Why is it racist to support Palestinians rather than Israel?

Just because they're Jewish doesn't make it racist not to support them.
If anyone is an opposed minority it's the Palestinians.

Why is Pat Buchanan a racist?
...for objecting to the slaughter of hundreds of civilians? or for objecting to it when Israel is doing it?

Would it be OK if Russia was invading Georgia and killing hundreds of civilians who got in the way of trying to kill terrorists?

>> ^mharvey42:
>> ^campionidelmondo:
U.S. news networks are a joke. They failed to mention that the UN driver was shot and killed by Israeli soldiers.
Oh and by the way, Clifford May is vice-chair of the Republican Jewish Coalition.

OMG, He's a Jew?!?
Get a rope!
lol
You sound just as racist as Pat Buchanan.


Are you so desperate to make a point? Being a vice-chair of a coalition might show some bias, don't you think?

You are irrationally and fervently set in your ways. Seeing your rash of comments lately makes me think that you are akin to a fundamentalist in the way that you will hold onto your beliefs no matter what facts come out. No matter the context or source, you will latch onto anything that supports your beliefs and dismiss anything that undermines them. Oh yes, everyone acts that way to some degree, but you win a prize.

What prize you ask? You win exclusive access to list that has remained untouched. Yes, you are the first and probably only person to go on it.

Welcome to my ignore list.

>> ^campionidelmondo:
U.S. news networks are a joke. They failed to mention that the UN driver was shot and killed by Israeli soldiers.
Oh and by the way, Clifford May is vice-chair of the Republican Jewish Coalition.

OMG, He's a Jew?!?
Get a rope!
lol
You sound just as racist as Pat Buchanan.

Holy sh!t, I too agree with Buchanan. There is a first for everything.

The other guy is a shill for Hasbara.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasbara

and the neocons.

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1296.html

>> ^honkeytonk73:
Wow.. I usually can't stand Buchanan.. but I am 100% with him this time.


That should be clue for you when you find yourself cheerleader for Pat Buchanan: Maybe your current opinion is seriously off-base.

Listen to Cliff May. He makes sense.

Wow.. I usually can't stand Buchanan.. but I am 100% with him this time.

Weirds me out when I hear Buchanan talking some sense.

Pat Buchanan ran as an Independent in 2000. Does being Christian somehow mean one is ineligible to run 3rd Party? And guess what, Ron Paul happens to be Christian, as well as conservative.

By 3rd party do you guys mean Christian Conservatives like Pat Buchanan?

>> ^shuac:
In charge of the Senate?
I predict that if this becomes another "the McCain Camp Fucked Up Again" story, I'll bet they'll try to spin it this way:
Ms. Palin was merely trying to provide an answer that would make sense to a gradeschooler, per the interviewer's source.
Any takers?


Being the rapacious consumer of cable news I've become, I can report that Pat Buchanan made exactly that argument on Hardball tonight.

Well done sir.

Obama has plans to slash federal spending to the bone, and decrease government size and complexity. Im not seeing how you can equate that to a creation of a socialist state.

If what you say is true, Obama would be upfront about it. He's not, because he's either lying or delusional. In no way will this guy shrink government down...not saying McCain will either, but McCain won't expand it the way Barry will.

Colin Powell says it well, a re-evaluation of the taxation system is not socialism, its responsible governing. Lest you apply those same metrics to bush when he got in power and changed the way the tax system worked, then Obama is not a socialist.

Powell is a well-fed traitor to those to helped raise him up (all Republicans). The man was a mediocre general and knows nothing about economics, except he demands his speaking fees up front. He's a minor disappointment with a minor impact on the election.

Face it QM, the republicans have bought the nation on the brink of collapse, both economically and militarily by committing the nations forces to an ilegal, unjust, vague war, and de-regulating the economy and allowing greed to be the controlling factor in the market.

We WON the war in Iraq, which has a stable government. While it's true that Republicans became fat and lazy the past 8 years (spending like liberals on the back of 9-11) it was not "deregulation" that caused market collapses but shifting government force to other things, like Democrats forcing Fan/Fred to give loans to unqualified applicants. You can't blame the free market, because people are wisely frugal when it's their money being spent, but when Big Government backs up any losses, then people become like drunk gamblers in Vegas...with other peoples' money.

When the history pages are written, the past 8 years will doubtfully look kind on Bush and his administration, for their failed economic policy, their failed foreign policy, their failure to address katrina, their failure to be diplomatic with rogue-leaning nations, their failure to maintain basic infrastructure, their failure to keep some modicum of peace in the middle east, their failure to govern responsibly and impartially for EVERY american (and not just the rich republicans), their failure to address global warming, their failure on promoting good science.....on literally every level, the cons have failed to deliver progressing the nation, and the world over the past 8 years.

