Posted on 08/30/2011 11:44:15 AM PDT by Rufus2007
As government cuts loom, one segment of the population could be especially hard hit — the black community — not just because any particular social program is in jeopardy, but because that community makes up a sizable chunk of federal employees.
In an appearance on Tuesday’s Laura Ingraham radio show, MSNBC’s Pat Buchanan elaborated on a case he made in his most recent column, “Obama’s Race-Based Spoils System.” He also questioned why an initiative by the White House to apply affirmative action policies to senior civil service workers is underway.
...more (w/video)...
(Excerpt) Read more at thedc.com ...
Pat got it right on this one.
“I have yet to see a white face in any of the three post offices that I frequent.”
Just as in the Unemployment Office
The affirmative action bean counters tell us if a particular race is not represented in a trade or profession proprtionately to the overall population, it’s because of racism, so there must be racism in federal hiring, as well as the NFL and NBA.
How ironic that the “first black president” will preside over the massive govt job losses and other bennies for africans.
I think it’s great.
As always, Buchanan is right on the facts.
Cuts are very unlikely. In history, the only federal agency that has had a major draw-down was DoD, and even then civilian job-loss was kept to a minimum. More often than not, the government just pays people to go away.
Sen Pay grades are actually or virtually political hires.
“As always, Buchanan is right on the facts.”
LOL. More like a stopped clock is right twice.
Buchanan is a tool, a liar, and an anti-semite of the worst order.
Every single govt job should be scrutinized as to why we need them and explain why they are constitutionally necessary.
Well, let’s see “Jewbacca.”
If Pat Buchanan had been elected in 1996, the border would have been secured when I was a teenager, millions of jobs wouldn’t have been exported overseas, 9/11 would have been avoided, there would be no affirmative action, no multiculturalism, no political correctness, the national debt would be nothing like it is now.
As for calling Pat an “anti-Semite,” it was W. and Barack who “liberated” Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, and Iraq. There is no telling how many “friends” Israel has now in its own neighborhood.
Does Israel like its new next door neighbor in post-Mubarak Egypt? Probably not.
Now that the U.S. is broke, there aren’t going to be any foreign wars over there anymore. We can’t afford to go to war over there even if we wanted to.
The only tools around here are the establishment neocons who gave us Poppy Bush, Bob Dole, W., and Juan McCain (now they are trying to give us Mitt Romney) when we could have had a real president a decade ago.
Buchanon is a border-line Shoa-denier who has always aligned himself against Israel and Jewish people.
His anti-semitism is well-documented by many, many, conservative people, most of whom are not Jewish.
Buchanon blamed WWII on Churchill, lied about Hitler’s documented desire to exterminate the Jewish people (blamed the Shoa on Churchill; Hitler just — understandably, to Pat — a Jew-free Germany), and, to paraphrase William F. Buckley, “never met a Nazi he didn’t like.”
I don’t have time to slap-down another recidivist neo-nazi moron today, so, good-bye.
(1) I’ve been reading Buchanan for ten years - please point to me where Buchanan has ever denied the Holocaust. I have never seen this in his writing.
(2) I’m quite sure I remember Buchanan discussing that subject on several occasions.
(3) You’re wrong.
Buchanan is a conservative and a nationalist. He aligns himself with American citizens. That is why Buchanan rejects “entangling alliances.”
(4) Buchanan rejects “entangling alliances” period - with NATO, with East Asia, with Israel, etc. It is self centeredness on your part to interpret Buchanan’s platform as fear and loathing of Israel when it is plainly something else.
If Buchanan were singling out Israel, then he would be for NATO. Israel isn’t a NATO power, but Buchanan wants to dissolve NATO.
(5) Winston Churchill really did play a major role in starting WW2. That is a historical fact. It was Churchill and friends who pushed the British government into WW2.
(6) Where does Buchanan praise Hitler in his book? Buchanan is a historian, not a Neo-Nazi. Do you think WW2 was the best option for Britain and the Jewish people?
I mean ... it looks to me like the Jews lost WW2, right?
(7) Please try your best ... I eat neocons for breakfast and progressives for dinner.
“Please try your best”
I’d have to care about you to try, and you are nothing to me.
Indeed, less than nothing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.