What is Digg?272 Comments
- jontalisman, on 05/15/2008, -12/+61I like Buchanan, but I can see why some would view this comment as insensitive. The thing that's different about Pat from his fellow Repugnant spin doctors is that he generally gives his honest opinion about things whereas other mouthpieces constantly lie through their teeth and will say anything to get themselves brownie points in the right wing political world. Like him or not, Buchanan has lots of valuable insight on how this world works.
- unicronband, on 05/15/2008, -13/+53Hey *****,
Why don't you upload the video *before* posting a blog and submitting it to Digg? There is literally not one iota of relevant information contained within the blog entry, aside from a 2 month old quote from PB. Don't give this douche any traffic, here's the copypasta
"He's having a racial paranoia meltdown on MSNBC right now. I'm going to post it it on YouTube soon.
In meantime, I'll leave you with these words written by Buchanan in March:
First, America has been the best country on earth for black folks. It was here that 600,000 black people, brought from Africa in slave ships, grew into a community of 40 million, were introduced to Christian salvation, and reached the greatest levels of freedom and prosperity blacks have ever known."
Call me when the video gets uploaded so I can watch it on someone else's ***** blog. Buried as spam. - NPodhoretz14, on 05/15/2008, -27/+63Pat Buchanan is on tv because he is a principled conservative. It's the apologist like Bill Kristol, Thomas Friedman, Charles Krauthammer, George Will, Christopher Hitchens, and John Bolten that you need to worry about.
- inactive, on 05/15/2008, -34/+69I don't agree with a lot stuff he says, but he defiantly has some wisdom...im surprised on how often i agree with his viewpoint...and i consider myself a progressive, conservative, liberal......
- NPodhoretz14, on 05/15/2008, -19/+48This is also one heck of a poor analysis. I mean if you want to attack Buchanan go ahead but the arguments put forth here are weak.
- preneel, on 05/15/2008, -40/+68I sent MSNBC an email tonight. I watched it. He is so out of touch with the reality of America today and I can't blame it on his age because I know people his age who are much more astute and understand the diversity of America and the fact that Chris was discussing exit polls, not calling West Virginians uneducated and racist.
- inactive, on 05/15/2008, -13/+40Sounds like the real question the OP wanted to ask was, "Why are conservatives still (occasionally) allowed on TV? They're obviously all wrong, so why aren't they censored (more than they are)?"
It also sounds like most of the commentors can't tell a conservative from a neocon, and don't know anything about Buchanan except what they've read about him on anti-conservative blogs. I suppose that's a natural consequence of having no national-level conservative TV networks or newspapers. (Those who think that FNC, the WSJ, and the WT are 'conservative' can refer back to the first sentence in this paragraph.) - NPodhoretz14, on 05/15/2008, -0/+17I laughed at the part where this blogger said "Buchanan is further to the right than O Reily." Of course he is!
- ProfessorSYM, on 05/15/2008, -3/+18Which viewpoint of his do you agree with, specifically?
- chesterogilvie, on 05/15/2008, -0/+15That wasn't racist.
- hlcno, on 05/15/2008, -6/+20Do it live, ***** it!
- tcbishop12, on 05/15/2008, -44/+59Why is Pat Buchanan on television: Because the rabid dog kennels are full?
- NPodhoretz14, on 05/15/2008, -0/+13Buchanan hates Strauss and the neoconservatives in the Republican party.
- ThePlan, on 05/15/2008, -5/+17Whoa whoa, hold on guys hes not all that bad. Whether you agree with him or not he knows his stuff:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=UEgxHLii_ic - afflusso, on 05/15/2008, -5/+17None of his comments said anything bad or unfair about any race. He was just pointing out facts, which happen to indicate that people are sometimes more likely to vote for someone of their own race. The idea that he got this far because of his race, although it isn't incontrovertible, shouldn't be a reason to accuse someone of racism.
- erik22h, on 05/15/2008, -3/+13I disagree with Pat Buchanan that Obama would not have been the nominee (at least the extreme favorite at this point). He does have a point with the Philadelphia voting statistics though. If the white demographic in another city voted 90% for Hillary, or worse, for a white male, you know that the media pundits would call it racist or at least subversively suggest racism as a factor (not that it wasn't in both cases). I think this highlights the difference between what's acceptable for minorities versus what's acceptable for whites. For instance take BLACK entertainment television or the national association for the advancement of COLORED people or BLACK history month and replace it with the word WHITE. Advocate that and now you are a racist.
