Yeah, but the people who wrote this thing will probably say he was fired because he gave away the secret of the new "American Theocracy".
"I'm sorry agent Johnson, we trusted you with information and you let the public have some of it"
silly liberals, Trix are for kids
"Sales of penis-enlargement treatments and devices in 2000 totaled in excess of $600 million," Skolnick said. "Cock-lengthening is, no pun intended, a consistent growth industry in the U.S., and this bill would severely emasculate it. As usual, it's the little guy who suffers."
Originally posted by Kidbrooklyn BigWhalebony decided to grace us with this brilliant insight: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If Pat Buchanan didn't get bushwhacked years ago by the LIBERAL media, he may have become President, and we would have killed off all threats to our country years ago. We also probably would have slowed immigration to our country and been more careful in accepting other people to live in our country and be allowed to enjoy life,liberty,and the pursuit of happiness. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And there certainly wouldn't have been any of them "niggers", "spics", or "slants" around to poison your Aryan blood, right? Jesus Christ, if you think that the "LIBERAL" media "bushwhacked" good 'ol Pat YEARS AGO, you have MUCH bigger problems than picking a president to vote for.
Then he ended with this wisdom: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nader and Buchanan had an equal chance of attaining the Presidency...No Chance In Hell(which is too bad......in Buchanan's case). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure. Nothing like a minority hating leader. But maybe you're right. If he were to have been elected president all those years ago, we wouldn't have had a terrorist problem because there is a pretty damn good possibility that the only people left on the planet would have been good, pure white folk. Yeah, there's a dream come true. Do you go in public with your hood?
Wow, talk about proving my point exactly. Where did you learn to hate Pat Buchanan? Hmmm let me guess...the news. I guess you are a pretty hateful person. Do you wear your Black Gloves in public. If, in your logic only, I'm a member of the KKK because I believe Pat Buchanan would have made a good President, then what the hell are you? Calling you a Black Panther wouldn't even be close because they did lots of good things for the community. You seem far too hateful to do any good for society. Now, while I may have prejudice towards people like you(and I mean idiots, not people who may be a different color than me), you might as well be categorized as a racist. Why don't you take your reverse discrimination bullshit and shove it. By being more cautious in letting people into our country, we might not have had an incident like 9/11. Those terrorists and the ones that are still in our country preparing for bigger attacks, might not have slipped through the cracks and been allowed in our country. You should maybe take a lesson from the people you so kindly categorized as "slants" because they have adapted better to the quest for life,liberty, and the pursuit of happiness better than anyone in the last 50 years. They also have a bigger bone to pick than any other race because they were forced into internment camps after Pearl Harbor. They weren't even considered citizens of this country until 50 years ago. They strive to be the best at whatever they do. Maybe you should try the same instead of using reverse discrimination as means to get your point across. Also wanted to mention that no one can say they aren't prejudice. If you say you are not, you are a liar(unless your name happens to be Jesus Christ). Being racist is a far different thing and Mr. Brooklyn you may be just that.
Originally posted by BigWhalebonyWow, talk about proving my point exactly. Where did you learn to hate Pat Buchanan? Hmmm let me guess...the news
Well, hero, where the hell did you learn to love his fascist ass? Did you know him personally? Does Pat have you over for Sunday brunch? Do y'all watch Smackdown! together? I'd imagine that you learned to like him from... Hmmm, let me guess... the news, which is the only place that anybody in this country learns about the fuckers that we somehow are stupid enough to let run our lives for us. There's plenty of info out there about good ol' Pat and his good ol' peckerwood white supremacist horseshit. Oh, never mind, it's supplied by the LIBERAL MEDIA, so it must all be bullshit. Nevermind, Pat's a fucking saint.
