I think that this thread may be educational to liberals that may stop in and read. The liberals bang a drum about Bush being a Gestapo or like Hitler, republican voters like me and apparently Tech take it seriously when we vote and we wouldn’t vote for someone like Buchanan, for all the reasons indicated by us and all the reasons indicated by RonPaul4prez himself. If I had a choice between Buchanan and a lowly Democrat I would probably vote Democrat for the first time in my life. If Buchanan became president I would move to New Zealand out of the range of the ICBM’s and hope that nuclear winters don’t wither my French womanly skin, I am very sensitive and use Lancôme products from Paris.

Proof again Anthony that a conservative you are not...

Anthony R a few points to consider:
To paraphrase George Wallace, there ain't a dimes worth of difference between a nazi and a commie. A nazi is merely a nationalist commie. Hell even Hitler claimed in 1927 that he was a socialist, just a German nationalist kind as opposed to the internationalist type. Pat Buchanan is no conservative unless you define a conservative as one who believes that only white men should have political and economic power. Buchanan has no problem in restricting whom you buy from and what you can spend your money on just like your common variety socialist. Ever notice that the white power types have their own version of the vanguard of the proletariat?

Notice how Buchanan had no problem being an internationlist during the cold war. Did not mind keeping half of the Armed Forces overseas and spending more than half of the defense budget on proping up NATO and our ingrate allies in Europe. Never mind the trillions spent on defending them,doesn't bother him at all. And lets not forget the several hundred billion spent on the Arabs in the last few decades.
Or the at least one trillion dollars in US assets the Saudi's and other Arabs control. Nope that could not be a factor in pro-Arab views. I'm sure the enlighted Europeans are not at all influenced by 15 million Muslims living in Europe, being totally dependent on Arab oil and the vast amounts of money they have in invested in Europe. Nope, couldn't be.
"Izzy" and Ron simply cannot believe that Arabs are sufficently clever enough to pull off 9/11. No doubt they must think that slant eyed Japs could not have pulled off Pearl Harbor either. It must have been done by that cypto Jew Roosevelt to get America in the war. Since Reagan also was friendly to Israel that must also mean he is also a crypto Jew. They must have the highest admiration for the Jews to think that 5 million Jews occupying a sliver of land can oppress 500 million Arabs occupying ten percent of the world's landmass. Indeed the Prime Minister of Malaysia addressing a conference of 57 Islamic states - whose leaders are all in agreement stated that the Muslim world must concentrate all the collective brain power of 1.3 billion Muslims to their maximum effect in order to defeat the world's 12 million Jews.
Maybe he is on to something. Can anyone point out the number Nobel Prizes given out in the sciences and mathematics since their inception to Jews of all nationalities and compare that to the number given to Muslims of all nationalities? It would be an interesting comparison.
Perhaps the boys ought consider what Pitchfork Pat said on Crossfire years ago when he spoke on immigration. He said it was a lot easier to assimilate a million white Europeans than a million Zulus. Perhaps in light of the Nobel Prizes we should start encouraging Jewish immigration to the US to be in the US national interest and start encouraging Arab and Muslim emigration. Maybe Ashcroft is on to something. Even J. Edgar Hoover stated at the time that Japanese Americans represented no security threat to the US. Can that be said of the radical Muslims and their supporters in the US today? A fifth column indeed (another fascist concept).
The Libs and the left should take a cautionary tale from the fable about the little boy who cried wolf. Debasing the words racist and fascist will blind you for the day the real deal comes .

Regarding Rush, I'm a diehard fan but in all honesty i have to admit he is a bit of a hypocrite regarding drugs. Nevertheless there is a universe of difference between taking pain killers as prescribed for pain and getting addicted to them and getting addicted to narcotics from recreational use.
Chronic unrelieved pain is a form of torture. not for nothing is the the administration of physical torture is conducted by inflicting severe pain. Pain that intense must be relieved and in desperation to relieve such pain that people suffering it take desperate measures. While not condoning it help and mercy is justifed for those suffering from addiction brought on by intractable physical pain. Indeed one can make the same argument for severe emotional pain such as the kind brought by the death of a loved one.

Where the Libs and the Libertarians go of the rails is addiction brought on by recreational drug use. No one who uses crack or narcotics can fail to be aware that using those drugs can only lead to addiction so why start? People who just want to get high for the fun and pleasure of it do not deserve much compassion. They knew the risks but did it anyway. Anyone who has dealt with them can attest to the fact that at the core the addict is a selfish self absorbed and immature individual who does not ultimately care enough about others only their needs, wants and pleasures which is why they engage in destructive behavior in the first place. Robert Downey Jr. fits the bill. And he was granted various chances before being jailed.
That is why I have sympathy for Rush who was driven by pain too addiction and not for Downy who was driven too addiction by hedonism.

