"Buchanan is right. This white man is full of resentment."

[kpete]

"Buchanan is right.
by docterry
Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 07:21:51 PM PDT

This white man is full of resentment. I am a white man, an old white man, a rich old white man, by any reasonable measure; and Pat Buchanan is right. I am full of resentment. Let me tell you what I resent. I resent a jackass like Pat Buchanan busting a vein about how white working men suffer when an 'undeserving' poor woman like Sonia Sotomayor gets ahead in the world by virtue of her own ability and her own skills. (...) I resent Pat Buchanan pretending to defend the white working man when for all his life he has done nothing but defend the privilege of the rich against me, my family, my brothers and sisters of all races, creeds, and cultures who were denied a seat at the table reserved for the bluebloods, regardless of their ability."

more:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/7/16/754343/-Buchanan-is-right.This-white-man-is-full-of-resentment.

[Warpy]

1. Every once in a while an angry white male

jumps up and shows he's angry about all the right things.

It restores my faith in the species.

[AspenRose]

2. Ooooh, snap

:thumbsup:

[goclark]

8. Snap, snap and R

[OHdem10]

3. Just as they drove wedges a mile wide between the Poor Whites in

the South and Blacks,the move is on to drive wedges between
Hispanics and whites.

The sad fact is a lot in the South and some in west vote
against their own interest, for fear some minority might
get a few pennies of their tax money. What is pitiful
many of these people do not even pay income tax but can
be emotionally stirred to vote against their own interest.

No one ever calls anyone out.

[stray cat]

4. some are most aren't - Buchanan speaks for Buchanan not all caucasian men

[malaise]

5. Keep spewing your hatred Pat

Great response.

[Wizard777]

6. I resent Sotomayor's tendency to use white males as a measuring stick instead of the law.

When you use white males as a measuring stick instead of the law. White males can throw off a lot of rights and really screw her grading curve. Now that we've got ours. Lets throw off all these rights by which we got ours so we can keep ours and ensure everyone else doesn't get theirs. The goal of civil rights is not for everyone to be equal to white males. The goal of civil rights is for everyone to be equal under the law. By her own statements and legal decisions. I can't really see where Sotomayor has a firm grasp on that concept. In the American legal system the supreme entity is the law. Not white males.

[DURHAM D]

9. Guess you are ignoring the "white male" setup in the "law". nt

[Wizard777]

11. Yes and the Constitution she must uphold was also written and signed entirely by White Males.

That she thinks aren't smart enough to understand all the freedoms, liberties, equality, and unity it provides for and demands. If white males were anywhere near the evil some minorities use reverse discrimination to paint them as being. The US Constitution would begin, We The White People AND NOBODY ELSE! But it most simply and beautifully begins, We The People.

[DURHAM D]

12. Just a reminder - This is the Democratic Underground.

Let me try this - this country recognized in the 1960s that white men had been unjustly enriched on the backs of minorities and women for 360 years. Affirmative Action is an attempt to correct that unjust enrichment by creating an equal access playing field.

If you don't like these necessary and corrective measures - tough.

The only men who don't like it are the ones who don't want to compete on a fair basis cause they still want their edge.

The over-hyped event of two or three men who missed out on an opportunity is right wing hype and a straw man diversion. The right gets people all angry about "affirmative action" (three men) instead of the real issue - the continuing unjust enrichment on the backs of millions.

I repeat - this is the Democratic Underground.

[Wizard777]

16. Yes it is. Equality under the law is a sound principle of Democracy.

Pay backs to whitey being a bitch is a principle of reverse discrimination. Racism is ugly regardless of the direction it's traveling in.

[DURHAM D]

19. You are arguing your position from a hypothetical view -

not the real world situation. Your entire setup is flawed.

There may be another forum here where you and some other guys can navel gaze to your heart's delight.