- cmw72, on 05/16/2008, -0/+10I've said it before, and I'll say it again ... I'm a hardcore lefty ... but I actually kinda like Pat Buchanan. I don't agree with his social or political views, but his analysis is usually pretty accurate more often than not.
I watched that debate on countdown last night and I could see both Pat's and Chris' point of view. Pat's point of view was that basically the media is saying that West Virginians voted for HRC because they are a bunch of white simpletons. I'm not sure I disagree with that, especially since a good portion of them stated that race was a factor in their decision. Pat's point was that why is that racist when 92 percent of black people voted for Obama (a percentage of which is clearly based on race). Chris' was basically saying that there is a difference between voting for somebody because of their race and voting against somebody because of their race.
I'd say both points are worth considering. - JettaMan, on 05/16/2008, -1/+10Ron Paul is further to the right than O'Reilly too. Yet Ron Paul is a great man who is honest, intelligent, and full of wisdom about what this country should do next. I know that blows your mind, but there you go.
- theuniversal, on 05/15/2008, -26/+35If Obama's sharing racial identity with 12% of the electorate is an "advantage", what is it for white candidates like Clinton and Edwards to share a racial identity with the other 88% of the electorate? Buchanan's argument makes no sense. In addition to being an *****, the guy is a ***** moron.
- onyxcoltrane, on 05/15/2008, -7/+14And now Karl Rove is a regular on Fox :(
- skinnyskittles, on 05/15/2008, -0/+7i know i'll get dug down, but what kind of a libertarian are you?
- j.carcinogen, on 05/16/2008, -0/+7I agree with him on his analysis, he was right that WV was 'trashed' as seen here on Digg as being "hillbillies". Then the question "Why is he on TV?". It wouldn't be a discussion/debate if everyone on the panel agreed with you. The real question is why are some so quick to try to paint another as a racist?
- inactive, on 05/16/2008, -0/+6 I don't think Buchanan is too fond of McCain. That's the funny thing about him, he's an actual conservative.
- Elliuotatar, on 05/16/2008, -0/+6Also Hillary is getting a lot of votes from women because she's a woman. In the loosest sense of the term.
- ExitMoose, on 05/16/2008, -2/+8You went out of your way to miss the point. The fact is that white voters make up the vast majority of the voting populace. If Obama relied solely on his race as some sort of appeal to black voters, he would not be nearly as successful as he has been.
In fact, it's Clinton who has tried to paint Obama as the black candidate, so you can blame his overwhelming support amongst blacks on her. - masterm1nd, on 05/15/2008, -0/+6Cuz you saw the Ron Paul video yesterday...
- inactive, on 05/16/2008, -0/+5Pat is a great writer. That's why he worked on speeches for Nixon and Reagan. He still hits one out of the park about every 3-4 months in his column.
- ExitMoose, on 05/16/2008, -0/+5That's ridiculous. If he didn't have anything other than that, he'd never have passed Iowa and New Hampshire. The plain fact is that more and more black voters are voting for Obama, not because he's black, but because Clinton feels so comfortable touting her support amongst whites. Hillary essentially threw her black support away by trying to make Obama into the black candidate and then suggesting that this was a bad thing.
Let's not forget that the Clintons were enormously popular amongst blacks before this election. - Ne007, on 05/16/2008, -0/+5I must be crazy because I always agree with the people the media is trying to smear.
- ProfessorSYM, on 05/15/2008, -2/+7"The Buchanan '96 campaign's World Wide Web site included an article blaming the death of White House aide Vincent Foster on the Israeli intelligence agency, Mossad -- and alleging that Foster and Hillary Clinton were Mossad spies. (The campaign removed the article after its existence was reported by a Jewish on-line news service; Jewish Telegraphic Agency, 2/21/96.)"
Source: FAIR / http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2553 - masterm1nd, on 05/15/2008, -0/+5Hey wise guy, you can undigg you diggs now. Anyone who thinks anyone else is ALWAYS wrong is a moron.
