Triumph of the Bigoted, Intolerant Left: Buchanan Fired

Tricky said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think it may be that some people do not believe its racism if they believe what they say is true. For example a person could say, "All mexicans are lazy." If they truly believe this they do not see that statement as racist but as a simple statement of fact. A fact is not racist it is just a fact to these people and stating facts is not racism. These people are wrong and racist.
 
Robert Prey said:
If you seek to turn off somebody's micophone, you are against him speaking freely, first amendment or no first amendment. Get it?????
Click to expand...

Freedom of speech in America is guaranteed by the 1st amendment and backed by the full authority of the U.S. government. It does not promise you any kind of amplification of your speech.

Unless you are for a federal government that goes into a private company's tv studios and forces them to allow anyone who wants to have a tv appearance then you are just dead wrong. Under your misguided understanding of free speech (as access to a microphone) shouldn't the government force MSNBC to devote their channel entirely to Pat if thats what he wants?
 
Robert Prey said:
One example will do, not 50. Haven't got time to write a book.
Click to expand...
Fine. Pick one of the eight I gave you.

Robert Prey said:
Why only Black or Hispanic?
Click to expand...
Because they are the ones Buchanan is displaying racism about in the examples I provided. Can you answer the question now or will you be stalling for more time?


Robert Prey said:
How about the Congressional Black Caucus? Now there's an obviously racist organization right up front with its name.
Click to expand...
Non-sequitur. We're discussing Pat Buchanan, not the Congressional Black Caucus.
 
Robert Prey said:
Why only Black or Hispanic? How about the Congressional Black Caucus? Now there's an obviously racist organization right up front with its name.
Click to expand...

Aside from the fact that this has nothing to do with the topic, as others have pointed out, sorry, the name "Congressional Black Caucus" is obviously not racist.
 
Of course it is... just like the book Black Beauty is all about how ugly white people are...


;-}
 
Ladewig said:
Please stop being disingenuous.

Are you honestly going to try to defend the position that nothing in that post was racist?
Click to expand...
Not overtly. Imus tried 'nappy-headed 'hos'; that was overtly racist and that and Al Sharpton hollering got him fired, although he then collected a large cash settlement.
 
Conservatives shopuld be siezing this as an opportunity to show that the free market works. People complained to the network that their product sucked because it included a cultural contaminant, and the network removed it, thus improving the quality of their product, rather than lose revenue by continuing to offer the rejected contaminated product.
 
crimresearch said:
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?
Click to expand...

Baloney.
 
Ladewig said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't think a posting of the 10 Commandments would hurt anybody. A lot of people in this day and age never even heard of them. But there are Constitutional reasons why such would be prohibited -- a negative consequence to living in a multi-cultural society.
 
Try this, Robert Prey:

Even if we believe (contrary to fact) that Buchanan was fired, the motivation for that fictional firing was the belief that he is spewing racist views that would turn away the TV station's audience. Even if you in your idiosyncratic world-view think Buchanan isn't racist, wouldn't you at least admit that the TV station honestly does believe that Buchanan was going to promote a book full of racist views?

That is, your attributing the fictional firing to bigotry and intolerance is wrong, even if you are correct (and you're not) in saying that Buchanan is not racist.

What is your evidence for bigotry and intolerance as the motivation for this fictional firing? Have older white males been underrepresented on the TV news? Or is this just some kind of unexpressed, potential bigotry and intolerance?
 
Robert Prey said:
A lot of people in this day and age never even heard of [the Ten Commandments].
Click to expand...

Evidence?

What a nutty thing to say. Maybe a minority of 5 years olds (those not raised in Judaeo-Christian households who somehow have never run across this bit of the majority religion) haven't yet heard of them.
 
thaiboxerken said:
A trait of racism is the inability to recognize racism.
Click to expand...

Funny, in the thread about the racist comments in Ron Paul's newsletters, defenders kept trying to re-define racism such that the only thing that would qualify as racist is the statement, "I'm racist" or maybe "I hate black people".

Of course, in the real world, many racist comments are prefaced with, "I'm not racist, but. . . . "
 
thaiboxerken said:
It's sad to see bigots try to be the victim.
Click to expand...
You gotta admit, it is kinda sad for bigots. They used to control so much of everything, now, they are relegated to little dark corners of society and having to "speak in code" when they want to display their bigotry. Another proud American institution thrown on the trash heap.
 
Tricky said:
You gotta admit, it is kinda sad for bigots. They used to control so much of everything, now, they are relegated to little dark corners of society and having to "speak in code" when they want to display their bigotry. Another proud American institution thrown on the trash heap.
Click to expand...

I can't be quite as positive about the current state of our society.

Not when books by people like Buchanan still have a large supportive audience, and there is still a Birther movement, and not when Gingrich refers to Obama as "the food stamp president" during a nationally televised debate (and his campaign added that sound bite to a TV ad). Not when we've got absurd anti-immigration movements (passing state laws based on the lie that the federal government doesn't enforce immigration laws despite the fact that federal enforcement is at all-time historic record high levels).

We've come a long way, but I don't think we can yet consider bigotry to be a thing of the past in America.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom