First off, I think the burden of proof is on the one making the assertion of racism. Various people have presented evidence of bigotry in the case of Buchanan; someone would have to do the same to show that Gore or Bush are also racists. Second, there is a difference between a candidate with purely hypothetical racism hidden in his heart, and a candidate who actually campaigns as a bigot.
I heard a advertisement for him just yesterday the phrase “Lets put americans first” or something like that just made me hate him. Its like the way most of the straight dope is “above average intelligence” that just grates on my nerves.
To steal a headline from The Onion:
"Buchanan Woos Gay Vote: ‘I promise I will not incinerate you’. "
“And for that reason, I ask the question, ‘Why not Buchanan?’. Does anyone have any proof that the other candidates aren’t as racist or prejudice as Buchanan? They are both of the upper income class.”
And of course, everyone’s who’s rich is automatically racist. :rolleyes:
Um, excuse me?
Perhaps you meant to say “myogynist” or “rapist” instead of “womanizer”. Do you really equate someone who sleeps around with someone who despises entire peoples because of the color of their skin?
Let’s take this out of the context of Buchanan and Clinton for a second, and let us know if this is really your world view.
Sua
I know, I know, you didn’t ask me. 
However, here’s my take.
A womanizer has DONE something: he has cheated on a person to whom he has a commitment. In addition to the unfaithful act itself, such action almost always involves additional deceit. By his actions, he has shown himself unfaithful, dishonest, and untrustworthy.
A racist, on the other hand, only THINKS bad things (let’s assume for the moment that as unsavory as Buchanan is he’s never actually carried out a racist act).
So, yeah, being a womanizer is as bad if not worse than being a racist. Actions trump thoughts and opinions.
That would be an adulterer, not a womanizer. A womanizer just has lots of relationships, although they may or may not be adulterous.
Touche, Ptahlis, you’re absolutely correct.
I ass-u-me’d that Pico DeGallo was making a backhanded reference to Bill Clinton, who is an adulterer, but on re-reading the post I suppose he could be talking about someone else.
I am pretty sure it indeed was a slap at Clinton, who is certainly both adulterer and womanizer. I’m just picky
You are making a false assumption that racists don’t act on their beliefs. The racist boss doesn’t hire/promote minorities, the racist taxi driver won’t drive blacks home, etc. I’d go so far to say that the average racist commits a racist act considerably more often than the average adulterer sins.
Sua
Palandine, while you modified your response to be talking about adulterers, Pico did use the word “womanizer”. I still need his response.
Sua
Well, I guess we’re getting into hair-splitting territory here.
You said:
I’d go so far to say that the average racist commits a racist act considerably more often than the average adulterer sins.
I would disagree, although I suppose neither of us could find scientific evidence to back us up. The average racist is someone with no power to discriminate. My dad isn’t crazy about black people, and I hate that. However, he has certainly never discriminated against a black person or committed a racist act. I just think one must separate action from thought, or you get into the Orwellian thought crime scenarios discussed in all the GD threads about hate crimes lgeislation. It does appear that Buchanan has some racist beliefs. On the other hand, IIRC, his running mate is a black woman. It’s been established that Clinton is an adulterer; I’m not sure it’s been established that Buchanan commits racist ACTS, so I stand by my premise–actions trump thoughts and opinions.
I strongly disagree. I think the problem is that you have an incomplete definition of racism. You seem to think that racism exists only in the mind of racists, and doesn’t affect the outside world. A quick review of American history belies that premise, be it slavery, Jim Crow laws, or the (still existing) country clubs that don’t allow black or Jewish members.
Again, I strongly disagree. A racist with a dollar in his pocket has the power to discriminate by refusing to buy his coffee at the corner store run by “filthy” Koreans. The cab driver, not very high up in the social structure of our country, can discriminate by refusing to stop for the black man. The racists who rents an apartment has the power to discriminate by refusing to hire a black plumber to unclog his toilet.
And you can’t say this doesn’t count. The racists in the examples I give are only hurting one person. Well, so is the adulterer.
Sua
Yeah, Pat’s Catholic. I’m so ashamed. His mom must’ve been sneaking the Communion wine from the altar boys when she was pregnant.
Something interesting: a teacher who retired and then worked as a substitute at my parochial school told us that Pat was her COUSIN. Yikes! (she died recently, though, nice woman). Apparently, they would play together occassionally as children.
Let’s see, according to the Skeletons in the Closet link (thanks Caliban) (and while I have no idea how accurate this site is-
-Buchanan’s heros are Francisco Franco and Joseph McCarthy.
-He praised Hitler:
-He is a Holocaust revisionist…a most vile disgusting theory…
-He supposedly avoided the draft for 'Nam because he had chlamydia? :eek:
Um, no. He was rated “4F” (or whatever the undraftable classification was back then) due to a bum knee.