I swear to God, the ideas y'all come up with. Name one place outside of the media where you get information about politicians. Unless you happen to know the dogfuckers personally, there isn't one. The media, by definition, encompasses all informative magazines, TV shows, newspapers, web pages, etc. If you take the so-called liberal media out of the equation, we'd be back to the days of carrier pigeons and the pony fucking express, where no one knows shit about shit because there's nothing there to inform anyone, except the national church or the ruler of the country in question, both of which are guaranteed to be totally full of shit. That's the Dark Ages, people, and I don't particularly want to live there. Maybe you do. There's places like that in the world right now, you know. Taliban Afghanistan is/was one of them. And look how great they turned out. There's a news source out there for anyone, no matter what their bias. I read Harper's because I'm a filthy, complaining liberal. You would probably enjoy National Review because you're the "America: love it or leave it" type. I have had extensive exposure to both extremes, and watching the news on TV is pretty much middle-of-the-road bullshit with most of the interesting parts played down or boiled away. I, personally, prefer opinionated journalism. Most TV news shows are too scared of offending people to be really interesting. I'd much rather read something FACT-BASED through the lens of some political extremist's column and be able to think for myself and say "you're a lunatic and an idiot," or "you're a zealot but you're on to something." If you take the opinion out of news it's just numbers and minutes of meetings. You can get the facts and a moderately informed opinion at once if you read a decent column. I personally would rather browse four or five very different articles in "opinion media" such as the Nation or National Review than watch the dumbed-down soulless version on CNN or CNBC.
I'm sure this reads like a meandering rant, but fuck it. I'm not even going to reread it to see if the spelling's OK, or even to see if it makes any sense whatsoever. It's hump day, I'm cranky, and I've only had 9 hours sleep since Saturday. Here's your fucking opinion media right here. Ha!
For those that don't seem to remember Pat Buchanan having a chance at the Presidency:
Despite the pretense that news outlets report on elections rather than attempting to manage them, most mainstream media were clearly distressed when it seemed possible that Buchanan might get the nomination--especially during the first primaries, when the media- favored candidate, the pro-NAFTA Bob Dole, was seen as floundering. Some pundits went farther out on a limb than others: "Let me be bold," syndicated columnist Maggie Gallagher declared on Feb. 16. "I think [Buchanan] not only can but probably will win the GOP nomination.... Let me be bolder still: If he wins the nomination, Buchanan is likely to unseat Bill Clinton." The L.A. Times' Doyle McManus predicted on CNN's Inside Washington (3/19/96) that "Buchanan is going to go into the convention with more delegates than anyone else."
For those that don't think Pat Buchanan was bushwhacked by the liberal media in 1996:
But the orchestrated campaign of defamation against Buchanan began before his victory in New Hampshire. Just days before the primary, a report issued by a liberal lobby calling itself the "Center for Public Integrity" accused Larry Pratt, a co-chair of Buchanan's campaign, of consorting with white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups. While it is true that such disreputable individuals have attended events at which Pratt has spoken, Myrna Shinbaum of the Anti-Defamation League admitted to the press that her organization has no record of Pratt expressing anti-Semitic or racist views. Pratt was placed on leave, and the opinion cartel used its self-generated controversy as an excuse to revisit slurs of racism and anti-Semitism which had been thrown at Buchanan during his 1992 campaign.
On four successive days leading up to the February 20th shoot-out in New Hampshire, the New York Times used its main editorial space to label Buchanan a "red-meat orator," who exudes "a certain reek of testosterone," has "a swaggering presence," offers "simplistic, but highly emotive harangues," can be counted on for "xenophobic views," and whose criticism of the Gulf War "was widely judged to be filled with anti-Semitic innuendo." William Safire, a syndicated columnist for the Times who describes himself as a "conservative," repeated without objection the sophomoric slur that Buchanan's speech at the 1992 Republican convention "sounded better in the original German."
Interspersed among all these smears, the New York Times managed to present accurately some of Buchanan's positions. While many Americans who heard these views nodded their heads in agreement, the Times' labeled them "overwhelmingly negative," noting:
[Buchanan] is against the United Nations and NATO, against free-trade agreements, against foreign aid and against American support for Israel. He would not have sent American troops to Bosnia just as he would not have sent them to the Persian Gulf five years ago. He has little use for arms control treaties....
