Page 1 of 1
Re: poor Pat Buchanan
Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 5:48 pm
by BSmack
mvscal wrote:He is completely accurate. Nogroid grievance mongers tend to hysterically exaggerate the significance of unskilled agricultural labor in building this nation.
Your lack of historical understanding is utterly breathtaking. You should go back to studying battle formations, as real history is obviously beyond your understanding.
Re: poor Pat Buchanan
Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 5:50 pm
by JMak
I see Maddow living down to the standards of MSNBC...wtf was that question supposed to mean? It's funny how the libs want racial blindess yet they're the ones constantly using race as deciding factors.
RACK Buchanan for nutting up and not running from the question.
BSmack, enlighten us.
Re: poor Pat Buchanan
Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 6:28 pm
by BSmack
JMak wrote:BSmack, enlighten us.
It's simple really. He's dead fucking wrong. Our culture and infrastructure is replete with non white influence, from the time when slaves who built the White House to the present day.
Re: poor Pat Buchanan
Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 6:38 pm
by Sirfindafold
BSmack wrote: Our culture and infrastructure is replete with non white influence
absolutely.
sin,
Re: poor Pat Buchanan
Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 7:51 pm
by smackaholic
I'd say that poor pat schooled that bitch pretty good. He might have been slightly off (but not by much) on some of his stats.
Her 108 out of 110 is immaterial. Her arguements fall on their face when put to the logic test.
Rack Pat.
Re: poor Pat Buchanan
Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 8:31 pm
by Terry in Crapchester
JSC810 wrote:Poor Pat. I really thought he had a better command of American history than that.
What would cause you to reach that conclusion? His take on the Holocaust?
Re: poor Pat Buchanan
Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 11:50 pm
by Diego in Seattle
smackaholic wrote:Her 108 out of 110 is immaterial. Her arguements fall on their face when put to the logic test.
Rack Pat.
I'd say that's where he got derailed. It's pretty assanine to say that we're culturally the same as when the first 50-80 first justices were appointed. He started off well citing Bakke & Ricci, but he really dropped the ball on the 110 justices point. He also should have pointed out that an AA appointment is an insult to all the potential hispanic & female left-leaning justices who are more qualified than her.
Re: poor Pat Buchanan
Posted: Sat Jul 18, 2009 4:22 am
by War Wagon
mvscal wrote:
Slavery was a complete failure in every respect.
Slavery doesn't make for motivated workers.
Re: poor Pat Buchanan
Posted: Sat Jul 18, 2009 11:18 am
by smackaholic
War Wagon wrote:mvscal wrote:
Slavery was a complete failure in every respect.
Slavery doesn't make for motivated workers.
They just went with the wrong slaves. Shoulda shipped in chinks from the west coast.
Re: poor Pat Buchanan
Posted: Sat Jul 18, 2009 8:47 pm
by LTS TRN 2
It doesn't matter how many justices were white, but rather the policy of how they're currently chosen. Buchanan attempts to drive home the point--reverse-discrimination is just as bad as the original blatant racism, etc.--but the bitch just smiles and drives right by. Disgraceful. I may disagree with Pat on his Christer cult beliefs, but of course he's right about affirmative action.
Re: poor Pat Buchanan
Posted: Sat Jul 18, 2009 11:47 pm
by smackaholic
LTS TRN 2 wrote:It doesn't matter how many justices were white, but rather the policy of how they're currently chosen. Buchanan attempts to drive home the point--reverse-discrimination is just as bad as the original blatant racism, etc.--but the bitch just smiles and drives right by. Disgraceful. I may disagree with Pat on his Christer cult beliefs, but of course he's right about affirmative action.
Step out of the troll with your hands up. You're under arrest for 1st degree shit troll larceny.
Good take, btw.
Re: poor Pat Buchanan
Posted: Sun Jul 19, 2009 8:16 pm
by Stanley Pickkkle
RACK Mvscal AGAIN!!!!
I am so sick and tired of ni.gggers claiming they built America!
Fukkk you, Ni.gggers, you didn't build SHIT!
For all the pc faggots that believe ni.ggger claims, please tell me who the fukkk built the northern states when they were practically ALL WHITE up until recently?
Ni.gggers picked cotton
Ni.gggers pounded a few railroad spikes
Ni.gggger did NOT build America!
White people built America!
America.....Built For White People....By White People!
Re: poor Pat Buchanan
Posted: Sun Jul 19, 2009 9:53 pm
by PSUFAN
I've respected Pat Buchanan for quite some time...since his Crossfire days in the late 80s. I don't agree with him unreservedly, but I do agree with him quite a bit. I know he didn't run his campaigns with a chance at winning, but things would have been a lot better if he had succeeded in helping the GOP find its testes in those years.
Re: poor Pat Buchanan
Posted: Mon Jul 20, 2009 9:55 pm
by BSmack
mvscal wrote:BSmack wrote:Your lack of historical understanding is utterly breathtaking. You should go back to studying battle formations, as real history is obviously beyond your understanding.
Shove it up your ass, you handwringing PC fuckwit.
Ni...ggers might have built the South (under the specific direction of their white masters), but last time I checked the South was an economically retarded pile of shit that didn't even begin to close the gap with the rest of the nation until the last 30 years of the 20th century.
Slavery was a complete failure in every respect. A small handful of ni...ggers picking cotton and nailing a few boards together does not a nation make.
Deal with it, pussy.
Slave labor is but one component of the larger picture. Maybe you heard about slavery being abolished 140+ years ago?
Re: poor Pat Buchanan
Posted: Mon Jul 20, 2009 9:56 pm
by Stanley Pickkkle
BSmack wrote:
Slave labor is but one component of the larger picture. Maybe you heard about slavery being abolished 140+ years ago?
Right now I am struggling with whom needs to die more......You or Rachel Maddow.
Re: poor Pat Buchanan
Posted: Tue Jul 21, 2009 5:16 pm
by JMak
BSmack wrote:JMak wrote:BSmack, enlighten us.
It's simple really. He's dead fucking wrong. Our culture and infrastructure is replete with
non white influence, from the time when slaves who built the White House to the present day.
Non white influence. Nice job shifting the goal posts and dancing with a straw man.
Re: poor Pat Buchanan
Posted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 4:50 pm
by BSmack
JMak wrote:BSmack wrote:JMak wrote:BSmack, enlighten us.
It's simple really. He's dead fucking wrong. Our culture and infrastructure is replete with
non white influence, from the time when slaves who built the White House to the present day.
Non white influence. Nice job shifting the goal posts and dancing with a straw man.
I missed the part where Sotomayor was black. Care to fill me in?
Re: poor Pat Buchanan
Posted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 5:17 pm
by JMak
BSmack wrote:I missed the part where Sotomayor was black. Care to fill me in?
You obviously missed a whole lot.
The argument was not whether non-white influence played a role in the development of America, asshat. Influence is a far, far cry from "built on the back of black slave labor".
You shifted the goal posts, fool.
Try again.
Re: poor Pat Buchanan
Posted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 5:53 pm
by BSmack
The question was "why do you think it is that of the 110 Supreme Court Justices we've had in this country, 108 of them have been white?" I hate to be the one to inform you that the world is not black & white. Any other illusions you would like be to disabuse you of? Like say Santa Claus?