Pat Buchanan's Website has...

[angelatc]

Pat would be THE choice for VP.

I hate that. IIRC, he has said some pretty nasty things about homosexuals and AIDS.

I think he also wants to put Christian prayers in public schools.


He's right about a lot of things, but when he's wrong, he's really, really wrong.

 

[ADGettis]

I hate that. IIRC, he has said some pretty nasty things about homosexuals and AIDS.

Examples? Perhaps he said some things that are controversial, but is anything he has said untrue?

 

[literatim]

Pat Buchanan rules.

 

[dmitchell]

Examples? Perhaps he said some things that are controversial, but is anything he has said untrue?

I tend to be very skeptical of charges of racism and bigotry. Too often they turn out to be misrepresentations or outright lies. This has certainly been the case with the smears against Ron Paul.

 

[BuddyRey]

But he did school Congressman Luis Guitterez in an immigration debate on Meet the
Press.

Oooh, I can't wait to update my MtP Podcast and watch that one!!!

 

[guntherg16]

Pat would be THE choice for VP.

I agree.

 

[nayjevin]

Buchanan, when taken with a grain, is good. But he misses some points, and is selectively hardcore IMHO. RP speaks out about ANYTHING that's BS. Pat cowtows a bit more. Way better than most, however.

He's right about a lot of things, but when he's wrong, he's really, really wrong.

I agree.

Pat would be THE choice for VP.

I don't agree. I think his endorsement is a GREAT thing for RP. But that high of an office is no good. I think Stossel, Kwiatkowski, or Williams would be better choices. They would pull more votes that would not be there otherwise.

Williams:
Obama is attractive to young blacks, but I think Williams would convince more black voters who hear both speak. RP/Williams would get out the news of why Obama's allegiance to Israel, no plan for the monetary system, and increased welfare increases slavery and reduces liberty.

Kwiatkowski:
Almost EVERYONE respects an intelligent woman, and many voters who would have gone Hillary 4 or 8 years ago based superficially on the fact that she's a woman have become disillusioned. Kwiatkowski is SUPER knowledgable about the most drawing issue for Paul=foreign policy. She also has a very good resume. She impressed me more than any other person interviewed in the Oil Factor, and what she says in videos like that tends to be what sticks in my mind. She has an incredible knack of remaining relevant in what she says, explaining things clearly, and outlining the most important points, with a convincing manner. Just like Ron Paul.

Stossel:
Might hurt his career if RP doesn't win, so there's doubt he would accept. However, almost anyone who knows who he is likes him, and would take a serious look at Ron Paul just because he was on the ticket. In addition, I would think 90% of those who have read a book of his would vote Paul instantly, if they're not already here. He's probably the most recognizable name of the 3.

 

[LizF]

Buchanan, when taken with a grain, is good. But he misses some points, and is selectively hardcore IMHO. RP speaks out about ANYTHING that's BS. Pat cowtows a bit more. Way better than most, however.



I agree.



I don't agree. I think his endorsement is a GREAT thing for RP. But that high of an office is no good. I think Stossel, Kwiatkowski, or Williams would be better choices. They would pull more votes that would not be there otherwise.

Williams:
Obama is attractive to young blacks, but I think Williams would convince more black voters who hear both speak. RP/Williams would get out the news of why Obama's allegiance to Israel, no plan for the monetary system, and increased welfare increases slavery and reduces liberty.

Kwiatkowski:
Almost EVERYONE respects an intelligent woman, and many voters who would have gone Hillary 4 or 8 years ago based superficially on the fact that she's a woman have become disillusioned. Kwiatkowski is SUPER knowledgable about the most drawing issue for Paul=foreign policy. She also has a very good resume. She impressed me more than any other person interviewed in the Oil Factor, and what she says in videos like that tends to be what sticks in my mind. She has an incredible knack of remaining relevant in what she says, explaining things clearly, and outlining the most important points, with a convincing manner. Just like Ron Paul.

Stossel:
Might hurt his career if RP doesn't win, so there's doubt he would accept. However, almost anyone who knows who he is likes him, and would take a serious look at Ron Paul just because he was on the ticket. In addition, I would think 90% of those who have read a book of his would vote Paul instantly, if they're not already here. He's probably the most recognizable name of the 3.

