Pat Buchanan on Rachel Maddow: We Need To Protect White Men From Discrimination

It's people like Rachel Maddow that give gay people a bad name.

PLEASE ! DON'T help us !

Pat Buchanan gives white Christians a bad name.

Daniel P from Long Island wrote:

It's people like Rachel Maddow that give gay people a bad name.
PLEASE ! DON'T help us !

Daniel,

Well, yes, I would say that she is certainly giving gays a bad name. Then again, she isn't male, and is a lesbian. It's very easy to be a woman and give men a bad name.

I do disagree with Pat Buchanan, but I know he's a nice guy, and I respect him even if I don't agree with him.

spikewebbe wrote:

Pat Buchanan gives white Christians a bad name.

That too.

I like Rachel, she's just making fun of that
T-wat Buchanan.

Daniel P from Long Island wrote:

It's people like Rachel Maddow that give gay people a bad name.
PLEASE ! DON'T help us !

You cannot be serious.

Maddow is one of the smartest, most refreshing tv personalities on air. She doesn't badger her guests, they discuss, and she calls out hypocrisy on both ends of the political spectrum.

And unlike Anderson Cooper, she isn't afraid to poke fun at herself for being gay.

RaQel wrote:

I like Rachel, she's just making fun of that
T-wat Buchanan.

Never liked Pat Buchanan, he prejudiced and if you're not white, he has no use for you. I've watched Rachel Maddow a few times; never got into her show; she's dull and her show isn't very interesting. Maybe I'll give her show another chance.

Daniel P from Long Island wrote:

<quoted text>
That too.

I like Pat. He's a nice guy. Just a bit rabid most of the time.

Sei wrote:

<quoted text>
Daniel,
Well, yes, I would say that she is certainly giving gays a bad name. Then again, she isn't male, and is a lesbian. It's very easy to be a woman and give men a bad name.
I do disagree with Pat Buchanan, but I know he's a nice guy, and I respect him even if I don't agree with him.

Rachel Maddow is great - but this is just another self-serving "I wish I could be a real reporter" blog that doesn't even belong here AND is totally off topic.

Sei wrote:

<quoted text>
I do disagree with Pat Buchanan, but I know he's a nice guy, and I respect him even if I don't agree with him.

Nice guy? The man is a racist stuck in the '50s.

spikewebbe wrote:

Pat Buchanan gives white Christians a bad name.

I wasn't aware 'white Christians' had a good name.

ActsOfBeauty wrote:

<quoted text>
Nice guy? The man is a racist stuck in the '50s.

Big time racist and he's stuck in the friggin 1850s. This man's wet dreams is to be a slave owner with a cotton plantation in North Carolina.

ActsOfBeauty wrote:

<quoted text>
Nice guy? The man is a racist stuck in the '50s.

In person, he is a nice guy. Very gentlemanly. I respect him. That means I don't vilify him. I don't agree with him. I never will agree with him. I find that there is far too little respect for each side going on, and I feel that it is harmful in the long run.

Tony C wrote:

<quoted text>
Rachel Maddow is great - but this is just another self-serving "I wish I could be a real reporter" blog that doesn't even belong here AND is totally off topic.

Ah, Tony C, I have a feeling that you're making a veiled reference to LGR. We've been through this before. The days of your "men's only club" are over. Incidentally, EVERY media outlet is self serving to some extent. I believe I recommended that you take it up with Topix management. How did that go, btw?

I disagree with Womanist Musing all the time. That does not mean that I feel that they do not have a right to be here.

Daniel P from Long Island wrote:

It's people like Rachel Maddow that give gay people a bad name.
PLEASE ! DON'T help us !

I am very happy that I saw the day in my lifetime that the good ol' US of A is breaking race barriers. And one day maybe we will be color blind.

Buchanan had no problem with Roberts nomination as a conservative ideologue because Bush W was a conservative, and it was the Presidents right, being a conservative, to nominate such. But when President Obama is from a racial minority, doesn't he also have the right to nominate from his own ideology? Isn't what is good for the goose, good for the gander?

ActsOfBeauty wrote:

<quoted text>
I wasn't aware 'white Christians' had a good name.

Depends on your definition of Christian, I suppose.

ActsOfBeauty wrote:

<quoted text>
I wasn't aware 'white Christians' had a good name.

Sure, there are many good white Christians. I go to a nice Baptist church were there are a lot of them. The are some knuckleheads but there are plenty of nice ones.

ActsOfBeauty wrote:

<quoted text>
You cannot be serious.
Maddow is one of the smartest, most refreshing tv personalities on air. She doesn't badger her guests, they discuss, and she calls out hypocrisy on both ends of the political spectrum.
And unlike Anderson Cooper, she isn't afraid to poke fun at herself for being gay.

daniel is not even gay...on every post in every forum he has done nothing but denounce all things gays or gay friendly...
he is a poser, in here trying to distract others with his "gay" act.
don't be fooled.

dew4794 wrote:

<quoted text>
I am very happy that I saw the day in my lifetime that the good ol' US of A is breaking race barriers. And one day maybe we will be color blind.
Buchanan had no problem with Roberts nomination as a conservative ideologue because Bush W was a conservative, and it was the Presidents right, being a conservative, to nominate such. But when President Obama is from a racial minority, doesn't he also have the right to nominate from his own ideology? Isn't what is good for the goose, good for the gander?

I cannot find anywhere where he objected to Clarence Thomas being nominated and that man is pretty much a dim bulb on the SCOTUS at least compared to others like Scalia.

ActsOfBeauty wrote:

<quoted text>
You cannot be serious.

The poster you are addressing regularly posts racist, anti Catholic, anti Mormon, anti Semitic, anti Democratic BS to get attention. He loves Cheney and thinks Scaliar is a good Supreme Court Justice who will overrule DOMA. He claims to be libertarian, but will dismiss the ample evidence of Ron Paul's anti Semitism and homophobia (or at the very least, past support for same.) So draw your own conclusion.

On topic, of course we shouldn't discriminate against str8, white men. That would be wrong.

We should do away with automatic str8, white male privilege, and the fact that we're doing so has the constapo and talibangelical cretins feeling as though their lock on power is slipping away.

As for bigots who are "polite" and "respectful" in person: Of course they are. And it's no excuse. It makes them even more odious that they would be accepted in polite company than is a raving David Duke type, in fact.

Having said this, Pat Buchanan is funny in spite of himself. He's pretty harmless at this point, and has some good ideas opposing unnecessary US military involvements overseas. I always laugh when I think of that appalling photograph of Buchanan in his underwear in a locker room (probably a restricted club,) that you can find in the public sphere.

Praiz jeebus!