Pat Buchanan: Western Civilization is Toast

[Hawkeye10]

Something has to be done and Trump may be the answer. Hillary certainly isn't, nor is Bernie.

The way I put it is that we are deep in the ditch, we have been for some time, and those who have been claiming to have the solution have gotten no where.

It is time for something else, anything else.

Maybe Trump in the POTUS chair will inspire some brainpower and will from the elite, they who have so failed us.

I am willing to give it a go.

 

[CrabCake]

How odd. Not a single thing about whether or whether not the Western Civilization is indeed heading to collapse or not, only ad hominems.

The entire premise of this thread was that, by virtue of being a "high level member of the elite", Pat Buchanan's opinion on this issue matters. Why would it be odd for people to swat down that premise? Pat Buchanan is a holocaust denying bigot whose opinions should be held in very low regard.

 

[Hawkeye10]

The entire premise of this thread was that, by virtue of being a "high level member of the elite", Pat Buchanan's opinion on this issue matters. Why would it be odd for people to swat down that premise?

The same guy who said that also said that ideas are independent of whomever is voicing them at any particular time. When we see so much attention paid to the alleged faults of the speaker and little paid to the ideas that are being spoken our radars should go off, the speaker is probably on to something that is supposed to be taboo.

Note: A join those who recently have been calling for an upgrade in the quality of debate at DP. This place may or may not be a the best around, but it for sure could be a whole lot better.

 

[dimensionallava]

'Western Civilization finally went up in smoke in the chimneys of Dachau" -Cormac McCarthy

 

[notquiteright]

We need Trump, cause something drastic has to change, the elite who we have had running things have failed miserably.

Hmmm a drastic change- I'd say there is far more harm 'drastic action' can cause than helpful outcome. our nation isn't failing miserably- it is leaving one era behind and entering another. We either work for the dawn of a new era or we whine for the 'good ol' days'... going backwards never gets you ahead.

FYI- even a cursory look at our history has had the 'elites' running this republic- to the point eligible voters was quite an exclusive club. The electoral college used local elites to elect our Presidents. Look at who time after time was elected President- and that's from our earliest days.

But make ZERO mistake- Trump is one of the elite- he just isn't one of THE elite... eace

 

[Hawkeye10]

Hmmm a drastic change- I'd say there is far more harm 'drastic action' can cause than helpful outcome. our nation isn't failing miserably- it is leaving one era behind and entering another. We either work for the dawn of a new era or we whine for the 'good ol' days'... going backwards never gets you ahead.

FYI- even a cursory look at our history has had the 'elites' running this republic- to the point eligible voters was quite an exclusive club. The electoral college used local elites to elect our Presidents. Look at who time after time was elected President- and that's from our earliest days.

But make ZERO mistake- Trump is one of the elite- he just isn't one of THE elite... eace

When faced with long term failure there is usually no choice but to be willing to take more risk.

I am there.

 

[eohrnberger]

The entire premise of this thread was that, by virtue of being a "high level member of the elite", Pat Buchanan's opinion on this issue matters. Why would it be odd for people to swat down that premise? Pat Buchanan is a holocaust denying bigot whose opinions should be held in very low regard.

The same guy who said that also said that ideas are independent of whomever is voicing them at any particular time. When we see so much attention paid to the alleged faults of the speaker and little paid to the ideas that are being spoken our radars should go off, the speaker is probably on to something that is supposed to be taboo.

I'd have to agree. Regardless of what I, or anyone else for that matter, thinks of Buchanan as a person, as a politician, or as anything really, the question isn't any of these things, the question is whether the Western Civilization is doomed or not.

Note: A join those who recently have been calling for an upgrade in the quality of debate at DP. This place may or may not be a the best around, but it for sure could be a whole lot better.

I agree that DP is the probably the best around, and I support the elevation of the discussions and / or debate, with emphasis on respect for fellow forum members and elimination of ad hominem attacks.

Just to be specific:

ad ho·mi·nem
ˌad ˈhämənəm/
adverb & adjective
adverb: ad hominem; adjective: ad hominem

• 1.
  (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
  "vicious ad hominem attacks"
  
  
  
  
  
• 2.
  relating to or associated with a particular person.
  "the office was created ad hominem for Fenton"
  
  
  
  
  

 

[FieldTheorist]

The 'neoliberal economic' model does not really propose a financial oligarchy. In reality it is a meritocratic system of rules.

That's one of the most counterfactual, ideological statements I've read on this forum in quite some time. It's pretty outstanding that any person who knows even the slightest amount of information about income inequality, increases in government bribes, and the advent of neoliberalism at the end of the 1970's wouldn't even be able to have that thought with a straight face, let alone write in open public. The corruption existed well before the end of the 70's, but the corruption grew like gang-busters after the tax cuts for the rich, massive financial deregulation, union-busting, etc, started.

