It seemed to me and I think Madow was hitting Buchanan on this, was that he gave the impression he believed that white men ‘earned’ their status; that they had right to their status, because they ‘made’ America; while the affirmation action babies usurped theirs.
If you notice when asked about Palin, he noted that she earned her place, while our latin judge was ‘given’ hers.
He listed the accomplishments of whites as proof of their contribution and their right to be the leaders of the America, while in my opinion, downplaying the ‘blacks’ contributions; even as he admitted that they were held back.
So to me, he wasn’t saying that the reason all Supreme Court Justices were white was because society gave they had all the power for centuries, but that it was because white people earned the right to be Supreme Court Justices, because they made America.
…and everyone else regardless of the reason, didn’t do much to earn a place at the table.
Well, I have to say many are relying on past history; for example, magellan01 used to get cites from places like VDare, but he got better. There is nothing racist IMO on what magellan01 said in this thread, however I do remember some positions in the past that came from magellan01 that explain IMO where Biggirl is coming from.
Biggirl, maybe magellan01 used to go to poisoned wells before, but I have to say that he is getting better.
There is a distinction to be made between what you are saying in this quote and what Buchanan was saying. He thinks Sotomayor is nothing more than an affirmative action appointment by President Obama and is not otherwise qualified at all. I think that is an unsubstantiated opinion, considering that Sotomayor is more qualified for the position, based on her resume of judicial experience, than Alito or Roberts. You don’t have to squink too hard to see the racism in what he’s saying.
If I had to hazard a guess, I’d say that what makes it racist is the fact that Buchanan refused to acknowledge two points: that the reason 108 out of 110 of the SCOTUS justices were women is because the system is/was gamed against women and minorities, and that Sotomayor has no merit as a nominee whatsoever except that she’s a Latina woman. Buchanan is saying, without reservation, that white people are the victims of discrimination in this country, and that America is being done a disservice by the appointment of Sotomayor because she is by far an inferior candidate compared to some unnamed white jurist who could have been appointed in her place, had Obama et al not been enacting an agenda of affirmative action by picking her. Rachel Maddow did a very good job of debunking this ridiculous argument, btw.
Now, if you, magellan01, do not adhere to what Buchanan is saying (and yes, I watched the whole clip), and are in fact making different points, then you do not deserve to be tarred with the same brush as Buchanan. But Mr. Buchanan is definitely making what I consider to be a disingenuously racist argument. Hell, he dismissed Sotomayor making Yale Law Review, and achieving high grades in college and law school, as simply the result of affirmative action and due to no merit of Sotomayor’s whatsoever. Come on.
Also, Rachel Maddow is my frickin’ hero. She kicked Buchanan’s ass in that debate.
Hey you know what, go sit on a cactus covered in orange juice, you dumb fuck. And you accuse me of poising the well? :rolleyes: And providing cites to anything, whether you and your precious dumb ass approve of them or not (like I give a shit), has nothing to do with this thread. I pray that one day you realize how dumb you are. What sweet justice.
I was laughing when he was repeating trying to drag in the “firefighter case” in some vain attempt to get it to prove Sotomayor is not fit for the job (“What was your grades Pat?” was also a favourite of mine).
All he had was just racist smoke screens and random screaming; red-faced bluster is just so delicious in the morning.
I was commenting on the passage the Dumbgirl highlighted in her OP. That is what the discussion has been about. I don’t agree with everything Buchanan said, so I’ve not been attempting to defend all of what he said. For instance, I thought his call for Republicans to make hay out of this was dumb. Not racist, just dumb and unhelpful.
I guess it all depends from where you sit. I saw her as unable or unwilling to see the point he was making and all to eager to marginalize him.
You are really dumb, I was indeed testing if you had gotten better, I guess I have to conclude you did not learn anything about why VDare should never had to be used as a reliable source. If you can not notice that you are only making me agree now with **Biggirl **you are hopeless.
I think it’s OK to take into account everything Buchanan said, not just one cherry picked quote, to decide whether or not he’s racist. I think a lot of what he said was dumb and unhelpful, and painfully myopic.
What point was he making, other than the ones I outlined? I followed along with the clip, summarizing. Did I miss something?
Fair enough. But if you’r going to do that you have to take into account the merit to his arguments. Also, it’s hard to call a man a racist when he chose a black woman to be his running mate. Just doesn’t seem like something a racist would do. To me, anyway. I’ll add that I think this rush to label people who disagree with the left on issues of race as Racist is unfair, and lame, in the extreme.
That he wasn’t questioning the benefit of having a Hispanic on the court, just, possibly, this particular Latina. Who, by her own admission might not be the most brilliant thinker (as suggested by her test scores). He then pointed out that he immediately opposed the confirmation of Republican, Harriet Meiers, and he endorsed a Latino who he considered a brilliant thinker, Miguel Estrada. He was questioning Sotomayor’s excellence as a thinker, a quality he values in a SC justice. The fact that she benefitted from affirmative action gives the view that she might not be of that caliber some support. (Which is a problem with AA writ large.) He also cited a dearth of writings that would argue for her intellect. I have no opinion on her legal brilliance, as I am unqualified, even if I had the time, to evaluate her legal mind and compare it to an elite group. To me, she has an extremely impressive story.
