Well, if you’re not conceding anything, then you’re not doing a very good job defending your position. I’m sorry, but you can’t just provide a bunch of quotes and assume that I have the same anti-white opinions that you have. Your quotes only make Buchanan a bad guy if you have certain liberal or neo-conservative values, such as paternalism towards blacks, unconditional support of Israel, an immigration policy that will fundamentally change the nature of our country, a phobia of whites asserting their interests (even though you probably support nonwhites asserting theirs), etc. The reason you can’t argue with me is because I can guarantee you that you won’t find many intellectual opponents such as myself. You’re not used to whites who are sick and tired of apologizing for how “racist” and evil they are. You’re even less used to whites who vocally assert their interests and rights. But you can’t argue against it, because to do so, you’d make yourself a hypocrite.

“If you feel compelled to parse Buchanan’s words in such a way as to magically render him free of bigotry, that’s your prerogative — but I’m certainly not going to waste my time taking you seriously as you do so.”

Well, if you are so intellectually lazy as to provide quotes and magically expect to make a strong argument, then that’s your prerogative. At least I make an argument. All you do is visit Wikipedia and Buchanan hate sites and copy & paste. And, as an intellectual, I am supposed to take you seriously?

“The CR folks are fond of pointing out logical fallacies, maybe they can help you with your arguments.”

You committed a logical fallacy. Period. You can’t say, “Well, so-and-so said only one thing that resembles white supremacy, but since Buchanan said 50 things that resemble [in a liberal’s mind, anyway] white supremacy, he must actually be a white supremacist.” You have to provide proof that he’s a white supremacist. And you can’t do it by randomly adding unsystematic quotes together, that, when taken individually, don’t prove a damned thing. Maybe the CR folks can help you START arguing.. You haven’t made an argument yet, only accusations and assertions.

Also, it is true that our founding fathers had no intention of allowing whites to be ruled by anyone else in their own country. America was originally intended for free white people. If you think that that is evil, then you need to disown the founding fathers completely and destroy the society that they constructed.

On another note, why can’t whites be in charge of historically white nations? There is currently not a white nation in the world where it is socially acceptable for whites to believe that their country should remain white. On the other hand, Asians do believe that their nations should remain Asian, blacks do believe that their nations should remain black, Hispanics believe that their nations should remain Hispanic, Israelis believes that Israel should remain Jewish. And there’s nothing wrong with that. It’s perfectly natural and understandable. The problem is that whites are not given the same treatment. We are expected to cede power to every minority group that crosses our borders. The biggest source of what you would call “racism” stems indeed from whites, but it’s nevertheless racism that’s directed against whites.

“He praised David Duke, at one point making a joking threat to sue him for plagiarism, and suggested that the Republican Party should ‘take a hard look at Duke's portfolio of winning issues and expropriate those not in conflict with GOP principles, [such as] reverse discrimination against white folks.’”

Well, first off, just because he “praised” (whatever that means…) David Duke doesn’t necessarily mean that he agrees with Duke on everything. You need to explain this one a little better. Once again, a liberal doesn’t think that he has to defend his claims…

As far as “look[ing] at Duke's portfolio of winning issues and expropriat[ing] those not in conflict with GOP principles, [such as] reverse discrimination against white folks” is concerned, again, what’s wrong with that? Do you support reverse discrimination against whites? Oh, that’s right. You’re a liberal. Of course you do. If you have a problem with race-based discrimination against nonwhites, then why don’t you have a problem with race-based discrimination against whites? Obviously, you’ve imbibed the culture of white guilt. Have fun hating yourself.

“He denounced the idea that ‘white rule of a black majority is inherently wrong. Where did we get that idea? The Founding Fathers did not believe this.’ He referred admiringly to the apartheid regime as the ‘Boer Republic’: ‘Why are Americans collaborating in a U.N. conspiracy to ruin her with sanctions?’”

Well, is it “inherently wrong?” I mean, look at South Africa. For awhile South Africa was making “progress” (as it is defined by white patrons like you). According to the U.N. Human Development Index, it was making progress as a nation. Ever since blacks took over, however, their rape rate is one of the highest in the world, their AIDS rate is one of the highest in the world, and race-based discrimination against whites is an epidemic. The country is falling apart. If we judge the world by your white liberal standards, then clearly life in South Africa was better when it is run by whites than when it is run by blacks.

“Tracy is your real name Bay Buchanan? I think Pat has a handful of positions worth supporting, like his opposition to "free trade" — but even that is rooted more in xenophobic bigotry than in any real concern for the US working class.”

Yes, *** hole, my real name is Bay Buchanan. Because Bay Buchanan would definitely waste her time with a numbskull like you. It’s pretty remarkable that you would ask that question considering that you’re not even willing to give your opponents a name to call you.

