I was viewing this only from the political context with valid meaning intellectually honest. Unfortunately, in the political context, people do follow the path of least resistance. Why attack the strong positions when you only have to attack the addle-minded fools? For proof, please visit the Huffington Post or the Drudge Report. They both serve as a barometer of opposing but equal intellectual dishonesty.
Yes. I tend to disagree with members of both the far right and far left, but there are brilliant people at both ends. Whenever I talk about Pat Buchanan around a group of liberals, they go nuts, but I think he speaks well and his arguments are well reasoned and articulate. I actually agree with him a lot of times and I love watching the McLaughlin Group. John always gives Pat the first shot.
I just wasted 4+ minutes of life watching that video. I saw no smack down or anything unbrilliant about what he said. I didn't make out anything brilliant either i'm just saying I don't see any relevance in that video to anything I said before you posted a link to it.
Rachel Maddow mentions Dana Milbank's quote, explaining how it is not what Obama said and how it came to be misattributed to him. She talks about other stuff, someone else talks about other stuff, and Pat Buchanan comes in reading Dana Milbank's quote and commenting on it as though they were Obama's words, despite the refutation of the quote in the media at large and the refutation given by one of the participants only several minutes earlier.
I only posted the video to illustrate that he can say 'A' only seconds after someone has explained, indeed, 'not A'. Whether or not you accept the explanation of 'not A', reasoned discourse requires addressing, rather than ignoring, such a statement.
