Written on Thursday, April 9th, 2009 at 8:50pm by Alan Bedenko | 22 Comments
O'Donnell pwns the petit Fascist Pat Buchanan
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdykMM1W7I4][/youtube]
22 Comments
-
Advertisement
-
Latest
-
Olympics 2010
Latest: DJ Champion, Cœur de pirate, and Team Canada DJs -
Pink Bflo
Latest: Gender Bender – From QB to Boobie -
Bill O'Loughlin
Latest: Bill O'Loughlin Show: Tue 2/9/10 -
BfloBlog
Latest: The Lost Weekend -
Chris Smith
Latest: The Cost of Bad Government -
Broadway Fillmore Alive
Latest: Hoping to get you taxes done on time? -
Scott Leffler
Latest: Spitzer: What we need -
The Goose's Roost
Latest: Wants and Needs: Columbus Blue Jackets -
Alan Bedenko
Latest: Flame Bait: Statler -
The Answer Lady
Latest: Making Widgets at the Corporate University
-
Advertisement
Must have seen a different video.
O was a typical leftist here–shouting down his opponent. The left loves free speech–for themselves.
Buchanan stated that the Pope’s view against the death penalty (in most cases) was not a statement of faith or morals as is the Church’s view on abortion.
I don’t know whether that’s true or not since I’m not a theologian but O ignored the point and shouted on.
Filibustering is not an argument.
Filibustering is not an argument.
If only you applied this sentiment to yourself. I guess you’re more of a stick your fingers in your ear and repeat yourself over and over “arguer”.
Chris, I abandoned fifth grade playground forensic tactics when I left 2nd grade. Grow up.
This is a finer example of a discussion in which the rational person from the left armed with facts takes down a person of faith from the right armed with toothless talking points.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ISylK4g6UM
Jim, I don’t think it’s out of bounds to state that you have spent at least five years of Internet existence barking at people and not listening. It’s why Free Buffalo has a hard time attracting support, you don’t listen. You don’t debate, you don’t care to discuss, you make no attempt to learn about people’s motivations, ideals or ideas. You want people to listen to YOU and god damn it, if they don’t you’re just gonna keep talking.
Asking people to support their positions for the sole purpose of lying in wait to tell them why they are wrong (and you are right), does nothing to build support for your cause and it is nothing close to “debate”. People don’t like to be scolded and you are the chief scold, cook and bottle washer of the Buffalo Blog Scene. It forces people to think you’re just an ideologue egomaniac interested in growing a brand and they tune you out.
When you finally understand that fundamental fact, you might start building some consensus. For fucks sake, you can’t even get on the same page as Rus Thompson and he agrees with 98% of your politics.
I find you to be a great guy in person and when not discussing matters of politics, I enjoy your company. I’ve met your wonderfully charming wife and your beautiful kids and you seem exceptionally rational in person. If you could transition some of that into your messaging, you might get some more support. Free advice, take it or leave it.
In both examples, I don’t see anybody pwnd from either side.
Bread and circus nonsense…
Filibustering refers to speech. I don’t filibuster. I get filibustered. People who can’t argue often keep talking as a substitute. Or they insult.
I don’t listen. Examples please. There are none.
Rus Thompson and I disagree on many things. He supports the Asian land wars for example. Rus wanted a tea party to affect the state budget. I thought that was hopeless but I promoted his event anyway and I spoke when he invited me. Rus wants to end the tolls and get federal money for the GI bridges. I am opposed to federal spending on local roads. So, your facts are wrong.
The fact that I work with conservatives like Rus and liberals like Peter Reese and Tim Tielman again shows you are wrong on the facts. Free Buffalo was and is big tent with no litmus test and meetings open to all with an open mike at most. At my suggestion, the April 18th tea party has an open mike session as well.
Free Buffalo has many supporters. How many should we have since we call for fundamental change and this community so far wants the status quo. No movement like ours has succeeded since 1800-1804. Sorry I’m not Jefferson.
I vaguely recall that years ago you wanted some points we can all agree on and I sent you some and I never heard back. That’s fine but then why the tude, dude?
Ideologue? What does that mean? Is it good, bad? I’m a hardcore libertarian for thirty years. Used to be a liberal, never been a conservative, no apologies for any of that.
Now to Hitchens/Blackwell. Blackwell obviously can’t engage in a serious argument, no biggie there.
