I have over 8,000 posts to this board. Kindly point to one. single. post. of mine that expresses a belief in what LavenderBlue said.
Too late.
And the Henry Louis Gates Award for Unjustified Racial Offense goes to…
Biggirl!
Yay, yay. Applause. Applause.
Buchanan for all his faults was not talking about race in his final sentence or in his final three sentences. (Furthermore, and contrary to popular opinion, neither objecting to affirmative action nor benefits for illegal aliens is racist.)
In that column, Buchanan was talking about responsible law abiding mainstream Christian and conservative citizens who go to work each day and pay their taxes and expect a well-run government in return (or at least one that delivers what it promises), and the fact that what they are getting instead is a govenment that is out of control, [deficit] spending like drunken sailors, propping up businesses that don’t deserve it, and then allowing people to flood into the country and break the law, and then paying for their education and health needs when they do.
Not everything that benefits a person who is non-white is good, and not everything that is a detriment to a person who is non-white is bad. We have immigration laws here. You know, just like every other country on the planet. Thinking that those laws should be enforced is not racist! If anything those who think they shouldn’t be enforced are racist, because they (you) favor preferential treatment for certain lawbreakers based solely on the color of their skin.
Strange that he was talking about race in all the other sentences, and didn’t bother to specify when he wasn’t in the last three. Are there footnotes to that article that only conservatives can read?
SA, here’s a handy rule of thumb: people who complain that good Christian whites are “losing the country” are racists.
I’d like to add that the type of person who complains about illegal immigrants waving Mexican flags, while conveniently not mentioning St. Patrick’s Day Parades etc seems to have higher than average chance of being a racist. Just in my personal experience, of course.
Why SA, how could I have been so wrong? Of course when Pat talks about marching with Mexican flags while destroying this country, he’s not insulting me. When he talks about the Obamas benefitting from AA, he’s not insulting me. Noooooo. It’s those other Black and Hispanic people he’s saying aren’t real, traditional Americans.
Since I’m both African American AND hispanic plus an atheist, I’m sure he’s including me with those hard working real people. No way is he trying to say that me and mine are nothing but get-over artists. He’s not implying that what I accomplished isn’t due to my own hard work but the work of Traditional Americans who oh, so stupidly hire inferior non-Trads because of AA. He’s not straight out telling me that me and mine are stealing from and destroying this country.
Ayeup, not a trace of bigotry in that story. I don’t know what I was thinking.
Let’s look at the article. On the one side, we have the “they” who are “losing their country”:
“Traditional Americans” (from the headline)
“Middle America”
“Whites”
“white America”
“Middle Pennsylvanians”
“white working-class voters”
“their Christian faith”
– all equated, i.e., clearly intended as different names for the same group.
And, on the other side, against the above, we have:
“Pelosi-Reid progressives”
“the mainstream media”
“illegal aliens”
persons “who benefitted from affirmative action,” like “Barack and Michelle Obama”
:dubious: If you say Buchanan is not here talking about race, you are either an idiot, a liar, or both.
Progressives intend to create a “new majority” consisting of a coalition between white progressives, blacks and Hispanics. Towards this end, they have been working to dispossess and disempower middle and working class whites for decades. The tea parties and other manifestations of discontent we’ve seen recently are in large part a response to that political and cultural war against middle and working class whites. Now they’re becoming radicalized in ways you don’t like, they’re finally fighting back. They’re not singing hymns to the wonders and beauty of diversity while they drink the Kool-Aid they way you think they should. You don’t like that. You want them to just shut up and do as they’re told.
Deny it, and you’re the one who’s either an idiot, a liar or both.
Christ, you’re dumb enough that you still take the $PLC seriously?
Look, you dumb slut, if hundreds of thousands of gringos paraded in Mexico waving American flags, insisting that the land really belonged to them and that Mexico should amend it’s laws to their liking, you would have no trouble recognizing the blatant aggression involved. But because whites are the targets and not the perpetrators, you think it’s no big deal and no one should be upset about it.
Your problem isn’t that whites are “racist.” Your problem is that they won’t just lie down and die, and get out of your way.
Why do you exlude white progressives* from the middle class, not to mention the working class? Do you think only rich Hollywood white folk support things like universal health care, livable wages, and green technology?
What, exactly, are progressives doing to dispossess and disempower the white people you are talking about? Pat makes the same lament, but never gets around to explaining the mechanism by which all this disenfranchisment is occuring. Can they vote? Yes. Can they write their congressmen? Yes. Is anyone trying to keep them from conducting peaceful protest? No. Are they subject to unfair detainment, incarceration, or harrassment that is sanctioned by the government? Paint us a clearer picture here.
I’m not going to deny that there isn’t suffering going on. Of course there is. The question is 1) why do these white folk you are talking about think they are suffering more than anyone else and 2) why do they blame progressives for their suffering and not the conservatives who were in office less than a year ago and the preceding 8 years? Why are they blaming the government at all, and not focusing their attention on the uncontrolled free market that many of them pay lip service to but only when it works in their favor?
Yeah, last St. Patrick’s Day, I took a gun into downtown Manhattan and gave all those whities what for. What, no I didn’t, you fucking asshole.
Stand back, peckerwood. The coloreds are coming and we’re taking ova, yo! Nothing but a sea of metzos and blacks for as far as the eye can see, so go ahead and ride your Storm straight to the Front. Don’t forget your hood and your burning cross-- I hear from some guy named Bucanan that it’s coming back in style.
Oh and since I usually don’t make it a habit to talk to racist dumbfucks, I probably won’t be rising to your race-bait again.
Um… why? What exactly is the common cause between these three groups? What social or political issues do these groups agree on? Gay rights? Not real popular with blacks. Abortion? I don’t see the largely Catholic Hispanics getting all fired up about that. Affirmative action? What’s in it for the rich white folks? Screwing the poor? Two thirds of the coalition is already largely poor, why would they want to screw themselves? Kill whitey? I think the white progressives are going to see the obvious drawback for themselves there. You seem to have picked three groups for which you have a pre-existing hatred, and assumed an alliance between them that makes no rational sense.
I don’t know. Maybe if I started drinking Sterno straight from the can, the way you evidently do, this whole plot would suddenly come into focus.
Well, I’m a white working/middle class progressive.
I don’t know if I need to do something to keep people like me from be oppressed by people like me, or if I’m just getting too uppity for my own good.
And in another irony, probably also completely dissimilar to the historical meaning of Progressive. I say ironic because the original Progressives were as close to the opposite of an anti-scientific political group as you could think up.
So it makes Buchanan a racist, as if there were any doubt.
:rolleyes: To call that “bullshit” would be a slander on the integrity of bovine feces.
No “finally” about it, it’s essentially the same thing as George Wallace’ presidential campaign in 1968 and many earlier phenomena, and indefensible then and now.
When it comes to tracking hate groups, and the “Oath Keepers” unmistakeably fit that description, the best nongovernmental sources are the SPLC and the ADL.
Click the link; I know all about the early-20th-Century Progressives. But words change over time. E.g., “liberal” no longer means what is now meant by “libertarian” and should never be used in that sense. Nor is “anti-scientific” a fair characterization of the “progressive” position as I am defining it. :dubious:
