Buchanan: The Global Warming Hucksters

[hokie4redskins]

Hookay, prove me fictional. Find a link where Buchanon has renounced being a Republican? Or that he has been excommunicated from the Republican party. Prove that Republicans haven't used fear as a primary political tool. Prove that the mushroom cloud thing wasn't said over and over again.

I rarely lie. Although, sometimes I do exaggerate.

You're the one making outrageous claims with no hyperlinks to support them. YOU find where he said that "quote". YOU find where he used scare tactics to get people to vote Republican. You should read his "American Conservative." He blasts the Republicans ALL THE TIME.

[The_cavalierman]

Buchanan was strongly against the Iraqi war. He is a strong Union man who is on the right side of the massive deficites the governments of both parties traditionally choose to run on trade. I don't think Buchanon is wrong on every issue. I don't think compromise is a word he's familiar with, but that's just Pat.

Pat shoots from the lip true enough, but he doesn't always miss the mark. When he hits the mark he's incredible refreshing. On the Mclaughlin show we just lived through one of the 7 harbengers of the apocolypse. Pat spent the last two years agreeing with Elenor on most issues.

Have you ever heard the analogy that a broken watch is right at least twice a day?

Pat Buchanon is a politician/pundit so I take him about as seriously as I take Carville, Madeline, Coulter and all of the other spin-masters that make a living promoting issues while discrediting any opposition.

I have listened to Buchanon slowly move from the extreme right to a little right of center. My guess is he was smart enough to realize that the far right is being associated with the bumbling of the occupation of Iraq as well as the ramp up to war with Iran.

Buchanon was smart enough not to hitch his wagon to that train.

[JMS]

Why wouldn't be against the war, JMS? He sees it (the war) as another way of protecting Israel.

To be fair, Pat has been against most of the wars of the 20th century. He was against WWII and Korea for example. Being against the Iraqi war isn't anything new for Pat. Most Regan republicans believed in Teddy Roosevelts saying, speak softly and carry a big stick. Pat didn't change his views as many of the equally socially conservative Republicans who did not share Pat's fiscal conservative roots did.

As for the claim Pat is anti semitic which you alluded to. I don't believe it, I've been listening to him for 30 years. Pat has been critical of Israel in the past, so have I. Pat's been critical of everybody and everything in the last 30 years other than Ronald Regan. I find that refreshing about Pat.

Again I don't agree with Pat on everything, but he can't be dismissed as a mindless party talking head like so many other TV pundants can. That's why I like Pat. When it was very clear to me the President had no cloths on.

Pat was one of the only voices on the Right to yelling it from the top of his lungs. I will always be thankful to Pat for that service.

[Burgold]

You're the one making outrageous claims with no hyperlinks to support them. YOU find where he said that "quote". YOU find where he used scare tactics to get people to vote Republican. You should read his "American Conservative." He blasts the Republicans ALL THE TIME.

You're the one who called me a liar. Prove I am.

Here's some for my side.. I've got 681,000 examples of Republicans using Scare tactics.

On 9/7, Vice-President Cheney told a crowd in Des Moines that if voters "make the wrong choice" that we'll be "hit" again by terrorists.

I don't think we can know what all terrorists will do. We can know what kind of priorities Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney have set in protecting us.

Results 1 - 10 of about 681,000 for Republican scare tactics. (0.22 seconds)

The next time you hear Kerry whining about Republican "scare ...The next time you hear Kerry whining about Republican "scare tactics," remember Spokane, Wash from National Review in Array provided free by LookSmart Find ...

findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_21_56/ai_n13661952 - 26k - Cached - Similar pages

DFLers || Republican scare tacticsIt's a perfect illustration of the scare tactics being employed by George W. Bush and the Republican Party in the lead up to the 2006 midterm elections. ...

www.dflers.org/story/2006/9/8/14485/69467 - 13k - Cached - Similar pages

Another Set of Scare TacticsAnother Set of Scare Tactics ... Marc Racicot, then chairman of the Republican National Committee, said about the late Sen. Paul Wellstone's opposition to ...

