<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Maddow vs Buchanan</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/2009/07/17/maddow-vs-buchanan/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/2009/07/17/maddow-vs-buchanan/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=maddow-vs-buchanan</link>
	<description>@TAC</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 04:36:40 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: MIke Wallens</title>
		<link>http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/2009/07/17/maddow-vs-buchanan/comment-page-1/#comment-8140</link>
		<dc:creator>MIke Wallens</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2009 12:15:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.amconmag.com/blog/?p=2023#comment-8140</guid>
		<description>I am actually suprised that anyone had expectations for Maddow.  She is a snarky, petty little left wing hack of the same type that you can see on Keith Olbermann&#039;s show.   She has no staying power and will go the way of all the other MSNMBC hosts (except Olbermann and Mathews) within a year.

Without the god awful Bush administration and the god awful Iraq war she and Keith have nothing.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am actually suprised that anyone had expectations for Maddow.  She is a snarky, petty little left wing hack of the same type that you can see on Keith Olbermann&#8217;s show.   She has no staying power and will go the way of all the other MSNMBC hosts (except Olbermann and Mathews) within a year.</p>
<p>Without the god awful Bush administration and the god awful Iraq war she and Keith have nothing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gerald Thomas</title>
		<link>http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/2009/07/17/maddow-vs-buchanan/comment-page-1/#comment-8137</link>
		<dc:creator>Gerald Thomas</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2009 11:43:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.amconmag.com/blog/?p=2023#comment-8137</guid>
		<description>Discrimination based on arbitrary attributes (skin color, ethnicity, etc.) is wrong. Maddow appears to agree with that statement with one exception - it&#039;s OK to discriminate on the basis of race as long as the race is white. All others must be protected from discrimination. Why? Must be because she wants to get even with whitey for all the racial discrimination from whites against others in the past. How many time did she harp on the 108 white supreme court justices? There were very likely 108 because of wrongful arbitrary discrimination in the past. Yes, there was plenty of it, and it was very wrong. But two wrongs do not make a right. Affirmative action is trying to use present day wrongful discrimination against whites to make up for the abhorable past of discrimination against minorities and blacks. It won&#039;t work. All it will do is to continue to stir the pot of hatred and create a power struggle to see who can discriminate the most effectively against who. We need to learn how to treat ALL people with EQUALITY and respect. Discrimination for logical reasons makes sense. Five black basketball players starting for a NBA basketball team may make perfectly good logical sense - they were most likely selected for logical, not arbitrary, reasons, they were the best five players. 108 white supreme court justices probably didn&#039;t make sense due to probable arbitrary discrimination, but it is possibly that it could have had there not been arbitrary discrimination and the logical best 108 were chosen. We need to be color blind and only use logical discrimination. That&#039;s what the word EQUAL means. DUH!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Discrimination based on arbitrary attributes (skin color, ethnicity, etc.) is wrong. Maddow appears to agree with that statement with one exception &#8211; it&#8217;s OK to discriminate on the basis of race as long as the race is white. All others must be protected from discrimination. Why? Must be because she wants to get even with whitey for all the racial discrimination from whites against others in the past. How many time did she harp on the 108 white supreme court justices? There were very likely 108 because of wrongful arbitrary discrimination in the past. Yes, there was plenty of it, and it was very wrong. But two wrongs do not make a right. Affirmative action is trying to use present day wrongful discrimination against whites to make up for the abhorable past of discrimination against minorities and blacks. It won&#8217;t work. All it will do is to continue to stir the pot of hatred and create a power struggle to see who can discriminate the most effectively against who. We need to learn how to treat ALL people with EQUALITY and respect. Discrimination for logical reasons makes sense. Five black basketball players starting for a NBA basketball team may make perfectly good logical sense &#8211; they were most likely selected for logical, not arbitrary, reasons, they were the best five players. 108 white supreme court justices probably didn&#8217;t make sense due to probable arbitrary discrimination, but it is possibly that it could have had there not been arbitrary discrimination and the logical best 108 were chosen. We need to be color blind and only use logical discrimination. That&#8217;s what the word EQUAL means. DUH!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jive Dadson</title>
		<link>http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/2009/07/17/maddow-vs-buchanan/comment-page-1/#comment-8112</link>
		<dc:creator>Jive Dadson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2009 00:59:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.amconmag.com/blog/?p=2023#comment-8112</guid>