I'm sorry to say that I had never heard of Kwiatkowski before this. I did a quick search on her, and must agree that she has an impressive CV; she would probably be a great asset in a Ron Paul administration. Since she's a registered Libertarian, however, I don't know if she would be a likely pick for VP, since RP is running as a GOP nominee. I do like what I know of her so far.

Stossel, eh. Sure he's a bright guy and a renowned reporter, but he comes off as kind of whiny in his reporting, IMO. Plus there have been some complaints about the objectivity of some of his reports. There'd probably be a role he could play in RP's administration, but I wouldn't want him to be just a heart beat away from the presidency.

 

[nayjevin]

Stossel, eh. Sure he's a bright guy and a renowned reporter, but he comes off as kind of whiny in his reporting, IMO. Plus there have been some complaints about the objectivity of some of his reports. There'd probably be a role he could play in RP's administration, but I wouldn't want him to be just a heart beat away from the presidency.

i can agree with that. i didn't know there was much of a question about objectivity though. if it's substantial, i agree wholeheartedly.

Since she's a registered Libertarian, however, I don't know if she would be a likely pick for VP, since RP is running as a GOP nominee.

I agree it's not likely. It would be my first choice for me, but probably not the best first choice for popularity, and i would say definitely not the most likely first choice. It's becoming more and more likely that a libertarian would be picked for VP as reporters attempt to slander RP by labelling him as such, and he continues to gain credibility. But he might be better served offsetting that with a more established GOP guy.

 

[LibertyEagle]

I tend to be very skeptical of charges of racism and bigotry. Too often they turn out to be misrepresentations or outright lies. This has certainly been the case with the smears against Ron Paul.

The Anti-defamation league appears to have done everything in their power to smear Pat Buchanan. In their eyes, if one raises any impropriety about Israel's government or their actions, you are immediately categorized as an anti-semitic. It's not true of course, but the label is still attached.

They will be coming after Ron Paul as he gains steam too, because he does not support foreign aid for anyone, including Israel.

 

[mikelovesgod]

The Anti-defamation league appears to have done everything in their power to smear Pat Buchanan. In their eyes, if one raises any impropriety about Israel's government or their actions, you are immediately categorized as an anti-semitic. It's not true of course, but the label is still attached.

They will be coming after Ron Paul as he gains steam too, because he does not support foreign aid for anyone, including Israel.

Anti-semitism was defined as someone who was against the Jewish people as a race. It then moved to anyone who disliked their policies. It has finally reached it's apex in anyone that they do not like is now anti-semitic.

 

[angelatc]

I think civil unions are absurd. They passed these up in Vermont where homosexual couples have been put on the same level as traditional marriage. And I’m delighted to say that five Republicans that voted for that were defeated and thrown out in the primary. If this country accepts the idea that homosexual liaisons are the same as traditional marriage, which is a God-ordained building block of society, this country is on the road to hell in a handbasket.

Meet The Press, 2000. I don't agree with him, and it's hateful. I prefer Dr Paul's stance which is to get the government out of marriage all together.

Q: Mr. Buchanan mentioned before that he has not embraced the gay rights agenda in its entirety.

A: I don’t apologize for my views with regards to gay rights. I oppose the gay rights agenda in its entirety. I was saying that tongue-in-cheek. Third, I did say that AIDS is in effect what happens to people as a consequence of unnatural and immoral sex. And, as you know, homosexual conduct is the primary--or was the primary way by which AIDS was spread. It was a truthful statement.
Source: National Public Radio interview, “Talk of the Nation” May 30, 2000

He's right that it spreads through unprotected homosexual sex, but I do not think that homosexual sex is "immoral."

He's just too "moral" for me. I can go on, but like I said before....he's right about a lot fo things but when he's wrong, he's really really really wrong.


I like JC Watts for VP.

 

[Duckman]

Thanks for finding these quotes Angela.

I agree, Pat Buchanan has alot of good ideas but he is too moralizing. Plus I saw him on TV recently (MSNBC?) in a roundtable about the evolution question asked at the first debate, and he was very irritated by the question. He defended young-earth creationism (the idea that the Bible is literally true and that the earth is only 6,000 years old). I'm sorry, I don't want a President or VP who believes the Bible is literally true. Flame away!

