Triumph of the Bigoted, Intolerant Left: Buchanan Fired

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.

Yes, there are millions of White people in America unwilling to surrender.
 
If whites were a minority and historically disenfranchised I sure hope like hell there would be a "Congressional White Caucus".

That’s the point of Buchannan’s book which is essentially the same point made in 1972 with the book The Dispossessed Majority.
 
If whites were a minority and historically disenfranchised I sure hope like hell there would be a "Congressional White Caucus".

You know for generations there was a Congressional White Male Caucus, but it was simply called Congress.
 
The notion that the Congressional Black Caucus is "racist" assumes wrongly that our country is and always has been color blind. [ETA: It also assumes that the problem of racism can only be solved by ignoring it!] Of course the facts refute that assumption. Black people were actually owned as slaves! It took a Constitutional Amendment to grant them citizenship and the right to vote!

But again, back to Robert Prey's original claim: it's not even necessary to prove that Buchanan is racist (or that his new book makes racist comments) in order to refute the claim that he was fired denied permission to promote his book and that decision was motivated by bigotry and intolerance.

Without any evidence to the contrary, it's much more reasonable to believe that it was motivated by financial self-interest. Obviously the network has long given him a platform to say bizarre things. Somewhere along the line, they decided that that was no longer profitable. Or perhaps promoting the book was what they perceived as crossing a line between marketable nonsense and nonsense that would hurt them.

Any or all of these are much more reasonable explanations than bigotry and intolerance. And lacking any evidence for Robert Prey's claim, it's reasonable to reject that claim.

Robert?
 
Last edited:
Look at the type of people MSNBC is allowing as political commentators on their programs now: the communist Angela Davis.
Cool. Freedom of speech and access to dissenting opinions has grown stronger with the departure of the worthlews old fart.

We have enough mouth-breathing right-wing blathermeisters to last until the end of the Holocene as it is. Fox Boobs can support a sanctuary for them on their dime. No reason to tie up a chair at MSNBC.
 
This reminds me of the Christian right crying about religious intolerance when people ask them to stop picking on the muslims.
 
Triumph of the Bigoted, Intolerant Left: Buchanan Fired *




















* Fuelair looks up as the title goes by above, stretches "yaaaaaawwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnn." he says and goes back to sleep - waiting for some important news about someone who isn't a conservative pretending racist piece of fecal matter to waft gently his way.
 
Other ...er, "mistruths" aside, who said anything about Buchanan being blacklisted? Do you understand what that term means?

I 'spects he thinks it a race-based term. Meaning, I would assume, he's on a list Blacks put out of people who won't be coming to their dinner.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::jaw-dropp
 
Non-issue. You're stalling. You could have addressed all eight for all the time and energy you've spent complaining that I've given you too much evidence of Buchanan's racism.
?

This is about a book which you have not read and thus you have nothing to contribute to the discussion.
 
The notion that the Congressional Black Caucus is "racist" assumes wrongly that our country is and always has been color blind.

The "notion" that the Congressional Black Caucus is racist is because it is an organization that only allows membership based on skin color -- the very thing that MLK spoke out against. The very name is an abomination and to defend it is akin to defending the very same racial philosophy of the Ku Klux Klan.
 
Last edited:
This is about a book which you have not read and thus you have nothing to contribute to the discussion.

You asked for racist quotes. They were provided. You hand waived them.

So, answer the question. What would you consider a racist quote? Give an example.
 
The "notion" that the Congressional Black Caucus is racist is because it is an organization that only allows membership based on skin color -- the very thing that MLK spoke out against. The very name is an abomination and to defend it is akin to defending the very same racial philosophy of the Ku Klux Klan.

I bet you're really up in arms about these guys, too. :rolleyes:
 
The "notion" that the Congressional Black Caucus is racist is because it is an organization that only allows membership based on skin color -- the very thing that MLK spoke out against. The very name is an abomination and to defend it is akin to defending the very same racial philosophy of the Ku Klux Klan.

I missed the part where the CBC organized bombings, shootings, torturing white people to death over perceived slights, and general black supremacist terrorism that was either ignored or tacitly approved by local and state governments.

Because if they did all of that, then they would be akin to the KKK. But not until then. One may as well say that Katie Couric is the commentator equivalent of Pat Buchanan.
 

Back
Top Bottom