		<description>Rachel Maddow&#039;s stock just went way, way down in my eyes.  I thought she was much more principled than that.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Rachel Maddow&#8217;s stock just went way, way down in my eyes.  I thought she was much more principled than that.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Cristopher Rodriguez</title>
		<link>http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/2009/07/17/maddow-vs-buchanan/comment-page-1/#comment-8111</link>
		<dc:creator>Cristopher Rodriguez</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2009 00:41:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.amconmag.com/blog/?p=2023#comment-8111</guid>
		<description>Rachel Maddow is a self-hating white socialist.  Rude and disgusting.  Her liberal professors did a great job brainwashing her in college...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Rachel Maddow is a self-hating white socialist.  Rude and disgusting.  Her liberal professors did a great job brainwashing her in college&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Cristopher Rodriguez</title>
		<link>http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/2009/07/17/maddow-vs-buchanan/comment-page-1/#comment-8110</link>
		<dc:creator>Cristopher Rodriguez</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2009 00:25:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.amconmag.com/blog/?p=2023#comment-8110</guid>
		<description>And we can raise the dead!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>And we can raise the dead!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Davidus Romanus</title>
		<link>http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/2009/07/17/maddow-vs-buchanan/comment-page-1/#comment-8109</link>
		<dc:creator>Davidus Romanus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2009 23:45:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.amconmag.com/blog/?p=2023#comment-8109</guid>
		<description>Pat B makes the case, correctly, that you don&#039;t end discrimination by changing who you discriminate against.  Everything should be on merit alone.  That was the whole point of Civil Rights.  If it&#039;s wrong to choose whites who are less qualified simply because they are white, it&#039;s equally wrong to choose someone less qualified simply because they are black, latina, or any other ethnicity.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Pat B makes the case, correctly, that you don&#8217;t end discrimination by changing who you discriminate against.  Everything should be on merit alone.  That was the whole point of Civil Rights.  If it&#8217;s wrong to choose whites who are less qualified simply because they are white, it&#8217;s equally wrong to choose someone less qualified simply because they are black, latina, or any other ethnicity.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mw</title>
		<link>http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/2009/07/17/maddow-vs-buchanan/comment-page-1/#comment-8106</link>
		<dc:creator>mw</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2009 19:43:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.amconmag.com/blog/?p=2023#comment-8106</guid>
		<description>Asian Americans are disproportionately represented at university with advanced degrees yet are doubly discriminated by both society in general and specifically by the policies of Affirmative Action by being categorized as OVER-REPRESENTED in professional positions, i.e. the &quot;glass ceiling.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Asian Americans are disproportionately represented at university with advanced degrees yet are doubly discriminated by both society in general and specifically by the policies of Affirmative Action by being categorized as OVER-REPRESENTED in professional positions, i.e. the &#8220;glass ceiling.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: madamImadam</title>
		<link>http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/2009/07/17/maddow-vs-buchanan/comment-page-1/#comment-8105</link>
		<dc:creator>madamImadam</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2009 19:21:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.amconmag.com/blog/?p=2023#comment-8105</guid>
		<description>left / right paradigm = everybody loses</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>left / right paradigm = everybody loses</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Messiah Obama Impersonates a Preacher &#171; LewRockwell.com Blog</title>
		<link>http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/2009/07/17/maddow-vs-buchanan/comment-page-1/#comment-8103</link>
		<dc:creator>Messiah Obama Impersonates a Preacher &#171; LewRockwell.com Blog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2009 18:42:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.amconmag.com/blog/?p=2023#comment-8103</guid>
		<description>[...] make the show&#8217;s political impersonators look almost exactly like the real thing on camera? This is a two-minute clip of Obama preaching in New York before the NAACP, speaking in a very divergent tone and style. I find [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] make the show&#8217;s political impersonators look almost exactly like the real thing on camera? This is a two-minute clip of Obama preaching in New York before the NAACP, speaking in a very divergent tone and style. I find [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JP</title>
		<link>http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/2009/07/17/maddow-vs-buchanan/comment-page-1/#comment-8082</link>
		<dc:creator>JP</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2009 17:40:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.amconmag.com/blog/?p=2023#comment-8082</guid>
		<description>What makes me mad is that Maddow came on at a later date to respond to some things Pat said, and argued against him, without him being there to defend himself!  I guess she realizes Pat whips her every time when it&#039;s one on one, so she now attacks him while he is not there to respond.