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/14/AR2005111401018.html - Similar pages

STARK CRITICIZES REPUBLICAN SCARE TACTICSSTARK CRITICIZES REPUBLICAN SCARE TACTICS There is no Medicare solvency crisis, but Bush’s record reveals Republicans’ ultimate goal ...

www.house.gov/stark/news/109th/pressreleases/20060501_Medicare.htm - 12k - Cached - Similar pages

Scare Tactics: Osama Bin Pelosi, Lynch: GOP Believes Threat Of ...Scare Tactics: Osama Bin Pelosi. Lynch: GOP Believes Threat Of Nancy Pelosi As ... The new scare tactic, meant mainly to frighten the Republican base, ...

www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/12/opinion/lynch/main1999898.shtml - 81k - Cached - Similar pages

Truthdig - Reports - The GOP’s Big Health Scare2007/08/08 - Listening to the Republican candidates for president warn against ... “And now they’re up to their same old scare tactics, of throwing around ...

www.truthdig.com/report/item/20070808_the_gops_big_health_scare/ - 107k - Cached - Similar pages

Republican scare tactics continue (slow|afternoon)Friday | 15 October 2004 | 12:07 PM. Republican scare tactics continue. cheney.jpg · Add to del.icio.us · Digg this Posted by slowdown at 12:07 PM ...

www.slowafternoon.com/archives/000192_republican_scare_tactics_continue.html - 14k - Cached - Similar pages

What's the Wrong Choice - or Republican Scare TacticsOn 9/7, Vice-President Cheney told a crowd in Des Moines that if voters "make the wrong choice" that we'll be "hit" again by terrorists. ...

surge.ods.org/bought/wrongchoice.htm - 8k - Cached - Similar pages

Left in the Heartland: Republican Scare TacticsRepublican Scare Tactics. MnPublius has a few more details on the anonymous "pink slips" sent to freshman DFL House members. ...

leftintheheartland.blogspot.com/2005/07/republican-scare-tactics.html - 53k - Cached - Similar pages

Economist's View: In a Surprise, a Republican is Using Scare ...Thus, despite the scare tactics claiming otherwise, it won't "cripple our economy" if we allow the Republican's tax policy to be enacted exactly as written. ...

economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2007/07/in-a-surprise-a.html - 81k - Cached - Similar pages

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next

Try Google D

[Burgold]

You're the one making outrageous claims with no hyperlinks to support them. YOU find where he said that "quote". YOU find where he used scare tactics to get people to vote Republican. You should read his "American Conservative." He blasts the Republicans ALL THE TIME.

Ah, reading is good. I said that the party he represents uses scare tactics all the time as a primary strategy. I'm sure I can find Pat using scare tactics too with no effort if I looked.

[JMS]

Pat Buchanon is a politician/pundit so I take him about as seriously as I take Carville, Madeline, Coulter and all of the other spin-masters that make a living promoting issues while discrediting any opposition.

And that is where you are wrong. Carville and Madeline are political creatures. They back up what their Party does regardless of the issue. Their only critique/critism is along political and popular grounds. Carvilles is very good at this, granted but his consistancy of backing up his side is the norm on TV and doesn't add to the debate so much as squelches the debate; just like his wife and most pundants on TV.

Buchanan isn't political. He's a freaking battering ram who cracks his head against all who oppose him regardless of political party. As I said, I don't always agree with him; but I respect the fact that his issues don't change with the platform of any party. I also don't think he's been more wrong over the last few years than he's been correct.

He's a rare person who I disagree with strongly on some issues, but still read and listen to because he makes so much sense on other issues.

I have listened to Buchanon slowly move from the extreme right to a little right of center. My guess is he was smart enough to realize that the far right is being associated with the bumbling of the occupation of Iraq as well as the ramp up to war with Iran.

Buchanon was smart enough not to hitch his wagon to that train.

Again you are wrong. Buchanon has been consistantly against this war even when it was political suicide to be such. It's not a political issue with Buchanan; It's a moral issue and it always has been.

So many on the religous right justify this war because their leaders told them too. Pat never did.

I think having been uncerimoniouly ejected from the Republcian party almost a decade ago has been very liberating for Pat. Sure he's still an anti gay protectionist; but he's more than that. He's his own man, and whether you agree with him or not; he makes good points and speaks plainly about complex issues and the priorities.

[hokie4redskins]

Ah, reading is good. I said that the party he represents uses scare tactics all the time as a primary strategy. I'm sure I can find Pat using scare tactics too with no effort if I looked.

I doubt it. Why don't you give it a try? Good luck!! Buchanan is about as staunch of a supporter of Republicans as Hillary Clinton. NEVER will you see him compromise his beliefs for a political party. NEVER will you see him garner support for the WOT using "scare tactics".

[hokie4redskins]

And that is where you are wrong. Carville and Madeline are political creatures. They back up what their Party does regardless of the issue. Their only critique/critism is along political and popular grounds. Carvilles is very good at this, granted but his consistancy of backing up his side is the norm on TV and doesn't add to the debate so much as squelches the debate; just like his wife and most pundants on TV.

Buchanan isn't political. He's a freaking battering ram who cracks his head against all who oppose him regardless of political party. As I said, I don't always agree with him; but I respect the fact that his issues don't change with the platform of any party. I also don't think he's been more wrong over the last few years than he's been correct.

He's a rare person who I disagree with strongly on some issues, but still read and listen to because he makes so much sense on other issues.

Again you are wrong. Buchanon has been consistantly against this war even when it was political suicide to be such. It's not a political issue with Buchanan; It's a moral issue and it always has been.

So many on the religous right justify this war because their leaders told them too. Pat never did.

I think having been uncerimoniouly ejected from the Republcian party almost a decade ago has been very liberating for Pat. Sure he's still an anti gay protectionist; but he's more than that. He's his own man, and whether you agree with him or not; he makes good points and speaks plainly about complex issues and the priorities.

^^^^^Nails it.^^^^^^

Don't waste your time on Cavalier. Seriously.

[PeterMP]

I doubt it. Why don't you give it a try? Good luck!! Buchanan is about as staunch of a supporter of Republicans as Hillary Clinton. NEVER will you see him compromise his beliefs for a political party. NEVER will you see him garner support for the WOT using "scare tactics".

Buchanan maybe against the war in Iraq, but he has been a consistent supporter of the Republican party on the general WOT. Here is a piece on a column he wrote on torture. I couldn't find a copy of the original on line.

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/03/48021.shtml

In general, Buchanan is famous for breaking out scare tactics related to immigration.

[panel]

That was the best article about Global Warming and Politics that I have ever read.

More, I find it interesting that Pat, who frequently represents the Republican party, has the gall to speak about "scaremongers" when it is his party that repeatedly claims that a vote for a democrat will lead directly and immediately to mushroom clouds on your front doorstep. Scaremongering is the favorite tactic these days of the Republicans. Even today, that's their pitch for staying in power.

"You can't trust the Dems with your security. If you do you'll be dead"

That is so true, both sides use scare mongering, which is totally crap. The worst part is that both sides believe their own crap.

[PeterMP]

I posted it because Buchanan exposed global warming alarmists for the fraudulent imbeciles they are.

I'll ask again, do you really want to debate the exsistance of global warming in a year when it is over 70 degrees at the end of Oct. and we are in a year that was part of a solar min?

[JMS]

I always think of the Child Labor laws to which was a major point of the Marx Revolution that never came to be. Industrialization and Monopolies led to really horrific working conditions, especially for children. The advent of unions and child labor defused a lot of building class anger. That was back in the day were Unions were actually important and fought for much more significant issues.

Isn't it interesting that one of the largest barriors to Red China's assension as the worlds largest economy remains workers rights. If they don't liberalize and put more rights and accountability into their system, it's likely they will cap themselves on productivity and will not obtain their potential; and yet their roots are from Marks, and not Capitalism liberalized out of fear of Mark's writings..

[Burgold]

Thanks Peter. Okay. I've provided links on the Repubs use of scare tactics. Peter has provided Pat evidence of using scare tactics. Please prove me a liar or retract the insult. Feel free to disagree with my opinion, but please don't call me a liar unless you have some proof.

[Burgold]

Isn't it interesting that one of the largest barriors to Red China's assension as the worlds largest economy remains workers rights. If they don't liberalize and put more rights and accountability into their system, it's likely they will cap themselves on productivity and will not obtain their potential; and yet their roots are from Marks, and not Capitalism liberalized out of fear of Mark's writings..