Millions of Americans, including those who do not agree with every particular in Buchanan's platform, share his opposition to foreign aid and the attack on American sovereignty, and would gravitate toward a candidate who forcefully expresses those views. This is why the preferred tactic of Buchanan's critics is to keep people talking about the spurious accusations against the candidate as if they were established facts, rather than discussing his indictment of the Establishment and its policies.
Who and what is this Establishment:
Syndicated columnist Edith Kermit Roosevelt - a granddaughter of Teddy Roosevelt - accurately answered the question in one of her 1961 columns:
The word "Establishment" is a general term for the power elite in international finance, business, the professions and government, largely from the northeast, who wield most of the power regardless of who is in the White House. Most people are unaware of the existence of this "legitimate Mafia." Yet the power of the Establishment makes itself felt from the professor who seeks a foundation grant, to the candidate for a Cabinet post or State Department job. It affects the nation's policies in almost every area.
Had Edith Roosevelt chosen to identify the core of this "power elite," she could have pinpointed the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Washington Post ombudsman Richard Harwood explained in 1993 that the Council on Foreign Relations is "the closest thing we have to a ruling Establishment in the United States.... [Its members are] the people who, for more than half a century, have managed our international affairs and our military-industrial complex." That "ruling Establishment" includes the barons of the media, whom Harwood styled "Ruling Class journalists." These CFR propagandists use their positions and influence to spread CFR-approved views and attitudes, and to smother any contrary views.
Ever since its founding in 1921 by the socialists and internationalists who dominated the Woodrow Wilson Administration, the CFR's ultimate goal has been the establishment of a "new world order" which would dominate mankind economically through socialism and politically through world government.
While the CFR is the undeniable core of the Establishment, the Insiders rely on other groups and individuals to propel our nation into the new world order. Among these groups are the World Affairs Council, the Trilateral Commission, the Atlantic Council, the United Nations Association of the United States, etc. And on the CFR's list of 3,237 members (508 of whom are "U.S. Government Officials") can be found such notables as Bill Clinton, Warren Christopher, Newt Gingrich, Henry Kissinger, Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, and a score of senators and congressmen.
Where did I learn to like many of Pat Buchanan's ideas(not the news as 1 Fucktard assumed):
In high school I was afforded the opportunity to participate in some classes for students with outstanding academic performance. During these courses I began to get sick and tired of hearing the brainwashed views of my fellow students and especially my teachers. My friends and I began to research other political views other than the same old liberal views we had been taught our whole lives. Through research, we discovered Pat Buchanan and "The Black Avenger" Ken Hamblin(BTW:he's black-wanted to make that clear to the Moronoviches that might take his name the wrong way and think he is a white supremacist). While training for football, we would listen to Rush Limbaugh in the weight room. I had always found politics intriguing, but I had no idea about anything until discovering other view points. I too had been brainwashed my whole life through the liberal teachings during my schooling. I became so intrigued by politics that I became a Political Science major in college. After taking some courses, I decided I wanted to major in Communications and minor in Poli Sci. This way I could combine the two and also create more avenues for myself in the future. Although even my New American Conservatism teacher was somewhat liberal, I finished all of my Poli Sci classes over a year ago. I only have 3 Comm classes left that I would have finished a year ago as well, but they were not offered when I needed to take them. Damn school taking my money. Anyhoo, I read a lot of books during this time and one of them was "A Republic, Not an Empire" by Pat Buchanan. I do agree that the way he expresses some of his views could be seen as extreme, but that is because they are usually taken out of context. This seems to be something almost every one of you Retardo Montolbon's repeatedly do. You see one word in something I write and take it completely out of context. You people are fucking ridiculous. You are the reason a show like Politically Incorrect came into existence. You don't deal with the issues, but instead like to twist and turn everything you read without any thinking at all. I have answered everything you Shitlips have questioned about my postings. Read em and weep. Any poster that takes anything I write out of context can go fuck themselves. Learn how to read.