He is now an avid jogger. 
Sua
Sua: No, I don’t “equate someone who sleeps around with someone who despises entire peoples because of the color of their skin?” I do, however, equate Clintons whole attitude and total disrespect for women, as being the same thing as racism. Except in his case, it’s called sexism. I don’t quite understand why so many women are infatuated with him and defend him so vigorously. He is NOT just someone that “sleeps around”. He is a sexist. I suspect strongly if he were of any other party he would be quickly dismissed and wouldn’t garner the support of women that he has. Nevertheless, I still say that he is just as bad as a racist simply by his treatment of certain women, Monica excluded, that did not want his sexual advancements. He has treated women as if they are sub-human for most of his life. That, to me, equals racism, although it is sexism, i.e., the same thing.
Asmodean: And the problem with putting “Americans first” is??? Or are you equating that statement to only mean “white people”? I certainly think we should put America and Americans first. I believe foreign aid should be cut drastically and directed back to our own country and our own problems, for the time being. After we fix a lot of our problems, perhaps we can then again begin helping other countries. Although, I think that money should be better directed and more guidlines in place. Another thing Buchanan said the other night is that we should remove China’s MFN status. I couldn’t agree more! They are poised to take over all of Asia, which by the way IS their goal, and hurt our friends and allies that we have in that region. I fear we soon won’t be able to stop them unless we make some demands on them and put severe restrictions in place.
I saw another thread on this board about taking money away from the military and directing it towards healthcare. Let me remind everyone that while the Reagan years did bring huge deficits, it also caused Communism in Russia and East Germany to crumble. I wish we could do more for Russia because it’s current state isn’t very promising. They could easily regress to communism, but I don’t really know what more we can do. Any ideas?
The Clinton years have now produced huge surpluses. IMHO, the government should NEVER EVER have a surplus. That, to me, is akin to the government making a profit. They have no business profiting from those of us that pay the bills. There should be enough money to cover the bills and the rest should be returned to US.
About Hitler: He was a very bad man. But he wasn’t a total idiot. It is right to dislike, even hate him, but that doesn’t change the fact that he was quite brilliant and charasmatic. If he wouldn’t have been so greedy I suspect Germany would be a much larger nation today. He underestimated the rest of the world. A huge mistake on his part but a huge benefit for the rest of Europe.
PicoDeGallo wrote:
It wouldn’t have much effect – our total foreign aid expenditures are something like 1-2% of the federal budget. The various pork barrel projects Congress is pushing through as we speak probably account for more than that.
Well, you’re against foreign aid, so that’s out. Note that, properly administered, foreign aid can do lots of good – remember the Marshall Plan?
3WayGeek: When, exactly, did I say I was “against foreign aid”?? Is it just that you can’t read??
I agree about pork barrel spending. However, I’d like to know your definition of it. Other then obvious things like studying cow emissions.
The problem is that the American people don’t hold congress accountable. We have just resigned ourselves to just put up with it.
PicodeGallo-what you propose is called Isolationism.
No one said Hitler was stupid. Well, maybe in some ways. But he was clever. But what difference does that make?
Buchanan is an asshole. And he doesn’t want to include African Americans, so your point is moot.
I’m puzzled by this assertion. Clinton seems to have done a moderately good job in promoting and appointing women to positions of power, e.g. Madeline Albright. You seem to be confusing your version of morality with sexism. Sure he’s a ho, does that make him evil? Nah. His personal relations with women he’s intimate with seem to reflect an emotional shallowness, but not hatred of women. Anyways, barring real proof of abuse --not conspiracy tales-- this has no place in judging a public figure. You’re letting your evident hatred of the man get in the way of clear thinking.
Ooooh. A whole 1% of the budget at best!!! And you presume falsely that foreign aid is not given in our own interests (such as promoting exports etc.) US foreign aid goes to promote our interests.
This does what for us? It may have escaped you, but our friends and allies in the region engage in trade with China, invest in China and supported normal trade relations with China. China is not poised to take over all of Asia, although as it gets richer it certainly will have greater weight. However, a rich well-integrated China is better than a poor desperate China. Buchanan is an ignorant racist who hasn’t left the 1950s.
Oh yeah, let’s go back to the resounding success of the 1930s model of politics.
It seems to escape you that (1) most of the surpluses are PROJECTED – they have yet to come to pass (2) the current surplus does not mean Reagan era debt is paid off, quite the contrary, the debt stock is still quite large. Rather we are no longer adding debt and have begun to pay down the debt stock. Rather like you’ve stopped charging up your credit card bill and have begun to pay it off. It doesn’t go away by magic.
I have no idea what to say to this.