[Flying Dream Blues]

22. You really need to educate yourself. Racism is ugly, you're correct, but

it's the discrimination and oppression for hundreds of years that is the target of measures like affirmative action. It's not a "payback to whitey" as you so eloquently put it, but tries to even the playing field for people who have not had a fighting chance in education, the workplace, the judicial system, the political system or even in the society in the towns in which they lived, for hundreds of years. Is there something about that you don't understand? Reverse discrimination? You must be joking.

[Wizard777]

26. Equality and civil rights is not about making up for the past or changing the past.

It's about creating a better future for all people. We simply cannot allow the nightmares of the past destroy the dreams of the future. I white people have had it so damned cushy all through out time and memorial. The Declaration of Independence would not have included the words, mankind is inclined to suffering. As you all so aptly prove now. It would have said mankind is inclined to luxury and opulence. There have been major improvements as Obama acknowledge in his NAACP speech. Even in an improved society that our investment in civil right is starting to yield dividends. You all still refuse to let go of the damned suffering. But suffering is the easiest damned thing the world to do. It doesn't take a whole lot to create suffering.

[rvablue]

47. You do recall, of course, that black people were enslaved at the time the Constitution was written?

And that those same men who wrote the Constitution made sure that women couldn't vote?

So, it's a wonderful document. And, thank god, Congress and the Supreme Court have used what is in it, to correct it's inherent and ugly mistakes.

[Raineyb]

10. What the hell are you talking about?

Who the hell do you think made the laws? And for whom has the law been used to benefit to the detriment of others historically? You sound just like that idiot Sessions and we all know what a flaming racist piece of shit he is.

[Wizard777]

13. Short and not so sweet.

If you don't think her poor choice of words were racist, sexist, and a violation of Canon 4 of the judicial Code of Conduct. You need to get out your "Freedom isn't free. You have to pay attention" T-shirt and burn it. You're too busy overlooking to be paying attention to anything. You know damn well that every word of that statement would be a nail in her coffin if she were a Bush nominee instead. Wrong is wrong regardless of who nominates it. I agree with Obama that racism cannot stand. I just wish he would understand it also cannot SIT upon our Supreme Court. I think the real question is what the hell are YOU talking about?

[DURHAM D]

15. You are lost. nt

[Wizard777]

18. When you can think in all 7 directions. You can never be lost.

[DURHAM D]

20. Please see my post 19 above.

:hi:

[Wizard777]

27. Equality under the law is not a hypothetical. It's a realistically achievable goal.

We may never have that perfect world full of perfect people. Especially when you consider we went to war with the one guy that was actually trying to create a perfect world full of perfect people to stop him from doing that. Thank God! But we can achieve a more perfect union right now. Through a process of the successive generations refining our mores and laws we can create a more perfect union that achieves great heights. I don't believe we will ever have that perfect world full of perfect people. A more perfect union is the best any generation can hope for and realistically achieve. A more perfect union is just another way of saying, together we can make the world a better place. :fistbump:

[Raineyb]

29. You're not even thinking in one direction.

Word salads are not evidence of thought at all.

[Wizard777]

37. Oh Sure! Let just throw out all witness testimony and confessions.

As you call them "word salads." Can you really use a persons own words to determine their intent? Our courts say, YES WE CAN!

[DURHAM D]

40. +10 nt

[dansolo]

17. Have you read her ENTIRE statement?

If you read her entire statement, she was actually saying the opposite of what has been portrayed by the people who only focus on the small portion taken out of context.

[Wizard777]

21. Yes even this part that reaffirms the earlier statement.

However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see.

Now it's my turn. Have you ever read the Judicial Code of Conduct? She is demeaning others based on race and sex that violates Canon 4. She has made out the court to be dependant upon personal experience. That violates Canon 1. This has impeached her impartiality which violates Canon 2. Should we just Bush this thing and say to hell with the law, morality and ethics. We're just going to do as we damn well please.

[Raineyb]

28. In other words you've decided to buy the propaganda as spouted by the raging racist

Jeff Sessions (Asshat) from Alabama, a man so blatantly racist he couldn't get past committee when he was nominated for the federal judiciary. Anyone who takes their talking points on race from such a person cannot be taken seriously.

[Wizard777]

36. Nope! I'ma free thinking individual that is able to form my own opinions.

The only thing my opinion is formed of is what Sotomayor said in conjunctions with the Judicial Code of Conduct.

[marmar]

14. "The goal of civil rights is for everyone to be equal under the law"

That's inherently impossible when everyone else is playing catchup, n'est-ce pas?

[Wizard777]

24. Oh really. The new wave of Immigrants into the great American melting pot are hispanics.

So we should enslave them for 258 years to be fair to the blacks. Then they have a couple decades of segregation to endure. Then they can have equal rights in this game of catch up. :eyes: To hell with that game of catch up! We can just give them equal rights now. Wake up, grow up, accept reality, and get the hell over it. There is NOTHING you can do in the present or the future that will EVER change the past. If you insist on running a race race. Minorities will never catch up or win. Nothing will ever change the head start whites got in founding America. You will never wake up to find that Martin Luther King has made his way back through time and has singed the declaration of Independence and US Constitution. No we cannot change the past. But we can change the future. The only way for us to end your race race with everyone as winners. Is for everyone to be equal under the law right now. Yeah we all win.

[marmar]

41. WTF are you talking about? Dude, you need help.

:crazy:

[Wizard777]

42. Then maybe you can explain your "catchup (sic)" theory a lil more in depth.

Maybe that's the help I need. I just really can't understand why all people cannot be equal under the law right now. The "catchup" you speak of entails that some people don't have equal rights at this time. They have to "catchup" before that can happen. Like there some kind of race between the races. But I call bullshit on that.

[misanthrope]

43. "A couple of decades of segregation?"...

...De facto segregation ruled the South from the fall of Reconstruction until, well, today in a lot of ways. De jure segregation was instilled in the late 19th Century and last until the last third of the 20th Century.

[Arkana]

23. W...what?

She doesn't do that at all.

[BlooInBloo]

25. Obviously she's going to enslave us.

:rofl:

[Wizard777]

35. No it's Obama that's going to do that. At least that's what I told Republicans on bipartisan boards.

During the election to try to scare the sense back into them. I've already been measured for my chains and I can hardly wait to get to work pickin' cotton for Massa Obammy. Swing low sweet chariot. :rofl: I've used that one and it isn't going to get a rise out of me.

This is what you all are failing to understand. Is that my objections to Sotomayor is not based in white fright. I would still think her statement was racist and sexist if she had said black male or even Asian female. Simply because is drawing race and sex into an evaluation of abilities. That is dangerous ground for a judge to tread upon. I would still think it was a violation of the Judicial Code of Conduct. That is entirely where my opposition to Sotomayor comes from. The Judicial Code of conduct. When I refer to that. That is where the conversation usually stops. No one wants to contemplate her statement in conjunction to the Judicial Code of Conduct. Because that's where you've got Sotomayor by the Ta-ta's and dead to right. The Judicial Code of Conduct applies to all Judges including Federal Judges and The Supreme Court Justices. Under the Judicial Code of Conduct ANYONE may file a complaint against a Judge. The Chief Judge or in Sotomayor's case Chief Justice Roberts will review the complaint. He will then either dismiss the complaint for lack of Merritt or refer it to the Judicial Council. Never mind the make up of the Supreme court. Do you know the make up of the Judicial Council? This is why I ask. They can either directly sanction Sotomayor or refer the matter to the House for Impeachment. Regardless of whether the vote to impeach of acquit. It's going to be damaging to Obama and democrats. If the balance of power in the House and Senate has shifted to the republicans. Her goose is cooked. Don't think that the Republicans don't have a Kucinich willing to push Impeachment. The Republicans are much better at Impeachment than we are. Don't believe me. Go ask Bill Clinton and George Bush. Uh huh. While you all are think back to the 1600- 1800's. Some of us are thinking ahead and we're seeing bridge out.

[rvablue]

46. So, what you are saying is that you object to Sotomayor because you fear that some time in the

future someone is going to attempt to have her impeached from the bench?

And if you understand the makeup of this "judicial counsel" why don't you share.

Glad to see you included a :rofl: in your post, because this unhinged rant gave me a Sunday afternoon giggle.

[Wizard777]

50. No my main objections are her violations of the JCC.

The JCC preserves the impartiality of Judges and protects the integrity of the courts they sit upon. Most importantly it preserves public confidence in the courts. I feel her baggage will become a detriment to the court and erode public confidence in it.

I don't have a problem with Representative Sotomayor, Senator Sotomayor, or even President Sotomayor. But I have severe problems with Justice Sotomayor. We expect certain biases and partialities from our politicians. We expect them to support our cause over the opposition. That cannot be tolerated from our judges. They must preserve the appearance of being unbiased and impartial. They have to uphold the law. Not support a cause.

As a white male I find her remark to be demeaning and offensive. That should carry no more or no less weight than a complaint from any other race/gender group. I believe that all people are entitled to equal rights. That includes the right of white males to be equally offended by derogatory, demeaning, or disparaging remarks about us based on our race and gender. We too are entitled to dignity.

[SeattleGirl]

32. You sound like a resentful white male, though not resentful in the

way the OP is.

[Wizard777]

39. Oh so you believe minorities should be made to measure up to white males instead of the law?

So we can just do away that Constitution provision of equal protection of law and take up the equal protection of white male? I don't think so. You're starting to convince me that in Sotomayor's case. It may actually be better to throw out the baby so we can keep the bath water. My God.

[fishwax]

34. what an absurd (and rather oddly punctuated) post

[Marblehead]

7. kick

[Wednesdays]

30. K&R

:kick:

[defendandprotect]

31. and white males are full of rage largely because Buchanan's rw propaganda works -- !!!

[csziggy]

49. I think white males are full of rage because they are afraid they will be treated the way they treat

The way they treated minorities in the past and still treat them. Since they will not admit fear even to themselves, they channel it into hate - hate at all the minorities in this country and the "other" people in other countries. And it it is a self defeating loop - the old white men fear and hate, treat others even worse and the fear and hate them even more since the old white men worry ever more about when their karma will catch up to them.

[defendandprotect]

52. Interesting analysis . . .

Yes, we often see this projecting of their own faults/fears/sins onto others.

My theory on male-violence is that it's their own self-hatred based on their own

inferiority which triggers their violence.

Whatever it is it's sad -

:)

[silverweb]

33. Well said!

:kick:

[seabeyond]

38. SOME white man moaning and groaning as they bash gays, blacks women and profess we should lighten up

it is a joke. funny, ha ha. dontcha see. grow a set

screw the SOME white man

oh, and i have all white men i take care of and tell them to own their part, regardless of it that is who they are. stand up to their own. their responsibility. only they can bring change with their voice, just like only female can bring change with their voice within their own.... our issues. and christians voice against the wrongs, within their own, regardless if they are a part of the destructive.

[WCGreen]

44. Fuck head Bush should have never been allowed into Yale...

[burning rain]

45. The right's been astoundingly succesful with race and other identity issues.

It would have been reasonable to expect that conservatives would thank God Obama had nominated someone as conservative-friendly as Sotomayor, a former corporate attorney deferential to business interests and police, and endorsed by Kenneth Starr. But that wasn't good enough. No, she was Hispanic -- and worse yet, with rather dark skin. Liberals largely aren't even struggling for liberalism anymore, just a conservatism that includes gays, women, racial minorities, and non-Christians.

[defendandprotect]

48. kick

[mzmolly]

51. K and R. Most excellent!

:toast:

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Number23]

54. Good Googly Moogly!

That's almost as fabulous as the Dear Scared White Men of America diary from last week!

Happy to rec. Good Lord, it's hot in here!! ((searches for church fan))

ETA: Damn! He was great up until he let loose with this tired little turd:

"It is not about race, it is about wealth, the privilege of wealth and the maintenance of wealth!"

Ah, well. The rec still stands.