) wrote:
* Pat's a religious zealot. I think he's less trustworthy
* than the average lying politicians. . . .
*
> This is true, But do you really think Bob or Lamar
> have a snowballs chance in Hades of beating Slick
> Willie?
>
Yes.
JHistorian
joesyl...@texoma.net (Joe Sylvester) wrote:
* (2) The Buchanan campaign has been charged
* by Gramm (with what is said to be "common
* knowlege" around here) with circulating a pamphlet
* prior to the Louisiana caucas that disparages
* Mrs. Gramm's Asian heritage.
*
> What's common knowledge is often wrong. Sometimes
> it's disinformation, . . . .
And sometimes it means that the literature is as widely distributed
as is Mardi Gras beads.
X288FILES
i share catholism with buchanan we can believe in the word you know
Tim Hill
In article <824957302$26...@atype.com>,
madh...@smarty.smart.net (F. Cowart) wrote:
>: Not to mention the "patriotic" rhetoric attributed to Buchanan
at
>: the last GOP Presidential Convention.
>Much better he should have voiced un "patriotic" rhetoric?
When a politician starts calling for a Religous war, I get a little
nervous.
Tim Hill
"I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate
is good...our goal is a Christian nation. We have a biblical
duty, we are called on by God to conquer this country.We
don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism."
-- Randall Terry, head of Operation Rescue
The News-Sentinel, Fort Wayne, Indiana. 8-16-93
Mike Chapman
jhist...@aol.com (JHistorian) wrote:
>psi...@aol.com (Psi co 1) wrote:
>> This is true, But do you really think Bob or Lamar
>> have a snowballs chance in Hades of beating Slick
>> Willie?
>>
> Yes.
No Vargy, I think Dole could win.
Mike Chapman
x288...@aol.com (X288FILES) wrote:
>i share catholism with buchanan we can believe in the word you know
Catholics don't have any idea of the word of Jesus. Catholics are
pagans.
Randy Gouker
In <825007689$28...@atype.com> ti...@halcyon.com (Tim Hill) writes:
>
>
>In article <824957302$26...@atype.com>,
> madh...@smarty.smart.net (F. Cowart) wrote:
>
>>: Not to mention the "patriotic" rhetoric attributed to
Buchanan
>at
>>: the last GOP Presidential Convention.
>
>>Much better he should have voiced un "patriotic" rhetoric?
>
>When a politician starts calling for a Religous war, I get a little
>nervous.
was going on. So you dont have to be nervous any more,right?
F. Cowart
ing...@bnr.ca wrote:
: And at the end of the day, this is why I favor Buchannan. It is about time
: someone started supporting the American people. Buchannan's only sore point
: with me is his anti-choice stand. It seems to run totally contrary to the
: basic principles of choice this country was founded upon. But can he do it?
You have to check the assumptions of the pro-life side; They consider the
fetus to be a life, so abortion is like someone going into a matirinty
ward and strangling every other baby. What I have trouble dealing with is
that people went batshit when susan smith gave her kids swimming lessons
when thay were in there carseats. But if she had aborted them then, "who
cares, its legel?"
Or take jeffery dalmer; All he was doing was dismembering people, another
common form of abortion. Why is dalmer a monster and the abortionist a
doctor?
: I think not. First there is the Supreme Court. They will not overturn Roe v
: Wade as they sit now. He says he will seek to replace retiring justices with
Why not, they overturned dread scott?
: those that will. Can he? No. He can select them but the Leg. branch will not
: confirm them which leads me to reason number 2 why he won't get abortion banned.
: The Legislature. He and his ideals will be political poison to them in 98. Pat
Why poison? I think that you could balance off the pro-lifers with the
pro-choisers.
: will have an open calendar, as few will want to be associated with him should
: he be actively persuing Roe's demise.
: While there are commonalities between RKBA and abortion, there is a huge
I think there are more commonalities between abortion and slavery, Both
are about controling anothers life. and both tend to arrouse equal passion.