It seems a lot of the MSNBC commentators are doing that during the past week.  It makes me wonder if they are trying to push Pat out.  If Pat goes I am never watching that network again.  I like Morning Joe and of course Pat, but otherwise that network is pathetic.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What makes me mad is that Maddow came on at a later date to respond to some things Pat said, and argued against him, without him being there to defend himself!  I guess she realizes Pat whips her every time when it&#8217;s one on one, so she now attacks him while he is not there to respond.</p>
<p>It seems a lot of the MSNBC commentators are doing that during the past week.  It makes me wonder if they are trying to push Pat out.  If Pat goes I am never watching that network again.  I like Morning Joe and of course Pat, but otherwise that network is pathetic.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: OneSTDV</title>
		<link>http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/2009/07/17/maddow-vs-buchanan/comment-page-1/#comment-8055</link>
		<dc:creator>OneSTDV</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2009 16:03:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.amconmag.com/blog/?p=2023#comment-8055</guid>
		<description>I responded to Maddow at my blog (see comments as well):

http://onestdv.blogspot.com/2009/07/maddow-and-buchanan-analysis.html</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I responded to Maddow at my blog (see comments as well):</p>
<p><a href="http://onestdv.blogspot.com/2009/07/maddow-and-buchanan-analysis.html" rel="nofollow">http://onestdv.blogspot.com/2009/07/maddow-and-buchanan-analysis.html</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lucas</title>
		<link>http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/2009/07/17/maddow-vs-buchanan/comment-page-1/#comment-8045</link>
		<dc:creator>Lucas</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2009 06:16:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.amconmag.com/blog/?p=2023#comment-8045</guid>
		<description>There is absolutely nowhere I can go to find truly objective information.  Everything is spun in one direction or another.  Clearly people like to go where they can hear their own views confirmed.  Folks can come here and whine about how Rachel Maddow “victimized” Pat Buchanan and others can go to Huff Post and hear about how the Republicans are the “party of no”.  Never the twain shall meet.

The commitment to dueling echo chambers will be our undoing.  Politicians will continue to take advantage of the public’s perceived ignorance and private citizens will pay the price.  Corporations will continue to own the political process, and networks will make money broadcasting the bickering between both sides.  Facts…truth…will be inconsequential, and we will be having these exact arguments 20 years from now.  What’s the point?

Note that much of what Pat said simply wasn’t true.  White people were not 100% of the people who built this country and there were Blacks, Latinos, and Asians who fought in the wars.  But that doesn’t matter right?  As long as he scored some points on Rachel, or she on him…because at the end of the day that’s what this is all about.  Superiority.  Whoever is on top, whoever has the most votes (regardless of how they earned them), whoever has the most support (regardless of intellect, policy points, or integrity)—that person gets control and free reign to guarantee their own interests at the detriment of the country.  We don’t need terrorists.  We’ve got this well in hand.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There is absolutely nowhere I can go to find truly objective information.  Everything is spun in one direction or another.  Clearly people like to go where they can hear their own views confirmed.  Folks can come here and whine about how Rachel Maddow “victimized” Pat Buchanan and others can go to Huff Post and hear about how the Republicans are the “party of no”.  Never the twain shall meet.</p>
<p>The commitment to dueling echo chambers will be our undoing.  Politicians will continue to take advantage of the public’s perceived ignorance and private citizens will pay the price.  Corporations will continue to own the political process, and networks will make money broadcasting the bickering between both sides.  Facts…truth…will be inconsequential, and we will be having these exact arguments 20 years from now.  What’s the point?</p>
<p>Note that much of what Pat said simply wasn’t true.  White people were not 100% of the people who built this country and there were Blacks, Latinos, and Asians who fought in the wars.  But that doesn’t matter right?  As long as he scored some points on Rachel, or she on him…because at the end of the day that’s what this is all about.  Superiority.  Whoever is on top, whoever has the most votes (regardless of how they earned them), whoever has the most support (regardless of intellect, policy points, or integrity)—that person gets control and free reign to guarantee their own interests at the detriment of the country.  We don’t need terrorists.  We’ve got this well in hand.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nino</title>
		<link>http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/2009/07/17/maddow-vs-buchanan/comment-page-1/#comment-8028</link>
		<dc:creator>Nino</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2009 16:13:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.amconmag.com/blog/?p=2023#comment-8028</guid>
		<description>Pat cleaned her clock.

All she could do was resort to name calling.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Pat cleaned her clock.</p>
<p>All she could do was resort to name calling.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: richard monckton</title>
		<link>http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/2009/07/17/maddow-vs-buchanan/comment-page-1/#comment-8015</link>
		<dc:creator>richard monckton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 19 Jul 2009 21:14:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.amconmag.com/blog/?p=2023#comment-8015</guid>
		<description>KXB,

As was stated before, Buchanan was rejected from the draft in 1960, several years before US sent troops to Vietnam.  However, it&#039;s obvious you didn&#039;t know this detail when you brought it up, as you probably just read it somewhere on a lefty blog that &quot;Buchanan dodged the draft.&quot; Yet you still insist on bringing it up. So then you criticize him for not volunteering some 6 years later, give me a break. 

Also you pontificate on other things you know absolutely nothing about. Whatever the reason Buchanan has no children is none of your business, and not having children is not antithetic to family values. It&#039;s not like he&#039;s mormon. How do you know whom Buchanan socializes with? For a got guy who doesn&#039;t appreciate Buchanan, you must follow him around everywhere to know what he does when he&#039;s not on the air. 