And your claim that Buchanan doesn’t have “any real concern for the US working class” is absolutely preposterous. What you interpret as “xenophobic” is actually just Buchanan’s traditionalist Catholicism which holds that you ought to love your compatriots more than you are to love foreigners. But I guess Catholicism is a “racist” religion. Also, his opposition to unregulated capitalism even within the USA is further proof that he truly cares about the working class.

“Reminiscing fondly about the pre-civil rights era: ‘There were no politics to polarize us then, to magnify every slight. The 'negroes' of Washington had their public schools, restaurants, bars, movie houses, playgrounds and churches; and we had ours.’”

If you think about it, this is actually a pro-black position, at least in the opinion of Malcolm X. White liberals such as yourself basically want blacks to live in a paternalistic society in which they are admitted to (and encouraged to attend) our intellectual institutions even when they’re not qualified, in which blacks are given untold billions of the taxpayers’ money while they are continuously prompted to hate their benefactors, in which their culture is dictated by corporate America and politically correct Hollywood, and the list goes on and on. They are never encouraged to practice self-determination. They are told what they should aspire to be. And, of course, this is necessary if we are going to integrate them. I so respect blacks as human beings that I don’t want to presume to tell them what their culture should look like. And they’d be happier if they’d just make their own without our input.

“In the mid-60s he published FBI smears of civil rights leaders in his column in the St. Louis Globe Democrat, bragging later that he was one of ‘Hoover's conduits to the American people.’”

What’s wrong with this? As long as it was done legally (and it appears that it was), then why can’t the American people see what the FBI has discovered? Also, I like J. Edgar Hoover.

Continued…

"The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things. How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild and melting influences of Christianity than from the storm and tempest of fiery controversy. This influence, though slow, is sure. The doctrines and miracles of our Savior have required nearly two thousand years to convert but a small portion of the human race, and even among Christian nations what gross errors still exist! While we see the course of the final abolition of human slavery is still onward, and give it the aid of our prayers, let us leave the progress as well as the results in the hands of Him who, chooses to work by slow influences, and with whom a thousand years are but as a single day. Although the abolitionist must know this, must know that he has neither the right nor the power of operating, except by moral means; that to benefit the slave he must not excite angry feelings in the master; that, although he may not approve the mode by which Providence accomplishes its purpose, the results will be the same; and that the reason he gives for interference in matters he has no concern with, holds good for every kind of interference with our neighbor, -still, I fear he will persevere in his evil course. . . . Is it not strange that the descendants of those Pilgrim Fathers who crossed the Atlantic to preserve their own freedom have always proved the most intolerant of the spiritual liberty of others?"

"The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things. How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild and melting influences of Christianity than from the storm and tempest of fiery controversy. This influence, though slow, is sure. The doctrines and miracles of our Savior have required nearly two thousand years to convert but a small portion of the human race, and even among Christian nations what gross errors still exist! While we see the course of the final abolition of human slavery is still onward, and give it the aid of our prayers, let us leave the progress as well as the results in the hands of Him who, chooses to work by slow influences, and with whom a thousand years are but as a single day. Although the abolitionist must know this, must know that he has neither the right nor the power of operating, except by moral means; that to benefit the slave he must not excite angry feelings in the master; that, although he may not approve the mode by which Providence accomplishes its purpose, the results will be the same; and that the reason he gives for interference in matters he has no concern with, holds good for every kind of interference with our neighbor, -still, I fear he will persevere in his evil course. . . . Is it not strange that the descendants of those Pilgrim Fathers who crossed the Atlantic to preserve their own freedom have always proved the most intolerant of the spiritual liberty of others?"

Reminiscing fondly about the pre-civil rights era: "There were no politics to polarize us then, to magnify every slight. The 'negroes' of Washington had their public schools, restaurants, bars, movie houses, playgrounds and churches; and we had ours."

In the mid-60s he published FBI smears of civil rights leaders in his column in the St. Louis Globe Democrat, bragging later that he was one of "Hoover's conduits to the American people."

He praised David Duke, at one point making a joking threat to sue him for plagiarism, and suggested that the Republican Party should "take a hard look at Duke's portfolio of winning issues and expropriate those not in conflict with GOP principles, [such as] reverse discrimination against white folks."

He denounced the idea that "white rule of a black majority is inherently wrong. Where did we get that idea? The Founding Fathers did not believe this." He referred admiringly to the apartheid regime as the "Boer Republic": "Why are Americans collaborating in a U.N. conspiracy to ruin her with sanctions?"

"The central objection to the present flood of illegals is that they are not English- speaking white people from Western Europe, they are Spanish- speaking brown and black people from Mexico, Latin America and the Caribbean."

Also, the name “Carolina Review” sounds eerily familiar. Maybe it’s derived from “National Review”?