 

[LibertyEagle]

Those are his personal beliefs. Emphasis on PERSONAL. He is a strong advocate of the Constitution. If he follows that, his personal beliefs have no impact, as the decisions are to be left up to the states.

I don't know about you, but I'll take a man who has shown time and time again that he puts America and our Constitution first, over any elitist who has made it quite clear they are willing to sell out our country for their own self-interests. Unfortunately, the latter applies to most in our government today, not to mention those in the media who carry water for them.

Pat is not one of the bad guys. If you're looking for someone who is perfect, you'll be looking a long time; meanwhile our country will cease to exist.

 

[ADGettis]

Meet The Press, 2000. I don't agree with him, and it's hateful.

Is it really hateful, or is it just that you don't like what he's saying? People who share Buchanan's opinion (I don't know if he himself does) often cite historical examples of the fates of societies that do the very thing the U.S. is doing today. Maybe he is right, maybe not, but all he is doing is stating his opinion based upon historical evidence. Nothing hateful about wanting to save one's country from the fate of the Roman Empire!

He's right that it spreads through unprotected homosexual sex, but I do not think that homosexual sex is "immoral."

Well, again, he thinks that it is. There's nothing hateful about that; he just has a different standard of what is proper conduct and what is not.

Disagree with him, by all means, but don't label him as something he is not.

Proactive Caution: I have not and will not debate homosexuality on this board; I urge everyone else to do the same. We're all here to support Dr. Paul's candidacy, so that we will continue to be free to debate issues like this in the proper venues in the future.

 

[angelatc]

I'm not supporting as a VP condidate because of what he thinks. I think what he thinks is hateful and devisive. Get it?

 

[BillyBeer]

I'm not supporting as a VP condidate because of what he thinks. I think what he thinks is hateful and devisive. Get it?

I dont think Pat should be a VP candidate because some VIEW him as hateful and divisive. This doesnt mean that he is a hatemonger, its quite easy to throw out a slur like that rather than address many of the points Pat makes.

 

[guntherg16]

Buchanan, when taken with a grain, is good. But he misses some points, and is selectively hardcore IMHO. RP speaks out about ANYTHING that's BS. Pat cowtows a bit more. Way better than most, however.



I agree.



I don't agree. I think his endorsement is a GREAT thing for RP. But that high of an office is no good. I think Stossel, Kwiatkowski, or Williams would be better choices. They would pull more votes that would not be there otherwise.

Williams:
Obama is attractive to young blacks, but I think Williams would convince more black voters who hear both speak. RP/Williams would get out the news of why Obama's allegiance to Israel, no plan for the monetary system, and increased welfare increases slavery and reduces liberty.

Kwiatkowski:
Almost EVERYONE respects an intelligent woman, and many voters who would have gone Hillary 4 or 8 years ago based superficially on the fact that she's a woman have become disillusioned. Kwiatkowski is SUPER knowledgable about the most drawing issue for Paul=foreign policy. She also has a very good resume. She impressed me more than any other person interviewed in the Oil Factor, and what she says in videos like that tends to be what sticks in my mind. She has an incredible knack of remaining relevant in what she says, explaining things clearly, and outlining the most important points, with a convincing manner. Just like Ron Paul.

Stossel:
Might hurt his career if RP doesn't win, so there's doubt he would accept. However, almost anyone who knows who he is likes him, and would take a serious look at Ron Paul just because he was on the ticket. In addition, I would think 90% of those who have read a book of his would vote Paul instantly, if they're not already here. He's probably the most recognizable name of the 3.

It's funny that you mention Kwiatkowski. I had never heard of her until this moring when I read her article (link) from http://www.lewrockwell.com/ this morning.

I was extremely impressed with that article. She definitely seems like someone I'd vote for. She most certainly seems like she'd be an asset to Dr. Paul's campaign. I want to become more familiar with her beliefs.

 

[angrydragon]

Ron Paul Rocks! by Karen Kwiatkowski

http://www.lewrockwell.com/kwiatkowski/kwiatkowski183.html

 

[guntherg16]

Pat Buchanan was the victim of a massive smear campaign after he won in New Hampshire. Read more about it here: http://www.jbs.org/node/1188

here's a link to Pat's archive of articles at wnd.com: http://www.wnd.com/news/archives.asp?AUTHOR_ID=185&PAGE=1

There are hundreds of articles there to peruse to learn more about the man and his beliefs.