The high concentration of wealth is more due to an older period and its belief in the benefits of inheritance. It is less the 'neoliberal economic' philosophy than the 'neoliberal social' set of motives that has run its course and is now finding a formidable foe in reality.

This is incoherent gibberish.

 

[CrabCake]

The same guy who said that also said that ideas are independent of whomever is voicing them at any particular time. When we see so much attention paid to the alleged faults of the speaker and little paid to the ideas that are being spoken our radars should go off, the speaker is probably on to something that is supposed to be taboo.

You may have said it. But if you did, you did so in a different post; not in the one I was responding to.

No radars should be going off when people respond directly to your exact post. Your claim, again, was:

I have been saying for almost 20 years that we are in a new dark ages, and for over 10 that it is too late to reform our way out of gathering collapse Western Civilization, but still it comes as a shock to hear such a high level member of the elite as Buchanan agree with me.

I know of no other way to interpret this post other than as the equivalent of:

LOOK! this guy I think is important agrees with me!!!!

Pointing out that the guy you're talking about is an idiot and sharing an opinion with him is not something one should be proud of, is a legitimate response.

It's not that the topic is taboo, it's that the topic is Pat Buchanan's agreement with you. What would you expect from such a post? If you wanted to talk about the pending collapse of western civilization you should have posted about that instead of posting about how Pat Buchanan agrees with you.

 

[CrabCake]

I'd have to agree. Regardless of what I, or anyone else for that matter, thinks of Buchanan as a person, as a politician, or as anything really, the question isn't any of these things, the question is whether the Western Civilization is doomed or not.

That's probably the better question. But that's not the question that was actually asked in the OP.

I agree that DP is the probably the best around, and I support the elevation of the discussions and / or debate, with emphasis on respect for fellow forum members and elimination of ad hominem attacks.

Why not begin elevating the level of discussion by changing your avatar?

Does that avatar reflect your desire for respect and civil discourse? or does it promote the kind of name calling and lowest common denominator personal attacks you are claiming to be against?

Change it to something that doesn't feature childish name calling and we may be more inclined to take your call for more respect and a higher quality of discourse seriously.

 

[Hawkeye10]

You may have said it. But if you did, you did so in a different post; not in the one I was responding to.

No radars should be going off when people respond directly to your exact post. Your claim, again, was:



I know of no other way to interpret this post other than as the equivalent of:

LOOK! this guy I think is important agrees with me!!!!

Pointing out that the guy you're talking about is an idiot and sharing an opinion with him is not something one should be proud of, is a legitimate response.

It's not that the topic is taboo, it's that the topic is Pat Buchanan's agreement with you. What would you expect from such a post? If you wanted to talk about the pending collapse of western civilization you should have posted about that instead of posting about how Pat Buchanan agrees with you.

Then I most likely needed to do a better job of communicating, and you for sure should have checked to make sure that you are right before you started launching turds.

The extended meaning was more " I have been saying this for a long time, but it is finally catching on with those ****ed up Elites, they who tend to have low morals and low levels of competence and yet feel the need to try to force America in the direction of their utopian dreams, feeling very free to abuse the American people along the way"

"YAY!".

Of which GIngrich is a prime mover, he had a lot to do with why Washington is broken, both feeding off the bad trends and then feeding the bad trends because he thought it was in his interest to do so.

Next time you decide you think I am an idiot maybe you check we me first, MKay? Maybe you are not understanding correctly.

 

[Grant]

That's probably the better question. But that's not the question that was actually asked in the OP. Why not begin elevating the level of discussion by changing your avatar?

Does that avatar reflect your desire for respect and civil discourse? or does it promote the kind of name calling and lowest common denominator personal attacks you are claiming to be against?

Change it to something that doesn't feature childish name calling and we may be more inclined to take your call for more respect and a higher quality of discourse seriously.

Elevate the level of discussion by questioning an avatar?

 

[eohrnberger]

That's probably the better question. But that's not the question that was actually asked in the OP.



Why not begin elevating the level of discussion by changing your avatar?

Does that avatar reflect your desire for respect and civil discourse? or does it promote the kind of name calling and lowest common denominator personal attacks you are claiming to be against?

Change it to something that doesn't feature childish name calling and we may be more inclined to take your call for more respect and a higher quality of discourse seriously.

I'll change the avatar when Obama leaves office in January.

Fact of the matter is that this president as stood in front of a multitude of media cameras on numerous press conferences and has down right bold faced lied to the entire nation.

Seems that everyone wants to forget all those numerous instances.

 

[CrabCake]

I'll change the avatar when Obama leaves office in January.

