Pat Buchanan Has Lost It

[mactastic]

I suppose I should boycott whatever state Buchanan is from...
Link'd (http://thinkprogress.org/2006/08/31/buchanan-white-country/)
COLMES: Would you prefer only white immigrants?

BUCHANAN: No. What I would like is — I’d like the country I grew up in. It was a good country. I lived in Washington, D.C., 400,000 black folks, 400,000 white folks, in a country 89 or 90 percent white. I like that country.

We didn’t vote to change it. In 1965, in the Immigration Act, Teddy Kennedy said we’re going to maintain immigration at about present levels and numbers, and we will not consciously alter the character…

(CROSSTALK)

COLMES: All right, but are you saying we should work to keep an 89 percent white country? Is that what you believe we should do?

BUCHANAN: No, no. What I believe is that people should not deliberately alter the character and composition of the country without consulting the American people. If you adopt two children, Alan, you’re going to go in and you’re going to decide who comes. Who should decide who comes and who doesn’t? First, illegals should not come. Secondarily, the American people should be consulted how many immigrants come, what are the criteria. And we haven’t been consulted.

COLMES: But it sounds like what you’re saying, though, that we should keep the status as it was back then, with the certain percentages of different ethnic groups, meaning 89 percent white, not changing that to any great extent. Is that pretty much what you’re saying?

BUCHANAN: That is what — 1964, John F. Kennedy’s book was reprinted. You know what he said? He said we should change — no higher immigration, and what we should do is — the quotas given to Germans, and Irish, and English, and others that are not used should be given to folks from Eastern Europe and Southern Europe. That’s what Kennedy said. I would go along with that. I supported that in a book.
Wow. Surely that rivals Ray Nagin for insensitive...

[thedude110]

Poor Pat Buchanan.

Once in a whlie, he says something really reasonable. Usually he says stuff that's plain disagreeable. And then once in a while, he just says something that's so wildly ... odd that you sort of rub your eyes and look again.

Such is xenophobia, I guess. How can you admit you're afraid when you have no freaking idea that fear is at the base of your neuroses?

[iGary]

I hope he dies.

[pseudobrit]

I hope he dies.

I hope it hurts.

[solvs]

I hope he dies.
Kinda harsh don't you think. I mean, sure, it was a very stupid thing to say. He does that a lot. But, I mean, what are you... him? :p

[Chundles]

Who is this bloke? Sounds like someone interviewed him just as he woke up after a heavy night.

Nut bag.

[Thomas Veil]

Who is this bloke?Right-wing TV commentator and former candidate for President of the United States...believe it or not.

Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Buchanan)

And yeah, he's a whack job.

[Glen Quagmire]

Per Buchanan: "What I believe is that people should not deliberately alter the character and composition of the country without consulting the American people"

Does that mean he was opposed to the white settlers massacring Native Americans as well? Were the Native Americans consulted prior to being wiped out?

[CorvusCamenarum]

I heard him on Coast to Coast AM for a bit last night before I went to bed (I just love that program; that have the most...interesting characters on the show). In the part of the interview I heard, he was going on and on about how he thinks the US is basically the last line of defense against One World Government™. He also spoke of how the people who wanted to create this perceived Utopia have forgotten that paradise comes in the next life, not this one.

He's an odd one that's for sure.

[skunk]

Per Buchanan: "What I believe is that people should not deliberately alter the character and composition of the country without consulting the American people"

Does that mean he was opposed to the white settlers massacring Native Americans as well? Were the Native Americans consulted prior to being wiped out?Of course not. They were squatters.

[leekohler]

Who is this bloke? Sounds like someone interviewed him just as he woke up after a heavy night.

Nut bag.

Unfortunately, he most likely represents about half of this country. :(

[aquajet]

Right-wing TV commentator...

With the most grating voice on television I've ever heard.

I'm with dude on this one. Generally a nut, but occasionally he'll say something intelligent. I just can't think of anything right now.

[xsedrinam]

Originally Posted by Glen Quagmire
Per Buchanan: "What I believe is that people should not deliberately alter the character and composition of the country without consulting the American people"

Does that mean he was opposed to the white settlers massacring Native Americans as well? Were the Native Americans consulted prior to being wiped out?
Of course not. They were squatters.
Which naturally leads to: Buchanan doesn't know squat.

[solvs]

Unfortunately, he most likely represents about half of this country. :(
Half of the voters. ;) Most people don't give a ****.

[Josh]

Context = taken out of.

[mactastic]

Context = taken out of.
How so?

[Dont Hurt Me]

Pat is fun to listen to but at least he is correct on closing the border something George Bush still is refusing to really do. Sure George has the appearence of doing something with a meager 6,000 national guard though half still arent on the border and even if they were cant do much:rolleyes: So much spin.

[Josh]

How so?