Having and utilizing connections is a fact of life in all aspects of life and not something that can be institutionalized away...right down from a kid who takes a summer job for his uncle to all the zillions of young hollywood actors that are the children of famous stars.
It&#039;s true that blacks were discriminated against institutionally for hundreds of years, but the lesson from this is that institutionalized discrimination is wrong, not that it should be altered to &quot;make up for lost time.&quot;  And the fact that &quot;whites&quot; may have &quot;gained control of the system&quot; is Maddow says is irrelevant since the kind of whites who control the system from the top all the way down are the guilty white liberal stereotypes like those characterized in the book &quot;Stuff White People Like,&quot; the ones actively promoting affirmative action.

I&#039;m sorry that you have such little respect for people of other races to think that can&#039;t succeed without lowing the intelligence bar dumbing down our society and industries.  When Martin Luther King said men &quot;should be judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character&quot; I took it literally. That&#039;s why it&#039;s a mistake to continually &quot;groupify&quot; people, color categorize them and even think of people in terms of race if we are going to ever begin to achieve that goal.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>KXB,</p>
<p>As was stated before, Buchanan was rejected from the draft in 1960, several years before US sent troops to Vietnam.  However, it&#8217;s obvious you didn&#8217;t know this detail when you brought it up, as you probably just read it somewhere on a lefty blog that &#8220;Buchanan dodged the draft.&#8221; Yet you still insist on bringing it up. So then you criticize him for not volunteering some 6 years later, give me a break. </p>
<p>Also you pontificate on other things you know absolutely nothing about. Whatever the reason Buchanan has no children is none of your business, and not having children is not antithetic to family values. It&#8217;s not like he&#8217;s mormon. How do you know whom Buchanan socializes with? For a got guy who doesn&#8217;t appreciate Buchanan, you must follow him around everywhere to know what he does when he&#8217;s not on the air. </p>
<p>Having and utilizing connections is a fact of life in all aspects of life and not something that can be institutionalized away&#8230;right down from a kid who takes a summer job for his uncle to all the zillions of young hollywood actors that are the children of famous stars.<br />
It&#8217;s true that blacks were discriminated against institutionally for hundreds of years, but the lesson from this is that institutionalized discrimination is wrong, not that it should be altered to &#8220;make up for lost time.&#8221;  And the fact that &#8220;whites&#8221; may have &#8220;gained control of the system&#8221; is Maddow says is irrelevant since the kind of whites who control the system from the top all the way down are the guilty white liberal stereotypes like those characterized in the book &#8220;Stuff White People Like,&#8221; the ones actively promoting affirmative action.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m sorry that you have such little respect for people of other races to think that can&#8217;t succeed without lowing the intelligence bar dumbing down our society and industries.  When Martin Luther King said men &#8220;should be judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character&#8221; I took it literally. That&#8217;s why it&#8217;s a mistake to continually &#8220;groupify&#8221; people, color categorize them and even think of people in terms of race if we are going to ever begin to achieve that goal.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: KXB</title>
		<link>http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/2009/07/17/maddow-vs-buchanan/comment-page-1/#comment-8004</link>
		<dc:creator>KXB</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 19 Jul 2009 03:18:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.amconmag.com/blog/?p=2023#comment-8004</guid>
		<description>&quot;Your repugnance for any who happen to be the recipients of “special consideration”, however, points to one in favor of a world bereft of any distinctions and a Jacobin disgust of such. We have seen how this radicalism unfolds. Additionally, it must be admitted that in all nations there are groups who are beneficiaries of their forebears–shall the historical denizens and cultural majority of these nations be similarly condemned by you, KXB?&quot;

And what was this distinction of Buchanan&#039;s that got him out of the draft?  A talent for medicine, so he should go on to become a talented doctor?  A skilled scientist?  Nope - just having the connections to get out of an obligation to his country, not using his connections to advance anything worthwhile.  A man who has made his living at the public trough, without contributing anything.  A man who claims to stick up for family values, but has no children of his own.  A man who sticks up for the white working class, but socializes only with wealthy whites of the DC party circuit.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Your repugnance for any who happen to be the recipients of “special consideration”, however, points to one in favor of a world bereft of any distinctions and a Jacobin disgust of such. We have seen how this radicalism unfolds. Additionally, it must be admitted that in all nations there are groups who are beneficiaries of their forebears–shall the historical denizens and cultural majority of these nations be similarly condemned by you, KXB?&#8221;</p>
<p>And what was this distinction of Buchanan&#8217;s that got him out of the draft?  A talent for medicine, so he should go on to become a talented doctor?  A skilled scientist?  Nope &#8211; just having the connections to get out of an obligation to his country, not using his connections to advance anything worthwhile.  A man who has made his living at the public trough, without contributing anything.  A man who claims to stick up for family values, but has no children of his own.  A man who sticks up for the white working class, but socializes only with wealthy whites of the DC party circuit.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