- inactive, on 05/15/2008, -1/+6here's a good one....its kinda old, but it actually FP'd not too long ago...
http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html
also see *NPodhoretz14 comment below...he pretty much sums it up.. - inactive, on 05/15/2008, -0/+5Pat is the best thing on MSNBC. He's got a great sense of humor and some good insights. He's one of the few people to sit down with Ali G and come out looking okay. :) He's also been right about the IRAQ war all along.
- PhineasPoe, on 05/16/2008, -0/+5You obviously don't know the difference between conservative and neo-conservative. His magazine, The American Conservative, has been bashing Bush and McCain so much lately it's like reading The New Republic. There's a huge difference between conservative and neocon.
- TGMD, on 05/15/2008, -4/+8He has a point, a bad bad bad stupid point, but a point.
That black people voting for Obama simply because he's black is a racist act.
Just as racist as white people voting against him for that reason. - mal1964, on 05/15/2008, -4/+8I don't agree with Pat, But I agree with this; Freedom of speech
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
And we all know why msnbc shows it. - scubasteve377, on 05/16/2008, -0/+4You're an idiot. Neither Buchanan, Scarborough, nor Carlson could in any rational sense be described as "neo-conservatives." All three are fairly libertarian leaning. In fact, they have all been sharp critics of Bush's extremely liberal spending and interventionist foreign policy. Two staples of the decidedly un-conservative "neo-conservative" movement. People like you need to get it though your head, not everyone that you don't agree with and isn't a raving socialist is a neocon. When you say ***** like that you make yourself look very, very stupid.
- morgino, on 05/16/2008, -0/+4Some people can't stand the truth if it has an ounce of non-pc in it and Pat Buchanan is usually right on the money. He was called a racist when he tried to shut down the border in the 90's and was right. Some issues unfortunately are black and white, face it
- The_Red_Monkey, on 05/15/2008, -3/+7There is something called white guilt where many will feel if they do not vote for Obama then they are racist. We are programmed that all whites are racist and blacks are victims and asians are super smart and mexicans are illegal and middle eastern people are terrorists.
- inactive, on 05/16/2008, -0/+4 It is kind of amusing how the people who think Pat's alternate view should be purged from the airwaves for the good of us all are the same one's who preach "tolerance."
- inactive, on 05/16/2008, -0/+4Buchanan hates McCain! So do most conservatives.
- inactive, on 05/16/2008, -1/+5Pat Buchanan is a sharp guy. He's just calling it how it is. No point in sugar coating it. Honestly he would make a better president then any of the candidates still in this thing.
I want to see the full clip not just bits and pieces. - pablo0713, on 05/16/2008, -1/+5But I like Christopher Hitchens even though he's a war monger.
- Rndm_Tngnt, on 05/15/2008, -1/+5Freedom of speech != Being on television
- Buckeye70, on 05/16/2008, -0/+4Do you understand what a libertarian is? How in the world could you be a libertarian and vote for Obama? Are you sure you are not a librarian?
- schumpert, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3The short answer? He's smarter than you are.
- inactive, on 05/15/2008, -6/+9I am a libertarian who is rooting for Obama this year and I disagree with him on some things, but that does not mean he is totally out of whack. Only a rabid liberal could see him as a nutjob. And not all he says is racist to all. The issue of racism is not so clear cut and can be easily manipulated for political purposes. I think he is needed on TV more than all those glib moronic PC types. Those I cannot stand.
- meteors, on 05/15/2008, -0/+3Because it's a free country?
- dupems, on 05/15/2008, -7/+10Yeah, because the makeup of our electorate is 88% white and 12% black. No other diversity here! ***** moron...
- Barackalypse, on 05/15/2008, -1/+4Your white outraged sarcasm looks an awful lot like a grade school debate that totally ignores the facts and any discussion around them and instead focuses on a single polarizing issue (discrimination). You will note Pat never said there isn't discrimination, you're arguing against a point he never made. Pat made the point that regardless of what bad things have happened to blacks in the US, they're way better off than anybody in Africa. Black on black genocide in Rwanda and Sudan have killed over a MILLION people, exactly how many lynchings and discriminatory incidents do you think have happened here to outweigh that?
Also, you don't answer his question about whether black crime rates and school performance is the fault of white America or the black community, instead you simply try and suggest that he thinks discrimination is an illusion (which ultimately does suggest you're blaming someone else). -
Show 51 - 100 of 274 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is