Iggy may or may not agree with me, I think he at turns agrees and disagrees with parts of what I say. He likewise used to post Pat Buchanan columns, until he was irrationally vilified for it, as I was. The difference between the two of us is he doesn't wish to post what is unpopular with the rest of you, whereas I'll post it to be read whether you like it or not, if I feel the points are well made.
And, I still read Pat's columns when they are released. However, I'm also willing to signify were Pat and I don't see eye-to-eye. So long as he is talking about things like foreign policy and the economy, we are in agreement. Once he starts talking social issues though, I'm out.
Like you, I don't agree with all Pat Buchanan's points, much as I respect him. I'm not Catholic, and don't share his views on social issues either. Although I'm much more pro-life than I used to be, I don't really care if my elected leaders are pro-life advocates, and I actually find politicians who make a big issue of it (example: Rick Santorum) to have warped priorities and exploiting emotions.
I'm torn on Buchanan's relatively isolationist views on the U.S. being the global cop. He advocates George Washington's advice to
"avoid foreign entanglements" and
"wars that are not in our national interest", but our national interest can sometimes be difficult to define.
If we didn't ally with Stalin in W W II, the Axis power would likely have conquered Eurasia and eventually invaded the Americas as well.
If we hadn't taken decisive action (that Europeans were not taking) the conflict in Bosnia and Croatia could have expanded into a far wider regional conflict or even a third world war.
If we let Saddam Hussein keep Kuwait in 1990, or further invade the Arabian peninsula, Hussein could have cut off the flow of oil to the West and crippled our economy.
These are arguably all in our national interest.
So I'm not sure I support Buchanan's more isolationist views, among other views he has. I post what I agree with, and likewise post what I agree with of Glenn Beck's commentary.
But I agree with a lot of Buchanan's commentary. I don't read his columns every week, but I've read his last five books, and he backs his views with considerable supporting evidence.
However, as much as I like you as a person, it can sometimes seem that you believe it because Glenn Beck went on some deranged rant about it. Like if Glenn Beck says George Soros is trying to destroy America through secretly funding the gays fighting for equal rights who are secretly economic time bombs waiting to go off in all their communistic glory and bring capitalist society down on its kness and then cum on it; then it feels like we are going to hear about it through you on these forums as if it is gospel.
You are, of course, playfully making fun of Beck. I've never heard Beck say anything about gays. What he says about George Soros manipulating currencies and toppling financial systems is common knowledge and far from paranoia.
Soros' funding of liberal media sources and liberal think tanks to attack the U.S. government and conservatives, to the tune of 48 million dollars this year, are likewise well documented.
Soros' vision to collapse the U.S. dollar and reign us into a global government (while enriching himself by investing in assets that gain from the dollar's collapse) are also well known.
And I believe that based on evidence and well-researched books on the subject, many of them showcased, and authors interviewed, on Glenn Beck's program. Charlie Rose is another program I've seen these writers interviewed.
I don't believe it "just because Beck said it". I believe it because I've looked at the evidence. There are many days where I flip the channel on Beck because he's just ranting without facts to back it up. But when he cites facts I can read for myself, yes, I believe him.
Not that I want a jihad declared on me or anything like that, but it sounds at times like There is no nutjob but Glenn Beck and Wonder Boy is his prophet. And, I think that is what people generally troll you about. Like, at this point, even if you aren't talking about Glenn Beck all a few posters will be able to imagine is you typing your post while wearing a tin foil hat and watching seventeen monitors all turned to Glenn Beck. You've just given them so much ammo over the years they will never see you as anything else but a nutjob (right-wing extremist).
I can't be held responsible for other people's perception. I certainly cite facts to back my views, and Beck when I quote him likewise cites facts.
And you unwittingly hit on the main point: It's not even political discussion of the issue by them, it's just pure trolling.
But, on the flip-side, I don't think I can troll you about it that much because I'm probably a bigger nutcase then Beck could ever hope to be. Honestly, I think what makes Glenn and his followers sound so silly is that they try to turn it all into some vast left-wing conspiracy.
Personally, I believe there is a conspiracy but it doesn't really have a political affiliation. The whole left-wing/right-wing thing is the trap to keep us fighting each other rather than getting at the elitist bankster scum that is really destroying this country though their...