All he said was, at a time when America was 90% white, he enjoyed living in D.C. where it was 400k whites and 400k blacks (i.e. whites were not so dominant). Meaning, he enjoyed living where it wasn't 90% white people, like it was in other parts of the country.

So he enjoyed living in a place where white and black folks had an almost 50/50 share of the population.

I guess I don't see the wrong in that :confused:

[mactastic]

All he said was, at a time when America was 90% white, he enjoyed living in D.C. where it was 400k whites and 400k blacks (i.e. whites were not so dominant). Meaning, he enjoyed living where it wasn't 90% white people, like it was in other parts of the country.

So he enjoyed living in a place where white and black folks had an almost 50/50 share of the population.

I guess I don't see the wrong in that :confused:
I see. I read his words differently than you I guess. The way I see it, he's saying he lived in DC, but liked the country he described as 90% white. Maybe if he'd said he liked DC at nearly equal proportions despite the rest of the country being 90% white I could see your point...

[63dot]

I hope he dies.


he will...we all will

but there will be other klansmen types, in or out of the klan, to replace him (pat b)

and their will be other nazis, in or out of a nazi group, to replace him

pat is a likeable guy who just happens to love to be evil and controversial and hates the human race

but he is not hitler, and he is not george w bush, who is really much more dangerous

[xsedrinam]

Context = taken out of.
Context = books he's authored (http://thinkprogress.org/2006/08/22/buchanan-white-dominance), people he associates with and what comes out of his mouth. He's a racist. And anyone who can't see that is either part of the mint julep crowd, woefully uninformed, or both.

[Sayhey]

Context = books he's authored (http://thinkprogress.org/2006/08/22/buchanan-white-dominance), people he associates with and what comes out of his mouth. He's a racist. And anyone who can't see that is either part of the mint julep crowd, woefully uninformed, or both.

Other than the slam against mint juleps (a quite agreeable beverage if IIRC, ;) ) I've got to agree with your take on "good 'ole boy Pat" and his obnoxious beliefs.

[Josh]

Context = books he's authored (http://thinkprogress.org/2006/08/22/buchanan-white-dominance), people he associates with and what comes out of his mouth. He's a racist. And anyone who can't see that is either part of the mint julep crowd, woefully uninformed, or both.

I think I will remain taking someone's words for what they are, not twisting them into what they aren't based on their actions in the past.

What he said is transcribed word for word, and there's nothing racist about it.

But, of course, that probably means I'm racist too, huh? :rolleyes:

I'll be honest...I am not familiar with this man, and I don't know his background. I just didn't see anything wrong with what he said above at all.

[bousozoku]

All he said was, at a time when America was 90% white, he enjoyed living in D.C. where it was 400k whites and 400k blacks (i.e. whites were not so dominant). Meaning, he enjoyed living where it wasn't 90% white people, like it was in other parts of the country.

So he enjoyed living in a place where white and black folks had an almost 50/50 share of the population.

I guess I don't see the wrong in that :confused:

The trouble is that even in the north, they had signs that said "white only" and "colored only" so while he might have seen them, he didn't mingle.

[aquajet]

I'll be honest...I am not familiar with this man, and I don't know his background. I just didn't see anything wrong with what he said above at all.

Your eyebrow doesn't raise at all with talk about how the American people should be consulted to set racial quotas for immigrants?

But, of course, that probably means I'm racist too, huh? :rolleyes:

Your words only.

[xsedrinam]

...

But, of course, that probably means I'm racist too, huh? :rolleyes:

I'll be honest...I am not familiar with this man, and I don't know his background. I just didn't see anything wrong with what he said above at all.
I wasn't at all implying your are or aren't racist. It was the "context" statement I was aiming at, and he (Pat) has said much more which aptly defines his context.

And both my apologies and condolences to Sayhey.

[Josh]

Your eyebrow doesn't raise at all with talk about how the American people should be consulted to set racial quotas for immigrants?


While I don't favor quotas, in the grand scheme of things, some theories might deem them necessary.

Say we open our borders, have no quotas....there is such a thing as over population of a country.

What do we do then? Start kicking people out?

Rather than be typical and only worry about problems when they occur, sometimes things need to be looked at from afar.

Since it is easy for one group from one country to get here than it is for another (mexico vs africa, for example) - is it fair for us to hurry our way towards overpopulation because of an influx of mexicans, and turn away the africans later on because were too overpopulated?

No. So why not allow them both (and all) in, and keep track of numbers?

[pseudobrit]

All he said was, at a time when America was 90% white, he enjoyed living in D.C. where it was 400k whites and 400k blacks (i.e. whites were not so dominant). Meaning, he enjoyed living where it wasn't 90% white people, like it was in other parts of the country.

So he enjoyed living in a place where white and black folks had an almost 50/50 share of the population.

I guess I don't see the wrong in that :confused:

So we have to bring African immigrants into the country until it's 50/50?

[StarbucksSam]

Pat Buchanan has always been about as sane as Ann Coulter.