I hope China is taking it's baby steps and realizing the rewards it can get by giving its people more and the rewards it can get by being a better world partner. The human rights situation is downright sad still in China. Although, I did a report on their hosting the Special Olympics in which very promising things were said. Mind you, they're not going to say anything stupid either, but the S.O folks said that they saw a hunger for understanding and learning about disabilities which delighted them.

[USS Redskins]

Dems dont use scare tactics?

It's been part of American Politics for oh, say, 231 years or so...

Dems scare tactics:

No health insurance for anyone - and the CHILDREN WILL SUFFER!

The Draft is coming!

Global Warming and the Polar Bears are drowning!

Those Greedy Republicans care only about the Big Oil Companies and the price of gas will keep skyrocketing! (My personal fave b/c the Dems have REALLY helped with that situation).

Come on, dude - both sides use it and it is VERY effective.

[hokie4redskins]

I'll ask again, do you really want to debate the exsistance of global warming in a year when it is over 70 degrees at the end of Oct. and we are in a year that was part of a solar min?

Global warming? You mean the natural cycle the Earth has experienced thousands of times over the last 6 billion years? SURE, let's debate!!!

I'm not refuting the notion that the Earth is experiencing a warming trend. But to claim it's the fault of mankind is ridiculous. Even more absurd is the claim that we can change the Earth's weather patterns and warming trends through government intervention across all sectors (the new Communism) and trillions of wasted tax dollars. Or trying to claim Kyoto is necessary and legitimate when it exempts two of the biggest polluters in the world.

Even MORE absurd is the idea that these tree-huggin' environmental fascists can scare me into buying into their piece of **** agenda.

Debate over. I win.

But seriously, if you think you have a case because it's warm in October, you might be a lunatic.

[JMS]

Buchanan maybe against the war in Iraq, but he has been a consistent supporter of the Republican party on the general WOT. Here is a piece on a column he wrote on torture. I couldn't find a copy of the original on line.

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/03/48021.shtml

In general, Buchanan is famous for breaking out scare tactics related to immigration.

I don't agree with Buchanan on Gays, nor on protectionism(completely), nor on other core Buchanan issues.

I also wouldn't go with Buchanan on scientific issues necessarily. Like I said, issues with Pat tend to fall along black and white moral grounds. He doesn't see a lot of grey in the world and isn't one to be easily swayed by temperal concerns. But that's not my point.

Pat's a true throw back. A guy who doesn't put put his finger to the wind when he asked a question. He speaks from his heart. That doesn't make him right/or wrong most of the time, but it does make him unique. I find him refreshing even though I don't agree with him often. I definitely respect him.

The dude will take positions regardless of who he pisses off across the political spectrum. I respect that.

[The Evil Genius]

Just out of curiosity, hokie4skin, do you have a problem with government regulating emissions from cars? Or mandating certain levels of MPG of cars? Or mandating that larger polluters (such as buses and farm equipment) move to cleaner fuels such as CNG?

[McMetal]

Not believing in global warming=not believing in the Holocaust

Yes, you're that criminally stupid.

Unfortunately, you're dooming your own children and future generations with your abysmal ignorance.

One day history will villify you.

General comment - not user specific

[Burgold]

Dems dont use scare tactics?

It's been part of American Politics for oh, say, 231 years or so...

Dems scare tactics:

No health insurance for anyone - and the CHILDREN WILL SUFFER!

The Draft is coming!

Global Warming and the Polar Bears are drowning!

Those Greedy Republicans care only about the Big Oil Companies and the price of gas will keep skyrocketing! (My personal fave b/c the Dems have REALLY helped with that situation).

Come on, dude - both sides use it and it is VERY effective.

Sure, we do, but the article was about Pat and by extension conservative views. Actually, Dems were responsible for some of the ugliest scare tactic commercials in American History (I think it was in the 60's) Truly offensive and embarrassing scare tactic propaganda stuff. Right now, I'd say the Repubs are slightly better at it or at least more prolific, but come election time the Dems will catch right up.

[hokie4redskins]

Not believing in global warming=not believing in the Holocaust

:rubeyes:

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. This might be the dumbest post in the history of the Internet.

