Triumph of the Bigoted, Intolerant Left: Buchanan Fired

[Unabogie]

I've actually been very fond of Pat Buchanan since his days on Crossfire. He is at least honest about how he feels and doesn't play the part of cheerleader for the GOP. If you want to know how conservatives really think, talk to Pat.

That said, at some point he went the full retard and he had to go.

I'd still rather listen to him than Sean Hannity any day of the week.

 

[Tony]

Lots' of stuff thrown on the wall, but no one has been able to point to any racism, bigotry of intolerance on the part or Pat B.

Your denial not-with-standing, yes they have.

 

[Checkmite]

Shouldn't the OP read "market forces triumphant"?

 

[crimresearch]

Shouldn't the OP read "market forces triumphant"?

It is starting to look like the OP doesn't place much value on the free market, personal responsibility, or the rights of business owners to run their own businesses.

Wonder if he's one of them there leftys?

 

[Travis]

Hey why doesn't Robert pony up his own money to set Pat up with a new show? He can use money saved by only eating samples at Costco to do so.

 

[Robert Prey]

If you can't see the racism in those items, then I can only come up with two logical scenarios:

1. You are incapable of reading with comprehension.
2. You are so racist yourself that his comments seem perfectly normal to you.

You fail to point to one single example of B's "racism."

 

[Robert Prey]

There is a big problem with your analogy. It isn't Mr, Robertson's microphone. Therefore no one is against him speaking freely. The protestors were against him speaking freely on MSNBC. Mr. Robertson is still free to put his ideas in a newsletter or newspaper or blog or webcast. He is free to bring his ideas and skills to the marketplace of radio and television and see if anyone will pay him for his political insights. It is not our fault that no broadcasters in 2012 are willing to pay money to someone who thinks the period of legalized segregation and anti-miscegenation laws was a better time than today.

If I may ask a another question to help me understand your viewpoint. Was the Baptist Church being intolerant in 1996 when almost all of the approximately 13,000 delegates to the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) voted in favor of implementing a boycott of Walt Disney movies, products and theme parks?

ETA: Ravdin beat me to it.

I do not question the right of persons or organizations to use or not use their dollars for a political end. People are free in liberty to be bigoted and intolerant so long as they do not infringe on the rights of others.

 

[Robert Prey]

If that racist piece of crap wants to stand up and say that it is his right right to tell a bunch of insecure, mouth-breathing cretins that they are going to be victims of the brown people unless they rise up and resist people like me, and those mouth-breathing cretins have firearms, he poses a threat to my life.

Why have I then no right, if not the obligation, to shout the slimeball down and discourage corporations from providing him with a venue from which to rally the barbarians?

Indeed, you do have a right to be intolerant and bigoted.

 

[Robert Prey]

Quick question. So do the traditional moral (absolute) values include placing the Ten Commandments in courtrooms and classrooms?

That seems to be a political question.

 

[Robert Prey]

Please stop being disingenuous.

Are you honestly going to try to defend the position that nothing in that post was racist?

If you want a dialogue, you've got to be specific.

 

[Moss]

Poor Pat, how is an aging racist and antisemite going to find another job in this economy? He might end up on the dole...

 

[Upchurch]

If you want a dialogue, you've got to be specific.

I was. You waved your hands and said, "nuh-uh." You could try to address why you don't consider my examples racism or you could explain what sort of evidence you would except as racism.

People actually are attempting a dialogue with you in this thread, Robert.

 

[Mumbles]

Huh.

I'd have thought republicans would be happy about this, since it seemed rude to me that MSNBC allowed the white supremacist homophobe to represent mainstream conservative thinking. Turns put, many republicans are actually angry that MSNBC won't let him sit in front of a camera to discuss how the US should have sided with Germany, or how black people should praise God for slavery. It's certainly not the sort of view I'd want representing me, if I were pretending that I wanted black or Jewish voters on my side.

Well, whatever.

 

[Robert Prey]

I was. You waved your hands and said, "nuh-uh." You could try to address why you don't consider my examples racism or you could explain what sort of evidence you would except as racism.

People actually are attempting a dialogue with you in this thread, Robert.

One example will do, not 50. Haven't got time to write a book.

 

[Robert Prey]

I gave you eight examples and, yet, you are blinded to it.

What would you consider to be an example of racism against black or Hispanic people, Robert?

Why only Black or Hispanic? How about the Congressional Black Caucus? Now there's an obviously racist organization right up front with its name.

 

[Tricky]

One example will do, not 50. Haven't got time to write a book.

LOL. You're actually asking for less evidence? Why? Do your hands get tired from waving?

 

[Moss]

Why only Black or Hispanic? How about the Congressional Black Caucus? Now there's an obviously racist organization right up front with its name.

"Look, a three headed monkey!"

 

[Ladewig]

Quick question. So do the traditional moral (absolute) values include placing the Ten Commandments in courtrooms and classrooms?

That seems to be a political question.

First. Let me thank you for responding to so many questions.

At this point, I am trying more to understand your position rather than trying to change your position.

That being said, I do not understand your response. The vast majority of people who call for a return to traditional values want to have the Ten Commandments displaying in schoolrooms. I am not asking if it is possible under current or or future political legislators. I am not asking if it is possible to get it past current or future Supreme Courts. I am asking if this posting of the Ten Commandments is desirable under your assertion that America would be better under a return to traditional values.

 

[Ladewig]

There is a big problem with your analogy. It isn't Mr, Robertson's microphone. Therefore no one is against him speaking freely. The protestors were against him speaking freely on MSNBC. Mr. Robertson is still free to put his ideas in a newsletter or newspaper or blog or webcast. He is free to bring his ideas and skills to the marketplace of radio and television and see if anyone will pay him for his political insights. It is not our fault that no broadcasters in 2012 are willing to pay money to someone who thinks the period of legalized segregation and anti-miscegenation laws was a better time than today.

If I may ask a another question to help me understand your viewpoint. Was the Baptist Church being intolerant in 1996 when almost all of the approximately 13,000 delegates to the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) voted in favor of implementing a boycott of Walt Disney movies, products and theme parks?
.

I do not question the right of persons or organizations to use or not use their dollars for a political end. People are free in liberty to be bigoted and intolerant so long as they do not infringe on the rights of others.

I do not understand your response. Does that mean the Southern Baptists were being bigoted and intolerant or does that mean that the Southern Baptists weren't being bigoted and intolerant?


ETA: I am not demanding that you choose one or the other. If you want to give a nuanced answer, that is fine with me.

 

[crimresearch]

I do not question the right of persons or organizations to use or not use their dollars for a political end. People are free in liberty to be bigoted and intolerant so long as they do not infringe on the rights of others.

You contradict yourself.

You claimed that Buchanan was fired, and then you ran away when asked for evidence that he didn't just quit when the people running their own business wouldn't let him use their (very expensive) air time to publicize his book that would be guaranteed to chase away their customers.

You simply made up the claim that no one said anything about the 1st Amendment, and then you ran away when Buchanan was directly quoted from your link, saying exactly that.

You regularly cited Scripture as a moral authority, and when it was pointed out that you violated it by breaking the commandment to not bear false witness, you ran away.

You continued to post the fabrication that those who are opposed to bigotry and racism are themselves the intolerant ones, not the bigots, and when that was debunked, you ran... do I need to go on to 50?