Triumph of the Bigoted, Intolerant Left: Buchanan Fired

[crimresearch]

Federal hires of executive posts, especially Supreme Court since the 60's have always been preferential hires based on ethnicity. Buchanan seems to only be arguing for fairness to Catholics.

Doesn't this just pretty much say it all?

 

[Robert Prey]

Robert: You still have yet to show us how Buchanan's termination was unjust.

Could someone tell me if Buchanan was an At Will employee of CNBC?

"unjust"?? Your words. But bigoted, intolerant -- my words.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

But bigoted, intolerant -- my words.

Which you've yet to substantiate.

I have repeatedly offered to stipulate that Buchanan was fired (even though he wasn't) and that he isn't racist (even though he is) in order to advance the discussion past these sticking points.

Even if we accept those two things, you've still not offered any evidence that his "firing" was due to bigotry and intolerance rather than the result of free market forces.

Ditto the "blacklisted" claim. We can assume again for the sake of advancing the discussion that he was fired and that he isn't racist, and you still have offered nothing to support this particular CT.

 

[Robert Prey]

Which you've yet to substantiate.

I have repeatedly offered to stipulate that Buchanan was fired (even though he wasn't) and that he isn't racist (even though he is) in order to advance the discussion past these sticking points.

Even if we accept those two things, you've still not offered any evidence that his "firing" was due to bigotry and intolerance rather than the result of free market forces.

Ditto the "blacklisted" claim. We can assume again for the sake of advancing the discussion that he was fired and that he isn't racist, and you still have offered nothing to support this particular CT.

It's a subjective opinion. But in your heart you know I'm right.

 

[Shalamar]

It's a subjective opinion. But in your heart you know I'm right.

In your heart, you know you are wrong.

 

[Upchurch]

Federal hires of executive posts, especially Supreme Court, since the 60's have always been preferential hires based on ethnicity. Buchanan seems to only be arguing for fairness to Catholics. This is hardly the same as affirmative action in Education or non-political hires in the private sector.

Actually, Buchanan has argued against the appointment of minority justices to the Supreme Court because he called it "affirmative action". So, this is hypocritical, at the very least.

However, can we agree that this following statement is incorrect?

No where does Pat Buchanan ask for special rights or preferences for anyone.

In fact, he has. He has asked for preferences for white Catholics on at least one occasion.

Do you wish to address any other the other aspects of Buchanan's racism or do you concede those points?

 

[Tomtomkent]

It's a subjective opinion. But in your heart you know I'm right.

No. Because you aren't.

Why on Earth would you keep repeating such an obviously flawed mantra?

In my gut, I feel you're a nut. But I'm not going to keep repeating that in the hope anybody believes it.

 

[crimresearch]

It's a subjective opinion. But in your heart you know I'm right.

OK, then let's go with your subjective opinion and your own words, and stipulate that it is bigoted and intolerant for business owners/managers like MSNBC to be able to decide who can work for them .

What should be done to stop these businesses from acting on their bigotry and intolerance?

 

[Upchurch]

Actually, Buchanan has argued against the appointment of minority justices to the Supreme Court because he called it "affirmative action". So, this is hypocritical, at the very least.

I felt I should support this statement a little.

Pat Buchanan Attacks Affirmative Action And Sonia Sotomayor

Yesterday, on MSNBC, Pat Buchanan attacked Sonia Sotomayor specifically, and affirmative action in general. Included in his attack were such claims as "this has been a country built basically by white folks," that Sonia Sotomayor was purely an affirmative action candidate who lacks real credentials and his suggestion that we need more white-male Supreme Court nominees---like Robert Bork---despite the fact that 108 of the 110 United Supreme Court Justices in our nation's history have been white.

ARE LIBERALS ANTI-WASP?

Indeed, of the last seven justices nominated by Democrats JFK, LBJ, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, one was black, Marshall; one was Puerto Rican, Sonia Sotomayor. The other five were Jews: Arthur Goldberg, Abe Fortas, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan.

If Kagan is confirmed, Jews, who represent less than 2 percent of the U.S. population, will have 33 percent of the Supreme Court seats.

Is this the Democrats’ idea of diversity?

Don’t miss Buchanan’s classic book “The Death of the West”

But while leaders in the black community may be upset, the folks who look more like the real targets of liberal bias are white Protestants and Catholics, who still constitute well over half of the U.S. population.

Not in living memory has a Democratic president nominated an Irish, Italian or Polish Catholic, though these ethnic communities once gave the party its greatest victories in the cities and states of the North.

So much for Buchanan's merit-based claims. Apparently, he thinks there are too many damned minorities on the Supreme Court.

 

[TimCallahan]

It's a subjective opinion. But in your heart you know I'm right.

If it's a subjective opinion, then your entire rationale for initiating this thread is baseless.

 

[Tricky]

"unjust"?? Your words. But bigoted, intolerant -- my words.

Okay, I can agree that the network is bigoted against and intolerant of intolerant bigots like Buchanan. Happy?

 

[crimresearch]

I felt I should support this statement a little.

Pat Buchanan Attacks Affirmative Action And Sonia Sotomayor


ARE LIBERALS ANTI-WASP?

So much for Buchanan's merit-based claims. Apparently, he thinks there are too many damned minorities on the Supreme Court.

As in 'any minorities is too many minorities'?

But don't worry, I'm sure that Robert Prey will be along any second to explain his plan for putting an end to bigotry and intolerance in federal executive branch hires, like the Supreme Court.

Right after he answers the questions about what was actually written in Buchanan's book.

 

[Cleon]

It's a subjective opinion. But in your heart you know I'm right.

Baloney.

 

[Upchurch]

But in your heart you know I'm right.

In regards to the evidence, you know you're wrong.

 

[Robert Prey]

As in 'any minorities is too many minorities'?

But don't worry, I'm sure that Robert Prey will be along any second to explain his plan for putting an end to bigotry and intolerance is federal executive branch hires, like the Supreme Court.

Right after he answers the questions about what was actually written in Buchanan's book.

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." -- Sonya Sotomayor

Buchanan Validated. Nuff said.

 

[Upchurch]

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." -- Sonya Sotomayor

Buchanan Validated. Nuff said.

"Buchanan Validated" about what?

 

[A'isha]

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." -- Sonya Sotomayor

Buchanan Validated. Nuff said.

I know you're a troll and all who's posting from a Master List of Looney Right-Wing Talking Points Specially Designed to Wind People Up, but in case some other person reading this thread is in doubt, here's what she actually said.

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.

Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.

However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.

 

[Upchurch]

I know you're a troll and all who's posting from a Master List of Looney Right-Wing Talking Points Specially Designed to Wind People Up, but in case some other person reading this thread is in doubt, here's what she actually said.

Thanks, ANTPogo. I had that exact source and nearly that exact quote waiting in the wings in case Robert had come up with anything close to a rationale to how that was relevant to the Buchanan.

I'm guessing he was going for a tu quoque and missed, but I'm willing to be surprised.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

It's a subjective opinion.

So you retract your claim?

But in your heart you know I'm right.

No.

I believe very strongly that you are wrong. And that belief aligns with your utter inability to offer any evidence to support your claim.

 

[crimresearch]

So you retract your claim?



No.

I believe very strongly that you are wrong. And that belief aligns with your utter inability to offer any evidence to support your claim.

I think ANTPogo is closer, in that Robert Prey could easily give relevant answers to the questions he is running away from, but is having too much fun pretending otherwise, and is too lazy to actually think up his own material.