F. Cowart
: : * At last the mainstream media in behalf of
: : * Their attemps to smear Mr Buchanan as a
: : * racist because of his affiliation with Larry
: : * Pratt is nothing more than a feeble effort
: : * to discredit a canidate who apprears . . . .
: : *
: : Your own "feeble effort" at spin control is not working very well.
: : In the last few days--
: : (1) The Buchanan campaign has had one of its "leaders" resign
: : because of her position with David Duke's Klan front organization, the
: : so-called "National Assocaition for the Advancement of White People";
: >
Has it acured to anyone that these people, politions and press, BOTH have
agendas and don't seem to aggee? One or the other or both just might be
lieing?!? ;)
F. Cowart
your real name goes here (your...@chattanooga.net) wrote:
:
: > > Saw the debates the other night (yawn) and really, Keyes (sp?) came off the
: > > best IMHO.
: > >
: I heard (may be just a rumor) that Buchanan plans to take Keyes as his running mate. What a great combination!
That would be FANTASTIC!! but any teem that includes Keyes would be great.
F. Cowart
Mike Chapman (mi...@cfw.com) wrote:
: madh...@smarty.smart.net (F. Cowart) wrote:
: >Raceist = Someone who is winning an argument with a liberal Black.
: >Anti Seminite = Someone who is winning an argument with a liberal jew.
: >Homophobe = someone winning an argument with a liberal homosexual.
: >Sexist = someone winning an argument with a feminist.
: So there aren't any haters of blacks, jews, gays and women?
Sure there are, but is also a great way to derail a dicussion. Someone
calls someone a ____ist and the next thing you are arguing about whether
you are one or not. And how do you prove that you like the _____ and are
not just lieing to cover your butt?
F. Cowart
Tim Hill (ti...@halcyon.com) wrote:
: In article <824957302$26...@atype.com>,
: madh...@smarty.smart.net (F. Cowart) wrote:
: >: Not to mention the "patriotic" rhetoric attributed to Buchanan
: at
: >: the last GOP Presidential Convention.
: >Much better he should have voiced un "patriotic" rhetoric?
: When a politician starts calling for a Religous war, I get a little
: nervous.
Referances Please??
: Tim Hill
Col. J.C. Christian
mi...@cfw.com (Mike Chapman) let it slip that:
>x288...@aol.com (X288FILES) wrote:
>>i share catholism with buchanan we can believe in the word you know
>Catholics don't have any idea of the word of Jesus. Catholics are
>pagans.
This brings up a good question. Where exactly should we draw the line
between good bigotry and bad bigotry. I personally think that Catholics
are OK. Now, I know that if we were to respect the "Know Nothing"
tradition, we'd include Catholics on our list of people to oppress, but
damn it, I've got enough people to oppress as it is and there are only so
many hours in a day.
Yours in Arms,
Col. J.C. Christian
Commander, Buggtussle Militia
"Persicos odi, puer, apparatus"
Col. J.C. Christian
your real name goes here <your...@chattanooga.net> let it slip that:
>I heard (may be just a rumor) that Buchanan plans to take Keyes as his running mate. What a great combination!
You're damned right. Pat will have someone right there to fetch things
fer him
F. Cowart
Mike Chapman (mi...@cfw.com) wrote:
: x288...@aol.com (X288FILES) wrote:
: >i share catholism with buchanan we can believe in the word you know
: Catholics don't have any idea of the word of Jesus. Catholics are
: pagans.
Let me guess; you don't like catholics?? ;)
: ----
Drew Stowers
bo...@hpbs2500.boi.hp.com (Bob Evans) wrote:
> Huh? They (the Japanese) get very little imports from us.
> That is where the trade imbalance comes from - they keep
> us out of their markets, and the Doles and Gingrichs open
> our markets to them. Putting a tariff on Japanese goods
> would wreck their economy muy pronto. If they retaliated
> in kind, how could we get hurt? We don't sell much there!!
> Of course this is simplistic, and lots of other factors
> could make this scenario much more destructive.
Ever hear of Boeing? One of the nations largest exporters, employing
40,000+ people? It sells a lot of airplanes (at 50 to 150 million
dollars a copy) to Japan (and China). Japan and China could buy
Airbus jets just as easy as Boeing jets.