I think you don't fully understand Becks POV.
If you watched his program on a regular basis, you'd see that he says:
1) the whole Left/Right thing is a distraction from the globalist ideology that infests both parties. That McCain is in many ways near-identical in views to Obama on issues like border security, the TARP bailout, further economic U.S. integration with Mexico and Canada, etc.
Beck argues that all the left/right bickering is a deliberate distraction by the puppet masters of both parties and the media, so they can continue to move us away from sovereignty and toward global integration and collapse of the dollar, no matter which party is in power.
2) Beck doesn't "try to turn it into some vast left-wing conspiracy", he just points out what LEFTISTS THEMSELVES HAVE SAID. It's not paranoid speculation, he is
quoting these radicals! Van Jones, Ron Bloom, Anita Dunn, Cass Sunstein, Mark Lloyd, Jeff Jones (who wrote Obama's stimulus, omnibus and Obamacare legislation) and Obama himself. Quoted in their own writings and interviews, and videotaped public appearances.
How can anyone possibly write that off as "paranoid conspiracy theory"?
These are their own words, their own stated goals and implemented policies.
3) the "vast conspiracy" between Leftists and Muslim radicals is also supported by the undisputed actions of William Ayers, Code Pink, SEIU and other leftist groups organizing demonstrators and riots throughout the Ärab Spring" Middle East nations that are rising up.
Beck explains, again, with sources to back it up, that leftists and Islamic radicals are working together in their shared goal of overthrowing Western capitalism, and will eventually turn on each other once they achieve collapse of the West.
(Ten years ago, prior to 9-11, I spoke to a CBS News correspondent who after his speaking appearance and booksigning, talked to me about islamic terrorist groups collaborating with Ku Klux Klan and other similar anti-semitic groups, sharing information and resources, in their shared anti-semitism goals. I would hope that patriotism after 9-11 would have caused them to sever those ties with Islamic terrorists.)
...control over both sides of the political spectrum. Okay, end rant.
Still, crazy as I sound, somehow even I can't bring forth the feeling in people that they are talking to a complete nutjob like you can. Then, rather than just letting them call you batshit, you feel the need to type a five hundred word rave on why you aren't batshit. Let. It. Go. Otherwise, you just go from just batshit to a batshit, five-star, ten course meal for trolls.
If it's a troll who has no interest in any serious political discussion, and is just out to get under my skin (like rex), okay, in that case I see your point.
But Pro just alleged a bunch of bogus crap (i.e., "everybody hates you, G-man, Iggy, everybody") and I just politely pointed out the inaccuracies in what he alleged.
If anyone was truly ripe for being trolled, it's Pro, because he regularly becomes apoplectic when exchanging posts with me.
Pro hysterically whines
"WHY CAN'T YOU BELIEVE WHAT I BELIEVE!! YOU"RE CRAZY!! YOU'RE INSANE!! YOU'RE DEMENTED AND IN NEED OF PSYCHOLOGICAL COUNSELING BECAUSE YOU CAN'T SEE THAT REPUBLICANS ARE EVIL!! WHY CAN'T YOU BE NEUTRAL AND OBJECTIVE LIKE ME AND SEE THAT REPUBLICANS ARE WRONG, ATTACKING OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATS BECAUSE OF THEIR RIGHT WING EXTREMISM, BECAUSE THEY JUST CAN'T HANDLE THAT THERE'S A NIGGER IN THE WHITE HOUSE!! But I'm neutral and objective, and you're a right-wing crazy."Of course there's nothing extreme or non-objective about Pro's views.
Personally, I think you are an okay guy who I agree with on quite a few issues. However, you have a tendency to get fairly bombastic in your rhetoric and a little melodramatic when others troll you about it. And, in that regard, I have to side with Pro in saying, "Calm down. It's only the internet."
Okay, sure. I'll own up to that. We all get a bit overheated at times. And I certainly lash back sometimes, especially when they gang up on me and I'm taking it from all sides.
But read back through my exchanges over the last month or so with Pro, or Sammitch, or Rex, or Bastard. Try and tell me that their responses are really any different than mine.
The only difference is the standard I'm held to, that they're not.
