Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : To be a Liberal,you have to believe that..... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Constant Reader who wrote (3101)	9/18/1999 5:55:00 PM
From: Machaon	Respond to of 6418

<< Of course, Buchanan's bigotry isn't limited to Jews. ... He says in his book that we should spin off Puerto Rico as an independent country because most people on the island don't speak English. >> I wonder what Pompous Pat would do with Miami, Florida, where the majority speak spanish? << His new book, A Republic Not an Empire, makes his complaints against the Jews more explicit than ever. A brief for isolationism, the book includes a pocket history of "Jewish Influence" in U.S. foreign policy from 1917 to the present. >> My guess that Pat "The Bigot" Buchanan doesn't want to compete against the Jews, one of the smallest minorities on this Earth. It sounds as though Pat wants affirmative action for his particular race and culture. Pat seems to be crying because the small minority, Jews, are in control of everything, from the sun going down, to rain falling from the sky. <g> What great credentials for a Presidential candidate, with Pat crying about how his "people" have never been able to be victorious in competition over the small minority of Jews. Let's all get together and vote in a new law of affirmative action for Pat Buchanan's family! <g>

To: Constant Reader who wrote (3101)	9/18/1999 8:26:00 PM
From: Emile Vidrine	Read Replies (8) \| Respond to of 6418

"he more you learn about Buchanan's views, the more the question becomes why Republicans have tolerated a semi-fascist in their midst for so long. Saying good riddance to Pat makes political sense, too." The real question is: "Why have Americans, both the Democratic Party and Republican Party, tolerated Jewish fascism in the form of Zionism for so long. It's time to say good riddance to Jewish-Zionism and Jewish fascism on American soil. It is far more appropriate for the majority to make this statement than a small facist and Zionist Jewish minority to demand that Euro-Christians have no right in defending their own culture and heritage. What do we have here? A fanatic Zionist, Jacob Weisberg, attempting to condemn Pat Buchanan for defending the majority Euro-Christian values and culture. Mr. Weisberg finds nothing wrong with Jewish Americans financing and supporting a semi-fascist Jewish state in Palestine, but is exceedingly disturbed about the possibility of the Euro-Christian majority in America exercising their right to preserve their own culture and Christian civilization. Why? Why is criticism of Mr. Bucahanan considered legitimate while the Zionist Jews are exempt from legitimate criticism about their fascist Jewish state in Palestine? Why can Jews in American organize and finance a for of Jewish-Nazism in the Middle-East, but Euro-Christian American denied the right to simply preserve their Christian heritage? Do Jews have a superior status to Euro-Christains in America? Is Jewish Zionism in the political interest of the majority of the American people? Why should American Jews who control and dominate Hollywood, network TV and the news media be exempt from legitimate criticism? Doesn't the Christian majority have a right to question and even challenge this VERY influential and controlling anti-Christian minority in their midst? The Jews are mostly exempt from criticism for their bona fide racism and fascism in the Middle East, while Mr. Buchanan is severely criticized as an "anti-semite" and "bigot" for simply calling for the preservation of his own culture and religion in America. The American Jews have extorted almost $100 billion from American taxpayers to build a Jewish homeland in Palestine where Jews have preferential treatment. The Israeli Law of Return discriminates against all, while giving preferential treatment to Jews. Jewish law brakers such as the murderer Scheinbein can avoid facing their deserved punishment in America by simply fleeing to their Jewish fascist state in Palestine. Yet, in America, where these same Jews are a minority, they insist that Euro-Americans or even Afro-American should not have similar rights to preserve their own ethic or religious rights. In other words, the American Jews support a form of Jewish fascism in Israel but in America where they are a minority, they pretend that they are for a "pluralistic democracy". It is the Jewish control of the media that permits this Jewish favoritism and Jewish duplicity to exist. The audacity of this Jewish minority in attacking Mr. Buchanan for defending Euro-American and Christian values is the height of hypocrisy. We are only seeing the beginnings of a giant reaction to this Jewish pagan arrogance in our nation. Americans need a Christian revival, and America a Christian revolution to preserve and restore our Christian Culture.

To: Constant Reader who wrote (3101)	9/18/1999 9:53:00 PM
From: Tom Clarke	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6418

David Brooks on yesterday's Diane Rehm show warned "the gloves would come off this time around" on Buchanan if he did not withdraw from the race. I guess this is the first salvo. What is new here? The neoconservatives (sorry Neo) never provide specifics, just innuendo. Notice how Weisberg intones that when Buchanan says "media elites, elites, or modernists", he really means Jews. Come on, thats just idiotic.

To: Constant Reader who wrote (3101)	9/19/1999 9:38:00 AM
From: Bill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 6418

A mix of half truths and innuendo. I'm not a fan of Buchanan and wish he would go away. But this article is way over the top.

To: Constant Reader who wrote (3101)	9/20/1999 1:56:00 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6418

I am afraid that it is mostly true. What is untrue is comparing him to Zhirinovsky and Le Pen: trust me, he is pugnacious enough, if he were flat out anti- semitic and racist, he would say so, one wouldn't have to guess. He is simply not that bad. But his dad was a Coughlinite and supported America First, and the influence shows. William F. Buckley, in National Review, concluded that Buchanan might fairly be charged with anti- semitism, if not in his personal life, in his insinuations about Jewish influence, which are overblown and never substantiated, and in his insensitivity to matters like flirting with Holocaust denial.(Michael Kinsley, who is Jewish and used to appear as the liberal half of "Crossfire" with Buchanan, swears that Buchanan is nothing but a gentleman in his personal life, and never showed any signs of hostility or anti- semitism. Other Jewish friends and acquaintances have similarly testified. Could the same be said of Le Pen?)It is also true that Buchanan is better characterized as racially ambivalent than as a racist, but that he is prone to unnecessarily inflammatory statements. Besides, he retains other unfortunate features of populism, like being anti- capitalist and isolationist.....