I can see Clinton's Washington State's campaign signs now.
Vote Buchanan and Vote yourself out of job.
Drew Stowers
mi...@cfw.com (Mike Chapman) wrote:
>x288...@aol.com (X288FILES) wrote:
>>i share catholism with buchanan we can believe in the word you know
>Catholics don't have any idea of the word of Jesus. Catholics are
>pagans.
>----
Let's see....
Protestants are offshoots of Catholics.
Therefore if Catholics are Pagan
Protestants are Pagan.
Bob Evans
Mike Chapman (mi...@cfw.com) wrote:
: x288...@aol.com (X288FILES) wrote:
: >i share catholism with buchanan we can believe in the word you know
: Catholics don't have any idea of the word of Jesus. Catholics are
: pagans.
The above reminds me of an old episode of "All in the Family"
from bygone years. In that episode, our good buddy Archie
makes the astonishing reflection "The Bible ain't got nothin'
to do with the Jews!".
Now Mike, give us your philosophy on religion. It should
prove interesting.
Doc? You there? You'd better not miss this .....
Bob Evans
Drew Stowers (dsto...@wolfenet.com) wrote:
: bo...@hpbs2500.boi.hp.com (Bob Evans) wrote:
Not me. My employer is doing a fine job of that now,
and we don't even have Buchanan in the White House.
BTW, the trade imbalance is running about 20 billion
a month for Japan.
With the right pressure, we wouldn't really need to
have protectionism. What we lack are leaders who will
not shirk from putting that pressure on the Japanese
to open their markets. Buchanan could deliver that
message, loud and clear. I see nothing wrong with
that, do you?
JHistorian
>i share catholism with buchanan we can
>believe in the word you know
* Catholics don't have any idea of the word
* of Jesus. Catholics are pagans.
Catholics have no idea of Jesus, eh? So, tell me, who's that guy
that's hanging on the cross?
JHistorian
>> This is true, But do you really think Bob or Lamar
>> have a snowballs chance in Hades of beating Slick
>> Willie?
>>
> Yes.
* No Vargy, I think Dole could win.
That is precisely what I said, goober.
JHistorian
madh...@smarty.smart.net (F. Cowart) spake:
: : (1) The Buchanan campaign has had one of its "leaders" resign
: : because of her position with David Duke's Klan front organization, the
: : so-called "National Assocaition for the Advancement of White People";
: >
Has it acured to anyone that these people, politions and press, BOTH have
agendas and don't seem to aggee? One or the other or both just might be
lieing?!? ;)
----------
Add George Will and David Duke to the list of those people with,
ahem, "agendas."
ing...@bnr.ca
In article <824981641$27...@atype.com>, bo...@hpbs2500.boi.hp.com (Bob Evans) writes:
|>
|> F. Cowart (madh...@smarty.smart.net) wrote:
|>
|> : ing...@bnr.ca wrote:
|>
|>
|> : : In article <824586506$12...@atype.com>, e14...@teleport.com (Walter Ulrich) writes:
<snip>
|> : : |> "Protectionism" goes against the desires of the large, multi-national
|> : : |> corporations which want cheap labor, cheap resources and a world-
|> : : |> wide market, and don't give a fig about how the American worker
|>
|> : The problem with "Protectionism" is that we are not the only ones that
|> : can play that game. Look into the balance of trade between us and japan.
|> : If we try to stop them selling us stuff then they will stop letting us
|> : sell them stuff.
|>
|> Huh? They (the Japanese) get very little imports from us.
|> That is where the trade imbalance comes from - they keep
|> us out of their markets, and the Doles and Gingrichs open
|> our markets to them. Putting a tariff on Japanese goods
|> would wreck their economy muy pronto. If they retaliated
|> in kind, how could we get hurt? We don't sell much there!!
|> Of course this is simplistic, and lots of other factors
|> could make this scenario much more destructive.
