Anonymous wrote:
OK, well I clearly think Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are bigots. Maxine Walters is a bigot. But as far as identifying the random MSNBC talking heads, no I do not know their names. But I found their comments 100% bigoted AND offensive. To me, nothing is more bigoted (by definition, really), then calling someone out SOLELY because of their race. i.e., not sharing the same political views as the majority of a particular ethnic group.

Jesse Jackson made a bigoted remark. But, I don't think that remark defines him and I wouldn't say that he is a bigot so much as someone who doesn't know when to close his mouth. Sharpton has done things that are largely considered to have been bigoted, but I don't know enough about him to say one way or the other. I would like to see you support your contention that Maxine Walters in a bigot.

I find it strange that you believe that "nothing is more bigoted (by definition, really), then calling someone out SOLELY because of their race" when you entered this discussion by saying there was no such thing as race. How can something that doesn't exist -- in your mind -- suddenly become the most important element? Isn't that like saying nothing is more bigoted then calling someone out based on their belief about the color of the Easter Bunny?

But, based on your examples and explanation of what is the most bigoted action, would you concede that Rush Limbaugh is undeniably a bigot? How about George Allen who is running for the Senate in VA? He used a racist term not unlike Jesse Jackson.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:first, there are no "races".

second, based on IQ testing, it seems clear that chinese and japanese asians are smarter than western europeans, and africans tend to be at the bottom.

but I guess we can also debate the accuracy of IQ testing.

who cares regardless?

If there are no races, then how do the bigots decide who to drag behind their trucks?

most of the bigots I see are on the left.

Well then you are seeing what you want to see. That's just laughable.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:most of the bigots I see are on the left.

Can you identify one?

I've read or seen several articles/videos regarding Herman Cain that I found really offensive. A few were from MSNBC.

I guess that's a "no"?

Also, being offensive is not the same as being a bigot. According to you, "most" bigots are on the left. Since there are a lot of bigots in the world, and "most" are on the left, can't you do a little better than unnamed people you found offensive?

OK, well I clearly think Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are bigots. Maxine Walters is a bigot. But as far as identifying the random MSNBC talking heads, no I do not know their names. But I found their comments 100% bigoted AND offensive. To me, nothing is more bigoted (by definition, really), then calling someone out SOLELY because of their race. i.e., not sharing the same political views as the majority of a particular ethnic group.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:most of the bigots I see are on the left.

Can you identify one?

I've read or seen several articles/videos regarding Herman Cain that I found really offensive. A few were from MSNBC.

I guess that's a "no"?

Also, being offensive is not the same as being a bigot. According to you, "most" bigots are on the left. Since there are a lot of bigots in the world, and "most" are on the left, can't you do a little better than unnamed people you found offensive?

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:most of the bigots I see are on the left.

Can you identify one?

I've read or seen several articles/videos regarding Herman Cain that I found really offensive. A few were from MSNBC.

Anonymous wrote:most of the bigots I see are on the left.

Can you identify one?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:first, there are no "races".

second, based on IQ testing, it seems clear that chinese and japanese asians are smarter than western europeans, and africans tend to be at the bottom.

but I guess we can also debate the accuracy of IQ testing.

who cares regardless?

If there are no races, then how do the bigots decide who to drag behind their trucks?

most of the bigots I see are on the left.

Anonymous wrote:first, there are no "races".

second, based on IQ testing, it seems clear that chinese and japanese asians are smarter than western europeans, and africans tend to be at the bottom.

but I guess we can also debate the accuracy of IQ testing.

who cares regardless?

If there are no races, then how do the bigots decide who to drag behind their trucks?

Anonymous wrote:first, there are no "races".

second, based on IQ testing, it seems clear that chinese and japanese asians are smarter than western europeans, and africans tend to be at the bottom.

but I guess we can also debate the accuracy of IQ testing.

who cares regardless?

I'm pretty sure that Buchanan would dispute your first statement. It would be interesting to hear his reaction to your second. I wouldn't be surprised if it resulted in agreement with your third. I guess if you are a member of a group being accused of having inferior genes, you might care.

This isn't relevant. Go away liberal troll....there are enough fights on DCUM already.

first, there are no "races".

second, based on IQ testing, it seems clear that chinese and japanese asians are smarter than western europeans, and africans tend to be at the bottom.

but I guess we can also debate the accuracy of IQ testing.

who cares regardless?

jsteele wrote:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:So what?

First, he's probably less relevant than Howard Dean.

Second, he simply said that he's not qualified to answer the question. Why should he be criticized for not adopting some dogma when he lacks real knowledge?

I don't know, Buchanan seems to constantly be on TV. Would he disavow the idea that white people have inferior genes or similarly plead ignorance?

Guess I have to tune away from Comedy Central news sometime.

I sincerely have no idea what he would say if the races were reversed in test scores, history of racism, etc., and someone asked him that question. I don't have near enough sense of his character to speculate. If you do think you have a good enough sense of his character to say, then what does this event add? This sounds like: Buchanan is racist -> he wouldn't have hedged about whites -> the statement was based in racism -> Buchanan is racist.

TheManWithAUsername wrote:So what?

First, he's probably less relevant than Howard Dean.

Second, he simply said that he's not qualified to answer the question. Why should he be criticized for not adopting some dogma when he lacks real knowledge?

I don't know, Buchanan seems to constantly be on TV. Would he disavow the idea that white people have inferior genes or similarly plead ignorance?

So what?

First, he's probably less relevant than Howard Dean.

Second, he simply said that he's not qualified to answer the question. Why should he be criticized for not adopting some dogma when he lacks real knowledge?