[The_cavalierman]

And that is where you are wrong. Carville and Madeline are political creatures. They back up what their Party does regardless of the issue. Their only critique/critism is along political and popular grounds. Carvilles is very good at this, granted but his consistancy of backing up his side is the norm on TV and doesn't add to the debate so much as squelches the debate; just like his wife and most pundants on TV.

Buchanan isn't political. He's a freaking battering ram who cracks his head against all who oppose him regardless of political party. As I said, I don't always agree with him; but I respect the fact that his issues don't change with the platform of any party. I also don't think he's been more wrong over the last few years than he's been correct.

He's a rare person who I disagree with strongly on some issues, but still read and listen to because he makes so much sense on other issues.

Again you are wrong. Buchanon has been consistantly against this war even when it was political suicide to be such. It's not a political issue with Buchanan; It's a moral issue and it always has been.

So many on the religous right justify this war because their leaders told them too. Pat never did.

I think having been uncerimoniouly ejected from the Republcian party almost a decade ago has been very liberating for Pat. Sure he's still an anti gay protectionist; but he's more than that. He's his own man, and whether you agree with him or not; he makes good points and speaks plainly about complex issues and the priorities.

I commend you on your zealous defense of Pat, but I still think he is a political talking head and the fact that he retreats to a morality stance whenever the facts ellude his position (as you stated in an earlier post) is why I choose not to buy his bull.

In my opinion (which I still have a right to) he is just another talking head.

[The_cavalierman]

And that is where you are wrong. Carville and Madeline are political creatures. They back up what their Party does regardless of the issue. Their only critique/critism is along political and popular grounds. Carvilles is very good at this, granted but his consistancy of backing up his side is the norm on TV and doesn't add to the debate so much as squelches the debate; just like his wife and most pundants on TV.

Buchanan isn't political. He's a freaking battering ram who cracks his head against all who oppose him regardless of political party. As I said, I don't always agree with him; but I respect the fact that his issues don't change with the platform of any party. I also don't think he's been more wrong over the last few years than he's been correct.

He's a rare person who I disagree with strongly on some issues, but still read and listen to because he makes so much sense on other issues.

Again you are wrong. Buchanon has been consistantly against this war even when it was political suicide to be such. It's not a political issue with Buchanan; It's a moral issue and it always has been.

So many on the religous right justify this war because their leaders told them too. Pat never did.

I think having been uncerimoniouly ejected from the Republcian party almost a decade ago has been very liberating for Pat. Sure he's still an anti gay protectionist; but he's more than that. He's his own man, and whether you agree with him or not; he makes good points and speaks plainly about complex issues and the priorities.

I commend you on your zealous defense of Pat, but I still think he is a political talking head and the fact that he retreats to a morality stance whenever the facts ellude his position (as you stated in an earlier post) is why I choose not to buy his bull.

In my opinion (which I still have a right to) he is just another talking head.

[PeterMP]

Global warming? You mean the natural cycle the Earth has experienced thousands of times over the last 6 billion years? SURE, let's debate!!!

I'm not refuting the notion that the Earth is experiencing a warming trend. But to claim it's the fault of mankind is ridiculous.

Why is it ridiculous? I'll give you something easy and old to start with. This was written in 1896:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/1/18/Arrhenius.pdf

Why was he wrong? Was he trying to get goverment grants?

What about Exxon? Are they trying to get goverment grants too? (Actually, no. They are giving money away.)

"The company told the Guardian it was determined not to change its position, just to explain it better: "Greenhouse gas emissions are one of the factors that contribute to climate change," it said."

http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,1985327,00.html

[PeterMP]

Global warming? You mean the natural cycle the Earth has experienced thousands of times over the last 6 billion years? SURE, let's debate!!!

I'm not refuting the notion that the Earth is experiencing a warming trend. But to claim it's the fault of mankind is ridiculous.

Why is it ridiculous? I'll give you something easy and old to start with. This was written in 1896:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/1/18/Arrhenius.pdf

Why was he wrong? Was he trying to get goverment grants?

What about Exxon? Are they trying to get goverment grants too? (Actually, no. They are giving money away.)

"The company told the Guardian it was determined not to change its position, just to explain it better: "Greenhouse gas emissions are one of the factors that contribute to climate change," it said."

http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,1985327,00.html