Replies

I like Pat Buchanan. I disagree with his stance (since the 1992 campaign) about Living Wage, but I disagree with George W Bush on a few points too. The Liberals have spent the better part of the 90's trying to demonize him because they have no idea how answer his well thought out arguments. There is no doubt that Buchanan is brilliant, so Liberals had to label Pat as a racist. SO WHAT? Everyone who knows Pat, knows he's not a racist ... it has become evident to me that those who toss the label 'racist' around ... are, by and large , the racists in our society.

Used to be, that those who wanted to eliminate or subjugate groups of people based on race were called 'racist'. It seems to me now, that anyone who recognizes differences between the looks, cultures, and predisposition of the various races is labelled 'racist'... but only if the PC powers-that-be don't like what is being said.

Of course there are different races. Duh. That is as incontrovertible a fact as stating that there are different breeds of dog. Not recognizing that is pure denial.

I have not yet seen Buchanan advocating the elimination or subjugation of any particular races. He is stating observations; it's analogous to saying "That man is black" or "That woman is white." Therefore, I do not see why he is labelled a 'racist' - and must immediately discount the ignorant opinions and tiny-fisted tantrums of the race-baiting liberals trying to do so.

Amen! Pats attackers call him names and list him as a racist. However they rarely argue his points which are about 90% accurate. Pat is right on when it comes to the overburdening influx of illegal and legal residents. In 92 the liberal media lost it when Pat won the first two primaries. The leftist machine went into high gear to stop Pat by labeling him as a fanatic.