Say, I hope you don't think I'm taking you out of context, but if you can't post without calling people "fucktard" and "shitlips," I'll be happy to direct you to any other message board besides this one.
I'll refrain from doing so in the future. I just got a little P.O.'d at the accusations and assumptions from some of these people. Some of the things that were written by other posters were far worse than the names I used out of frustration.
Sorry, I was pretty busy responding to about 10 other people at the same time and missed your link. Whether or not the quote is true, or whether or not it is even quoted correctly(it seems to be taken from a college research paper), are somewhat irrelevant. While Buchanan may have said that he received balanced coverage, my previous post seems to contradict that statement. When Buchanan was seen as possibly winning the Republican nomination, the media became extremely pissed. Once the country's leading newspaper, The NY Times, started the hatchet job on Buchanan(ignoring the issues that Buchanan brought to the table), a great portion of the country's other media outlets followed suit. The other problem I have with that quote is we don't know when Buchanan actually was quoted. Although the article where the quote was taken from was dated Aug. 96, that doesn't necessarily mean that particular quote was from the same time period. It very likely could have been before the media barrage that occured after Buchanan took control of the primary. It could have been from 92 or it could have been from even further in the past. Thanks for the link though. Is it a college paper of yours? Just curious, not being sarcastic. I've simmered down a bit from earlier.
Yeah, you probably would want to take Buchanan's word over mine, but like I said, that particular quote may not be accurate or if it was the actual quote used, may have been from before the hatchet job began in 96.
Thanks for the link, but it's from the 2000 election. It doesn't prove any of your points. It does have a good quote though(was in a newspaper, not a college research paper like the other quote in question):
"Clearly, we would like to win the presidency of the United States, that's why we got into this race and why we sought the Reform Party nomination," he said. "But if you're denied comparable money and you face a media blackout, and you're excluded from the presidential debates, it is not realistic to think you can overcome a 45-point lead."
MEDIA BLACKOUT Buchanan would have smoked Bush and Gore in the debates and I don't think anyone could argue that.
Originally posted by BigWhalebonyAlthough the article where the quote was taken from was dated Aug. 96, that doesn't necessarily mean that particular quote was from the same time period. It very likely could have been before the media barrage that occured after Buchanan took control of the primary. It could have been from 92 or it could have been from even further in the past.
And like I said previously, it seems to be from a college research paper.
Forgot to add: you admit there was a hatchet job by the media in your last post, thus rendering your entire argument pointless.
(edited by BigWhalebony on 8.8.02 1428) Don't Tread On Me, Whalebony Express
It's from a site full of articles on different topics. You know, like a Journal. Regardless what it's from, the fact remains that Pat Buchanan admitted that he is treated fairly by the media in August of 1996, months after the New Hampshire Primary and months after whatever hatchet job would have occured.
Originally posted by eviljonhunt81It's not a fact that Buchanan said that he was treated fairly by the media?
If the comments were legit, there are no facts that you have presented to prove the time period the quote was actually from. It doesn't matter anyway, considering you already admitted that there was a hatchet job in 96. So, whether Buchanan made such comments or not is irrelevant. If someone like yourself can see the media did a number on Buchanan, than there is no reason for you to continue the argument.
Just stumbled on this thread (exploring outside the Wreslting and Random boards I tend to read...). Normally, I don't get involved with political discussion, since I have really radical politics that tend to piss people off... Regardless, here we go with a few points
1) I find the concept of a Liberal media a bit amusing, since I am a journalist by trade. I personally can't watch CNN for more than 10 minutes or read a newspaper like the Globe and Mail (I'm Canadian) because they seem to be too slanted in either a right or left wing way. Isn't there a way that we can discuss both a left and right wing way of a problem without cutting the discussions down? That is what democracy is all about right?