Fact of the matter is that this president as stood in front of a multitude of media cameras on numerous press conferences and has down right bold faced lied to the entire nation.

Seems that everyone wants to forget all those numerous instances.

Noted

 

[Grant]

I'll change the avatar when Obama leaves office in January.

Fact of the matter is that this president as stood in front of a multitude of media cameras on numerous press conferences and has down right bold faced lied to the entire nation.

Seems that everyone wants to forget all those numerous instances.

It seems some certainly do. And want others to forget as well. Thank goodness for Youtube! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kg9m1F8B2_c

 

[dimensionallava]

I'll change the avatar when Obama leaves office in January.

Too what? a picture thats exacty like it, except with hillary?

 

[eohrnberger]

Too what? a picture thats exacty like it, except with hillary?

Decidedly undecided at this point, much like the pending presidential campaign (have to have party nominees first).

 

[MorrisDay]

Pat Buchanan has about the same relevance to reality as Carrot Top.

He's a complete joke.

To YOU maybe. To me Hillary is a joke, she laughs a lot but it's not funny.

 

[joG]

That's one of the most counterfactual, ideological statements I've read on this forum in quite some time. It's pretty outstanding that any person who knows even the slightest amount of information about income inequality, increases in government bribes, and the advent of neoliberalism at the end of the 1970's wouldn't even be able to have that thought with a straight face, let alone write in open public. The corruption existed well before the end of the 70's, but the corruption grew like gang-busters after the tax cuts for the rich, massive financial deregulation, union-busting, etc, started.



This is incoherent gibberish.

- You are confusing theory and its nominal but distorted implementation as an instrument by powerful groups. That has nothing to do with what "economic neo-liberalism" is.

- As for the corruption, that is usually only conspiracy theory at work. There is corruption and it is a problem. Of course it is. And it must be fought at all times. Your outrage is good, because it means that the pressure is on and the fight underway. It also means that the perception that corruption is everywhere finds itself in the statistics of groups like Transparency, where Americans say their country is corrupt, where Germans for instance will tend to say theirs is not. This gains a higher rating and the US looks more corrupt, than actually it is, strengthening the feeling that the country is corrupt in the minds of those that said so in the interview.
But this is a good thing, if it reinforces the good stand for honesty.

-I am sorry to see, you are not interested in the theories' details and in stead of thinking screech "Gibberish!".

 

[blarg]

I have been saying for almost 20 years that we are in a new dark ages, and for over 10 that it is too late to reform our way out of gathering collapse Western Civilization, but still it comes as a shock to hear such a high level member of the elite as Buchanan agree with me.

Thoughts?

religious/conservative nuts Lamenting the loss of ther power and perhaps trying to scare people into supporting them?

 

[Grant]

religious/conservative nuts Lamenting the loss of ther power and perhaps trying to scare people into supporting them?

This is typical of the 'thoughts' you've been receiving, which serves again to underscore Buchanan's point.

 

[blarg]

This is typical of the 'thoughts' you've been receiving, which serves again to underscore Buchanan's point.

thoughts iv been receiving?

 

[Grant]

thoughts iv been receiving?

No, my apologies. The comment was directed to the original poster of this thread.

 

[FieldTheorist]

- You are confusing theory and its nominal but distorted implementation as an instrument by powerful groups. That has nothing to do with what "economic neo-liberalism" is.

Funny, Communists complained of the exact same thing, and had to create "Really-Existing Socialism" as an excuse to get around the total inability for their ideology to actually be implemented. It's the political science equivalent of a bait-and-switch, but it's exceedingly common in most political ideologies. In the case of (neo)liberal capitalism, they tend to bloviate about their "theory" (conservatism and revisionist histories and traditions, libertarianism and counterfactual obfuscations with some rhetoric about civil liberties and coercion, or liberalism that conjoins revionist history with some rhetoric about equality and civil liberties --all fancy, convoluted stories that dress up the economic system and attempt to provide some form of justification for it). At the end of the day though, when you strip off the pomp, and you just address the issue of power --who has power and who doesn't-- it all boils down to something very simple: Corporations, industry owners, and the otherwise rich have all of the power, they make all of the important decisions. That's true of the businesses they own and operate, and it's just as true of the governments that they own and operate, as well. The notion that even representative democracy and neoliberal capitalism are compatible seems to me to be highly flawed, and certainly seems to run contrary to the whole history of (neo)liberal republic governments.

 

[jet57]

Pat Buchanan, another lunatic no one should be listening to.

You know he did say something one time about the power struggles in this world that is very true. He said, (from memory) "the power is generational thing, and they don't care how long it takes". Monarchies are that way and powerful families are that way.

I've said for sometime now, that what's happening is that 'old school' is dying off, and when it's gone, it will indeed be a brave new world.