Printable View
Quote:
Originally posted by Tracer
You're right, but maybe the cliamate is better now? If Bush we're so tough a competition for him that is
Maybe I'm cynical but Fox News is the highest rated news station now I belive :)
I'm only being semi-serious now anyway.
I like Fox News.
Nah, man, Fox News is neoconservative, like Bush's cabinet (all those evil warmongering Jews) and me.
Pat Buchanan is a paleoconservative - anti-globalization, anti-war, pro-fencing-off-borders, a bunch of stuff.
The more moderate half of the US Democratic party (think Lieberman, Moynihan, the Clintons) are far more acceptable and far closer to neoconservatives than Palecons are. Bill Clinton, despite his issues, is a good bit closer to modern neoconservative Republicanism than Pat Buchanan is or ever was.
I like President Bush.
I hate Fox news for the record :/
Those terms are new to me, but PB has been on several shows (I mean.. I work for a cable company whose pride is news channels - we provide cable for nearly all local companies like Exxon, Dynegy and Reliant Enron formerlly so keeping the news stations in good order is a priority of mine. Needless to say I see BBC-A, MSNBC, Fox and a bunch of CCN's a Nasa channel and 2 C-Spans all day long) and has seemed very welcome while the subject of Clinton makes thier hackles rise. Clinton might be closer ideologically, PB seems to be a more welcomed guest.
...and I am Unfamiliar with those terms.
I think Buchanan's being more welcome on a lot of news shows now because his paleoconservative positions give him more in common with the true Left than many Democrats.
Hell, Buchanan's magazine, "the American Conservative", is Anti-war, Anti-globalization, Anti-interventionism, pro-Environment, and so on. He's against affirmative action-type stuff and he's against some forms of tax, but there are a surprising number of things in common between "the American Conservative" and "the Nation".
How is he pro-environment?
I am curious is all.
Hm, it can be a bit hard to explain.
Strom Thurmond has always been a paleoconservative. Before 1948, paleoconservatism was a pretty ingrained part of the Democratic party - stuff like protectionism, segregation, and things like that are classic Paleocon issues that were part of the Democratic party platform. In '48, a fissure in the party politics (real Democrats wanted to embrace desegregation) caused the Paleocons to splinter off into a party called the Dixiecrats. The party failed, basically.
When Nixon was running, he decided to embrace those Paleocons (who had been basically left out in the cold) by going against desegregation.
He's pro-environment in the sense that he'd rather strip mine some African country than knock down one US tree - I think I've seen some more honestly conservationist-type articles in the American Conservative, although I can't recall any off the top of my head.Quote:
Originally posted by Tracer
How is he pro-environment?
I am curious is all.
In any case I've always considered Democrat and Republican to be 2 sides to the same infernal coin :/
No offence but I find those who align themselves on either side to usually be super annoying when it comes to discussing politics/economics/moral-issues.
Well, you can't really escape being labelled either Democrat, Republican, Liberal, or Authoritarian...everyone falls somewhere on that wheel.