2) Kind of an expansion of the first point: Everyone has an opinion, so why do we feel the need to label the opinion as left or right wing, liberal, communist, fascist, whatever? I feel that most people don't aspire to these rigid ways of thinking, saying "I'm right wing dammit". As someone else pointed out, it's difficult to have a discussion when an idea is labelled "liberal" and is therefore unworthy of discussion. Okay case in point, most people label me as left wing for my outspokeness on the war against Terrorism. The label applied doesn't matter. The situation isn't that black and white. I happen to think that both sides of this conflict are wrong and, to a point, deluded. Terrorism, violence and death are wrong no matter who has their hand on the trigger. Be it al-Qaeda, American, Canadian, Iraqi and what have you. Critizing one side does not necessarily mean that you support the other side.
I'll go back to my other forums now. Have fun, play nice!
Are you ready for Mahkan-mania to run wild all over you?
Whalebony sez this:Where did you learn to hate Pat Buchanan? Hmmm let me guess...the news.
Surpsingly, no. I "learned" to hate him when he decided to inform everyone of his nationalistic policies concerning everything. I don't need the media to make my decisions for me, I have a mind (regardless of what you think) that functions and is able to make such choices (i.e. anything more complicated than choosing which pop tarts to eat for breakfast.)
Whalebony:Calling you a Black Panther wouldn't even be close because they did lots of good things for the community. You seem far too hateful to do any good for society.
I hope that Satan is wearing his union suit because it must be damn cold down there. A Buchanan supporter actually said that the Black Panther party did "lots of good things for the community." Wow, you must be confused. I'm sure that Huey and Eldridge would be happy to have your support.
Whalebony, again: Now, while I may have prejudice towards people like you(and I mean idiots, not people who may be a different color than me), you might as well be categorized as a racist. Why don't you take your reverse discrimination bullshit and shove it.
HA. HA HA HA. Hold on, wait, this is where the best part of the argument is, and I think it needs its own heading.
The champion of all things Buchanan said: By being more cautious in letting people into our country, we might not have had an incident like 9/11.
Here's a suggestion: before you criticize my "reverse discrimination bullshit", maybe you should look at your own "forward" discrimination toward everyone and everything not pure. These statements, made one right after the other, negate any good points you could have possibly brought up about Ol' Pat.
Whale:You should maybe take a lesson from the people you so kindly categorized as "slants" because they have adapted better to the quest for life,liberty, and the pursuit of happiness better than anyone in the last 50 years.
Please explain this to me. Not the idea, but the sentence. It makes no sense, either historically, or logically.
Sea Mammal:They also have a bigger bone to pick than any other race because they were forced into internment camps after Pearl Harbor. They weren't even considered citizens of this country until 50 years ago. They strive to be the best at whatever they do.
Hey, buddy. Let's not get into a pissing contest about which race has been discriminated against the most, historically speaking. Especially not one started by you. That's not why I'm here, and that's not why I write. You should be careful of which words you choose when writing because, judging by the context of the statment, you consider Black people to be lazy as opposed to Asians who "strive to be the best at whatever they do."
Barnacle boy:Maybe you should try the same instead of using reverse discrimination as means to get your point across. Also wanted to mention that no one can say they aren't prejudice. If you say you are not, you are a liar(unless your name happens to be Jesus Christ). Being racist is a far different thing and Mr. Brooklyn you may be just that.
Reverse discrimination is impossible. Absolutely impossible. Discrimination, by definition, entails one race of people holding down another. Now, can you PLEASE explain to me how Black people have the upper hand on White people ANYWHERE? And no, I never claimed to not be prejudiced. And thank you for standing on a moral high ground while you point out that everyone is equal in their having of prejudices. If you're going to call me a racist, then just come out with it. Don't pussyfoot around by first referring to me as "Mr. Brooklyn" than saying that I "may be just that." Be strong in your convictions.
Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery. -Malcom X