I have no doubt marxist professors at liberal-run universities (along with the MSM) will write all of the above, but they've never been right about anything, that's why they and their "theories" hide in universities instead of cutting their teeth in the real world. Slouching towards socialism isn't "progressive" to the rest of us. I know you can't believe me, you'll have to wait another 50 years when global warming has done nothing new.

Entanglement with churches, guns, gay rights, the annihilation of basic civil liberties...the list gos on.

A mantra that has little to back it up. I see no decrease in civil liberties for any American. Gays have more phony "rights" than ever. Liberals hate religion but guess what?--it's here to stay. Gun ownership was just confirmed as an individual right.

I dont understand how you can consistantly sit there and keep pushing the line that anyone not republican, is a terrorist / communist / socialist / generic-bad-guy, given the history of the past 8 years...just astounding how partisan you are.

The reality of the situation is this: you cannot have one-half of the population trying to go at it their own way, making mistakes and poor choices that are an inherent part of freedom and hopefully learning from them, and then have another half expecting the government to take care of them like they were children, and getting the monies to do so off the first group. Whether you know it or not, America is in the midst of a civil war of values. Republicans range in opinion from Ron Paul to Pat Buchanan, so "partisan" doesn't describe things so accurately.

And lets not even get me started on the topic of republican socialism with the bailout...seriously man, get a grip.

Of course it's wrong, but it's an aberration, and unfortunately, is mostly clean-up of Democrat-created messes. There will be blood in the Republican Party, but first, Marx must be defeated.

So what if it was racially motivated? It probably wasn't the sole reason for his endorsement, but it might have played a part in it. I don't understand how that's supposed to be negative or how any white American can even begin to judge him (or any black person for that matter) for it.

He's living in a country founded by slave owners, where slavery was legal for more than two hundred years and would probably remain legal to this very day if it was up to the people of every individual state. All the 43 presidents up to this point were white and black people are still struggling for equal treatment today. For centuries black Americans have dreamed of the day of the Inauguration of a black American President. You can't consider that to be racist, it's just another step towards true equality and a big one at that.

A couple of days ago I read a comment on this site where a member claimed that black people voting for Obama because he's black is the same as white people voting for McCain because he's white. He said it's the same kind of racism. This would be true, if:

• White Americans were at some point enslaved to black slave owners for a period no shorter than 200 years.
  
  
• Half the presidents up to this point had been black Americans.
  
  
• The number of black Americans was about equal to the number of caucasian Americans.
  

But since that's nowhere near the truth I can only shake my head at such a statement.

Saying that race has absolutely nothing to do with Powell's endorsement is foolish too. The question we should be asking ourselves is: So what if it is? Wouldn't he have every reason to yearn for a black president? Wouldn't he rightly see it as a great achievement in the long struggle black people have had to endure? Do you honestly believe that he doesn't care at all about it?

I can understand that you all think you have to deny that there could be any racial motivation on Powell's side, but I honestly don't think that taking race out of the discussion is the right thing to do. You can't fight racism with ignorance. Instead you should be asking people like Buchanan about the possible reasons a black person could have for a racially motivated vote and how the reasons for it can be very different from a white persons racially motivated vote.

So not one person who posted here thinks Powell's endorsement was racially motivated.

I'm relieved.

The real racism is on the part of George Will and Pat Buchanan and people like them to even suggest such a thing.

Why would anyone give a shit what Pat Buchanan has to say?
If it was racially motivated, he would have done it long ago. Obama didn't turn black today.

Remember the liberal double standard:

Black person preferring or favoring another Black person because of race: supportive

White person preferring or favoring another White person because of race: racist

^ The above really has nothing to do with this post, I just thought you'd like to know, that I know how the liberal mind 'works'.


the mcain/palin mob video showcased rabid,potentially violent,ignorant and bigoted supporters leaving a mcain/palin rally.

You sure are reading a lot into those people; I'd say it was a case of projection. Also, the cameraman in my submission wasn't a provocative jackass like the one in the "Mob" sift.

Do you really believe that the alarming ignorance of these Obamites is less harmful or dangerous than spirited remarks from McCainites? Don't make the mistake of confusing Democrats with Republicans. Republicans range from Pat Buchanan to Ron Paul to liberals like Bush 43. Democrats all pretty much march in lockstep with Ted Kennedy.

The people "my" guy interviewed HAVE NO IDEA why they like Obama. Change? Well, a tire going from full to flat has "changed". Does that make it better?

It was a racist Black woman who said that bit about 1/2 Black = still Black, so why shoot the messenger?

Don't waste the Power Point or however it works, Joe Dirt, this never had a chance anyway on liberalsift.