BUCHANAN DECLARES: DEATH OF THE WEST

Drudge Report ^ | 01/02/2002 | Matt Drudge

[arm958]

I'm curious to know your definition of "racist".?

Here is the definition of racist that too many Americans (including many on this thread) adhere to:

RACIST: Any white person who dares to speak factually about racial issues.

[garbanzo]

Oh, I guess you found me out so I'll come clean - I'm an extraterrestrial as well. We've secretly come to FR to undermine American civilization so that conquest of Earth will be made that much easier.

[ResistorSister]

The reality is that only Westerners believe in the concept of a color blind society.

The concept of a color blind society was good enough for the Founding Fathers...so it is good enough for me.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Our immigration problem is not based in the fact that people of color come to America and desire to be citizens...our problem is based in the fact that our government officials have not protected America against immigration law breakers.

[garbanzo]

Speaking "factually" usually means unsupported or patently false slanders of entire groups of people who happen to not look like you. If I were to "speak factually" about whites in the same manner than some of you do - you guys would be up arms - and justifiably so.

[Mark Bahner]

"If EVERYTHING in the Libertarian platform were to be implemented, illegal immigrants would leave pretty rapidly, because without public assistance, this is a LOUSY country to be poor in." If EVERYTHING in the Libertarian platform were to be implemented, there wouldn't BE illegal immigrants, because the Libertarian platform doesn't have immigration limits. Mark (Libertarian) P.S. Back when America WAS close(r) to being libertarian--prior to the New Deal--America was a GREAT place to be poor in (that's why so many poor people came to America). It was a great place to be poor, because poor people had the FREEDOM to become rich.

[Mark Bahner]

"If EVERYTHING in the Libertarian platform were to be implemented, illegal immigrants would leave pretty rapidly, because without public assistance, this is a LOUSY country to be poor in."

If EVERYTHING in the Libertarian platform were to be implemented, there wouldn't BE illegal immigrants, because the Libertarian platform doesn't have immigration limits.

Mark (Libertarian)

P.S. Back when America WAS close(r) to being libertarian--prior to the New Deal--America was a GREAT place to be poor in (that's why so many poor people came to America). It was a great place to be poor, because poor people had the FREEDOM to become rich.

[x]

Pat does have a valid point. Nations are generally formed around some ethnic core. They can assimilate newcomers, and the understanding of what the core is may change as new immmigrants arrive. But if the ethnic core becomes a minority, the possibility of fragmentation arises, particularly if different ethnic groups are concentrated in different geographic areas. Even if fragmentation is not an issue, interethnic frictions increase, because it's understood that cultural hegemony is at stake. I don't know if we can escape this fate. The US may be the last of the great Western empires to break up, and as with so many of them -- Britain, France, Spain, Russia -- the break up will continue in the homeland what began overseas. The fact that we find it so hard to discuss this may be a sign that we don't have a clue as to how to prevent it. I suppose it could also be seen as a sign that our assimilative powers are -- for now -- still working.

[arm958]

Speaking "factually" usually means unsupported or patently false slanders of entire groups of people who happen to not look like you.

I disagree. By definition, speaking "factually" means steering clear of unsupported slander.

[PuNcH]

Who is Petronksi?

?

You argued that Buchanan is a racist based on the idea that bringing up racial issues is racism. You even failed in your reading comprehension is using a dictionary to make your point. Kinda silly to respond to me as a spell checker on someones name dont you think?

>> Racist: discriminatory especially on the basis of race ...[Making distinctions.] Every one of these statements are based on racial distinctions and racial issues.-- blithers ResistorSister

It may go to follow that discrimination based upon racial distinctions is racism but it does not go to follow that racial distinctions or issues are discrimination and racist.

[UberVernunft]

The costs to employers is low which is why they hire them or move the jobs elsewhere if possible. This is why markets are hated by would-be know-it-alls - they are unflinchingly honest about what people really value and how much they really value it.

In terms of manufacturing this is a well known myth, and is one of the reasons why relocating plants offshore has had mixed success. Labor as a percentage of manufacturing costs ranges around 15%, so at the most you might gain a 10% reduction in overall cost. Add in all the additional expenses of a broken supply chain, cultural problems, and other related issues, and often you actually end up losing money.

[Poohbah]

Good point.

But that didn't stop the predecessors of Buchanan from saying that America was going to the proverbial place of eternal theological damnation in the proverbial handbasket because it was letting in too many people of the "wrong" ethnicity.

[Poohbah]

If the company loses money, it will either (a) go back to the good ol' USA, or go out of business.

Markets tend to be self-correcting because of this issue.

We made a country where no sane person would want to run a business. Now, we complain when all the sane businesspersons go elsewhere to run their businesses. Am I the only guy who sees the logical disconnect here?

[garbanzo]

I yet to see a factual statement coming from the race-baiters. As mentioned above, Pat doesn't seem to realize that a large proportion of the "brown" immigration is Christian, and if anyone is propping up Christianity in the West it's immigrants. Pat also complains about the "brown" people's not reading Shakespeare - I can guarantee you that any given immigrant from India has read more Shakespeare than an American high school or college grad. But Pat goes right on to imply that only white people worship Jesus and study Western culture.

[Ridin' Shotgun]

the Right has to fight off the perception that they are racist bigots who want to return to segregation because of the ignorant Buchanan's of the world.

You couldn't be more wrong. The Right has to fight off the perception that they are racist bigots .... because we demand that immigrants should at least be required to APPLY for the multiplicity of services they want, which are funded by our hijacked earning, IN ENGLISH. The right has to fight off the perception that we are racist bigots because we demand that immigrants must at LEAST be able to communicate IN ENGLISH before they can VOTE away our sovereignty. Too much for you, right globogarbanzo?

[11th Earl of Mar]

You stated that 'all the farmers are gone.'

I said, 'back up your facts.'

Since you don't know what you are talking about try this site to see how many farmers there are in Michigan.

Educate yourself.

Michigan Farm Bureau

[ResistorSister]

Kinda silly to respond to me as a spell checker on someones name dont you think?

Nope...not silly at all. You mentioned someone named Petronksi...I am just wondering who or what you are talking about.

[DoughtyOne]

I'm not sure how to respond to you. I know you feel Buchanan's views are objectionable. I don't.

Despite the validity of Buchanan's points, his views have been marginalized to the point that I don't think anyone is going to confuse them with the Republicans. It is this very point that I lamented last year. The Republicans disagree with views that simply cannot be refuted. For me that is a problem.