Cubanbob you think you're words are definitive but indeed you're wrong on so many counts that it reaches absurdity. Your stereotypical attacks on Buchanan couldn't be more off base. You claim he's a racist and that he believes that "only whites" should have "political..." power and apparently ignore (or more likely are just simply unaware) that his running mate for the presidency last time he ran was a black woman. That kills your inane racist argument. You claim that he's fully supportive of NATO but apparently ignore (or again never knew) that he is on record all over the place calling for us to pull out of NATO alltogether. (See his tome A REPUBLIC, NOT AN EMPIRE for quotes).
Personally I believe that "Arabs" are plenty "smart enough" to pull off a 9/11 but if you looked at WHO BENEFITS most from that day you'd see that is surely was NOT the Arab world. If you investigated AT ALL you'd see that there is much evidence of, at the very least, Israeli complicity in 9/11 and also evidence that the Bush administration ALLOWED IT TO HAPPEN a'la Pearl Harbor in order to pull us into their globalist schemes. Hegalian Dialectic in action here folks.

You "5 million Jews occupying a sliver of land" line ignores the fact that Israel is propped up and armed by American largess to the tune of TRILLIONS over the years and their military (thanks to our generous and one-sided foreign aid) is 1st world while the rest of the Middle East's are at best 3rd world. Top of the line American military technology versus aging, rusting Soviet era technology is a great equalizer.

Your purposeful downplaying of the threats this administration pose to our Bill of Rights and Constitution, to American sovereignty and to our good name and reputation abroad are treasonous.
There can be no excuse for such an attitude.

Yes I agree that Mein Kampf is a communist manifesto, Buchanan has studied this manual regularly for the purposes of future application. Buchanan derailed his campaign when he started babbling New World Order type stuff, he started blasting everything and anything international, he is so extreme right, even the Fox news channel stopped airing the Kook.
Buchanan rallied blue collar workers against the evils of the World Trade Organization. The only problem I developed personally about the world Trade Organization came when Clinton signed on China. Sure we get cheap goods made by slaves, but is it a good policy to send our consumer money to communist China? China is a slavery market, China turns it's military on it's own people, not a model for a world business partner, and it upsets a balance of competition. China is difficult to compete against because of the slavery in their production. I use my own personal choice as a consumer when I refuse to purchase all Chinese products.
Buchanan’s policy for national security is not feasible; the proactive approach is the only sensible choice. Sending our military and reconstructive efforts to the heart of the problem is the only option, not sitting at home waiting for attack and hoping to defend against it.

Anthony you're wrong about Buchanan, big time wrong.

"I use my own personal choice as a consumer when I refuse to purchase all Chinese products."

Anthony R, I agree with you about China and the slave market and I respect your decision to ban Chinese products. How are you able to stick too it? Almost everything I look at has the "Made in China" sticker.

I bought Chinese products by accident before. I have commie wearever cookware and a commie chair. China is everywhere in the store thanks to Bubba.

They're not demanding he go to jail for his addiction; they're demanding he go to jail for the illegal activity he committed due to his addiction. There's a difference. You've skewed the argument here.

To answer your question: Limbaugh is a bigger hypocrit. Why? Because he ran his mouth, and condemned others WHILE he himself was suffering his own addiction. The Right is VERY good at that though--preachin' while committing the same sins they preach against.

"That is why I have sympathy for Rush who was driven by pain too addiction and not for Downy who was driven too addiction by hedonism."

Give me a break! If you want to argue that point, then we could argue that maybe those people who are addicted to recreational drugs have psychological issues (which is a medical condition covered by 99.9% of the medical plans in the US). Let's take it one step further and compare drug addiction to alcoholism--any form of drug addiction. Alcoholism is often called a disease, is it not? Why would a perfectly happy person experiment with recreational drugs, knowing what we know about their effects? And why would a perfectly happy person continue to use recreational drugs although he has been ordered by the court not to and has been punished for that use repeatedly? Mental issues, perhaps? Reminder: Poor mental health is a medical condition.

The point: Limbaugh is a hypocrit and deserves no more pity than he wanted to give those he condemned for YEARS. Perhaps this is the lesson he was meant to learn? Let God be the only one to judge.

"republican voters like me and apparently Tech take it seriously when we vote"

Now that's just plain . . . I can't believe you've suggested that anyone who is NOT Republican does not take their voting seriously.
I'm a liberal, Black, EDUCATED lesbian and I didn't vote for Bush (or his Daddy). I wouldn't vote for any of the Democrats who are looking to run for President either. Republicans and Democrats, at this point, are one in the same--talkin' out the side of their mouths and accomplishing zilch.

I have nothing against blacks or lesbians but liberals with inquisitive Alan Colmes eyebrows annoy me till no end.
You claim to be a liberal, are you sure? Do you suffer from the following delusions...?

John Ashcroft poses a greater danger to America than Osama bin Laden, Hussein or Jong Il.

Bush is not intelligent enough to be president but you consider the Dixie Chicks, Martin Sheen, Al Qaida Franken, Barbara Streisand, Tim Robbins, and Jeanine Garofalo qualified to dictate foreign policy.

Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong Il, and Yasser Arafat were fairly and democratically elected, but President Bush was not.

Welfare is a fundamental human right, but workfare is a human rights violation.

If you answered yes to any of these things then you are a liberal.

Rush for stating repeatedly that we have "NO RIGHT TO PRIVACY" . . . that this is an inferred right by liberal (he likes to pronounce it "librawl") judges. And now he wants to sing the blues about his right to prvacy being violated. Which is it, Fat Bastard?