So, your assessment of the facts in this thread, in which I’ve not cited anything, changes because of the feelings I have for you, based on the personal nature of your last post.
tell me, if I compliment you on the color of your eyes here, will you then come to my defense again?
Thanks for airing your intellectual backbone for all to see.
I’ll be honest with you-- I think Buchanan is a very interesting person, and cannot be defined solely by the descriptor “racist.” So I’ll give you that. Buchanan is a complicated person and I wouldn’t care to summarize him. However, I find that “affirmative action is oppressing white people” to be a racist argument, and very stupid. That, and as I said, Buchanan’s unwillingness to acknowledge that the historical composition of the SCOTUS might have been the result of a rigged system. He is whining like a bitch over affirmative action and totally dismissing how massively rigged the system has always been in the other direction. Arguments like this make it easy for people to see him as a racist, even if the whole story about him is more nuanced.
I think she’s got a resume that more than amply qualifies her to be on the SCOTUS. I didn’t find Buchanan’s arguments against her to be particularly compelling. Neither did Rachel Maddow, and she said so. FYI, Sotomayor graduated summa cum laude from Princeton, and edited the Yale Law Journal. Her “scores” were obviously excellent, regardless of how she initially got admission to those vaunted institutions.
Why is that supposed to mean that I’m airing my intellectual backbone?
I only was explaining to **mswas **that I understood why Biggirl is acting that way, it does not mean that I approve of it.
However, just by not explaining that you dumped Vdare from your sources is the reason why I begin to doubt you sincerity here.
When you said to **Biggirl **that:
“1. I don’t believe that at all.
2. I don’t believe that at all.”
I also remembered where you got your information in the past, I then explained to **mswas **where she and others were coming from. It may not be fair, but memories do count in this message board.
Based on your responses here I do take into consideration that you are not the magellan01 of the past. Now, as it was so easy in her case, I will only ask the question your silliness has brought forth. Do you understand now why Vdare was a bad source to use when **Biggirl **and others like me got upset with you in the past?
BTW I’m still trying to hang to the idea that you are just following crackpots, I still think that you are not a racist.
Thank you very much. I appreciate your candid response and find no fault with it.
The problem with those kinds of facts, as posed by nutballs like Pat Buchanan, is that it is assumed that the fact that this dominance existed is evidence of innate superiority, when it has been shown historically that there have been shifts in who is ‘dominant’… racially speaking–and to even fight against this particular line of thought is to implicitly buy in to the nonscientific concept of … to put it bluntly… skin color = subspecies.
Even facts can be used as spin if even more facts are not used in the service of the big picture.
Ah yes, the tendency of some white people to flee when someone of a different race lives near them. Pure comedy gold! I can’t … stop… oh my god… snort.
1,465 dead on D-Day. Assuming casualties were proportionate… two to three percent of those were black soldiers. Call it 30 soldiers. Plus or minus.
Hm. More information, including pictures. They were broken up among other units, because of their job, and hit both Normandy and Utah. http://www.bjmjr.net/ww2/320aabb_index.htm Stars and Stripes report, period, reporting multiple deaths. And some understated heroism. Staying put while a plane strafes you, hoping it runs into wires. Being among the first on the beach to set up an aid station.
Yeah. Close to a hundred percent were white. But the ones who weren’t were Americans.
And that’s all that matters, Pat. We know you’d rather have been working with Hitler, we know the Bund is your kind of people. I’d rather be with the men of the 320th.
Anyone who cannot figure out why Buchanan’s statement was racist appropriate only for the White Power network is just being obtuse in the cause of defending a racist statement.
It seems to me that they are contending that white men were pretty much the only group of people that were allowed to train and prepare sufficiently to serve on SCOTUS for most of the history of this country. Certainly it was the existing racist and sexist policies and mores that resulted in the lack of opportunity for women and minorities to gain the experience, education, and position needed to qualify to serve on the SCOTUS, but the overwhelming majority of these people never had any chance to learn and experience what was needed to serve.
I’m sure that one or two hundred years ago roughly the same number of women and minorities had the raw ability to serve as a Supreme Court Justice as did white males. But, because of our proud tradition of discrimination, racism and sexism, most of those folks never had the opportunity to properly nurture that ability and therefore, weren’t well-suited to join the Big Bench.
(Of course, the tiny number of women and minorities that perhaps WERE qualified to join the SCOTUS were completely ignored and shunned.)
I could say so many things. But I think I’ll just say he was rather wrong about Gettysberg. He was totally wrong about Vicsberg (just visited the site of the commoration of the black troops who were there).
BTW what this then about not saying 'fuck you"? It’s not sexual. It’s been an insult, not a sexual one for centuries. Can I say unfuck you? And cocksucker. what if you mean it as a compliment? Or cunt. What if it’s said out of affection?
