madtom at IX.NETCOM.COM
Fri Feb 9 20:48:40 MST 1996
>As someone who posts numerous articles to numerous lists, I would
>disagree with Bruce's assertion that John Emery's posting of an
>article means he agrees with all of it.
I didn't say that Mr. Emery agreed with it. The article didn't read
as if it were written by a Buchanan opponent; despite the painting of
Buchanan as a Socialist -- I note you don't explicitly disagree with me
on this! -- I got the impression that the writer of the article prefers
Buchanan to any of the other candidates.
If Mr. Emery doesn't want people to think he agreed with the entire
article, then he should have included comments indicating those things
he disagreed with.
On another note, though, my point stands -- Mr. Buchanan's economic
position cannot be described as capitalism. He himself makes no bones
about it -- he deplores free-market capitalism as being anti-family &
opportunist, willing to sell out it's host nations for a buck. Consid-
ering how often in the past he has excoriated Socialist policies & So-
cialist nations, I find it slightly hypocritical for him to advance So-
cialist policies now that he's running for President. Those Socialist
policies are what the blue-collar workers think they want, & so Buch-
anan is willing to sell out freedom to give it to them -- so long as
they vote for him. I call that cynical populism, & I call Mr. Buchanan
unfit for the Presidency.
Now THAT'S something we can chew the fat over.
madtom at ix.netcom.com
Libertarian, pagan, pot-smoker, patriot -- DON'T TREAD ON ME!
More information about the Rushtalk