Or much less destructive. Buchanan will not happen in a vacuum. The "wall around
America" that some have ranted about will not happen either. One positive thing
about Buchanan is that he has vowed to try and do something about the predatory
trade practices of other countries. He will be successful to differing degrees
with different countries. At least his position is firmer than anyone else.
Our trade reps are amatuers compared to the Europeans and Asians. What we will
get with Buchanan is some backbone, leadership, and accountability and that is
good enough for me.
All campaign rhetoric must be balanced against what is possible, doable, and
popular. I made the mistake of believing that Clinton would clean up the
environment and cut my taxes. Silly boy! I also thought the NRA and GOA could
prevent him from banning guns. For shame! The lesson is that environmental
programs are unpopular, politically expensive, and so are, in the context of
today's political system, undoable. Guns, however, can be used to seriously
stir up emotions, then pocketbooks, thus political support, and in the end gun
bans come to pass. Pat will stir up folks' emotions about trade practise,
sovereignity and in doing so will generate the financial and political support
neccessary. He will only derail his support by throwing the country into
financial straights so he just won't press any issue to that extreme.
Of course, the GOP won't give Pat the nomination whatever happens. Dole has
bought and paid for that. It'll be Clinton and Dole (if Lamar can't do it) and
Clinton will sin. It'll be mandate this and mandate that, gun bans, bailouts,
burn the BoR (like the flag), and who knows what the 'good ole boys' will do. Is
the remainder of the revolution 9 months away?
"If it isn't about money, power, corruption, and abuse then why do folks spend
miliions getting a job that pays thousands?" - Me! On US politics.
All opinions posted by me are mine, mine, all mine and not those of
NORTEL, BNR, or any other body, corporate or otherwise. HART...@bnr.ca
Scott MacEachern
madh...@smarty.smart.net (F. Cowart) wrote:
>Raceist = Someone who is winning an argument with a liberal Black.
>Anti Seminite = Someone who is winning an argument with a liberal jew.
>Homophobe = someone winning an argument with a liberal homosexual.
>Sexist = someone winning an argument with a feminist.
And someone who's winning an argument with a conservative is a
liberal, feminist, homosexual jew (and maybe black, to boot).
What's your point?
Scott
---
Scott MacEachern
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bowdoin College
Brunswick, ME 04011
X288FILES
In article <825035633$32...@atype.com>, mi...@cfw.com (Mike Chapman) writes:
>88f...@aol.com (X288FILES) wrote:
>>i share catholism with buchanan we can believe in the word you know
>
>Catholics don't have any idea of the word of Jesus. Catholics are
>pagans.
>----
>
> * * * * Citizen Chap
next time i talk to my lord and savior jesus christ i'll tell him your
views about his redemption
jim
frcsfmr.@siu.edu
Buchanan is a fucking gimp KKK right wing asshole
Tim Hill
In article <825043716$54...@atype.com>,
madh...@smarty.smart.net (F. Cowart) wrote:
>
>
>Tim Hill (ti...@halcyon.com) wrote:
>: When a politician starts calling for a Religous war, I get a little
>: nervous.
>Referances Please??
1992 Republican National Convention
I saw the speech and later read it in either the NY Times or Washington
Post. I can't remember which for certain.
Tim Hill
"I congratulate you as a comrade and brother-in-arms
in the struggle for national liberation"
--Vladimir Zhirinovsky congratulating Pat Buchanan after NH win
di...@onramp.net
ti...@halcyon.com (Col. J.C. Christian) wrote:
>mi...@cfw.com (Mike Chapman) let it slip that:
>>x288...@aol.com (X288FILES) wrote:
>>>i share catholism with buchanan we can believe in the word you know
>>Catholics don't have any idea of the word of Jesus. Catholics are
>>pagans.
Catholics don't have any idea of the word of Jesus? What a bigot you
are Mike.
>This brings up a good question. Where exactly should we draw the line
>between good bigotry and bad bigotry. I personally think that Catholics
>are OK. Now, I know that if we were to respect the "Know Nothing"
>tradition, we'd include Catholics on our list of people to oppress, but
>damn it, I've got enough people to oppress as it is and there are only so
>many hours in a day.
Do something with your life Timmy.