Hitchens is a militant atheist commie. He doesn’t seem to know the meaning of the term “nation.” It means the people, not the government, so he’s full of crap in the discussion that follows.
“A nation is a body of people who share a common history, culture, language or ethnic origin, who typically inhabit a particular country or territory.” Wiki
And for a pro-war neocon commie to suggest that religion causes violence is hysterical. The commies murdered millions. I am not a student of religion but no Christian ever murdered because he was following the instructions of Jesus.
How is Buchanan a fascist?
He routinely called out G.W.B. for his bullshit huuuuge government control
O’donnell looks like a cunt in this video, just talking over buchanan at every opportunity
You need to understand that talking loudest isn’t talking rightest
The thing that gets me, Jim, is that these guys bitch about the same things we do but continue to support the same system and the politicians that promise “change” within that system. The system is corrupt and now(finally) broke. Left/right is just a sideshow. They don’t deviate at all on the big issues. I posted a list of politicians who received AIG donations(Obama topped the list) and there was dead silence. That’s just one example of many.
Chris, Alan, follow the fucking money……
“And for a pro-war neocon commie to suggest that religion causes violence is hysterical. The commies murdered millions. I am not a student of religion but no Christian ever murdered because he was following the instructions of Jesus.”
1. Neocon commie? Really? He is a neoconservative communist? Please, explain to me what positions one must hold to be considered a neoconservative communist because that is a new one.
2. Commies didn’t murder anyone, corrupt regimes calling themselves communists did. And your beloved free market has taken it’s fair share of lives as well. The industrial revolution wasn’t exactly a cake walk for labor in this country and worldwide we’ve still got kids working in sweatshops living in deplorable conditions all to turn a profit and keep feeding the beast global capitalism has become.
3. No Christians ever killed following the instructions of Jesus? Really? You can sum all communists up as godless killing machines but you can’t accept the fact the instructions of Jesus reach a lot further when backed up with a body count? Tell me Jim, is the vast majority of South America Christian because they received the good news about Jesus completely independently of Europeans taking over the place? Christianity is what it is today because wars were fought for it. Religion is the original corrupt special interest group.
The point is that generally it’s the wingers who get on these idiotic talking head shows and scream over everyone to make a point. Oftentimes the point is stupid, and the liberal is too milquetoasty to respond adequately to the screeching.
In this instance, it’s not so. O’Donnell made a phenomenal point regarding what Catholic teaching is on the taking of life, whether it be abortion or death penalty. If Notre Dame shan’t invite Obama for his support of abortion rights, then it follows that Notre Dame shouldn’t have invited Bush for his support of the death penalty.
O’Donnell also makes the point that while Obama’s never performed an abortion, Bush has killed people on death row as governor of a state and president of the union.
While Buchanan tries to deflect by arguing that the people on death row were all guilty of murder, the Catholic church specifically condemns the death penalty, so the fact of guilt is implied and doesn’t change anything.
I found it refreshing for Buchanan to be left a stammering fool with no point.
It’s almost as if the liberals refuse to be bullied and screamed down by conservative shit-talkers anymore.
O’Donnell owns Buchanan in this clip. Anyone who isn’t full of shit can see that.
I love the “I’m not a theologian” dodge. Awesome.
Of course conservative Christians love to pick and choose which Biblical passages to follow. Leviticus 18:22 is the Word of God therefore homosexuality is evil, but other passages, not so much.
I agree ND should not have invited Bush the war criminal.
On Hitchens, here’s WIKI:
While he was once identified with the British and American radical political left, he has more recently embraced some arguably centre right causes, notably the Iraq War; the war has had the support of some liberal commentators of Hitchens’ acquaintance in the UK and Canada. Formerly a Trotskyist and a fixture in the left-wing publications of both the United Kingdom and United States, Hitchens departed from the grassroots of the political left in 1989 after what he called the “tepid reaction” of the European left following Ayatollah Khomeini’s issue of a fatwa calling for the murder of Salman Rushdie. The September 11, 2001 attacks strengthened his embrace of an interventionist foreign policy, and his vociferous criticism of what he calls “fascism with an Islamic face.”
His employment of the term “Islamofascist” and his support for the Iraq War have caused Hitchens’s critics to label him a “neoconservative”. Hitchens, however, refuses to embrace this designation,[41] insisting that “I am not a conservative of any kind”. In 2004, Hitchens stated that neoconservative support for US intervention in Iraq convinced him that he was “on the same side as the neo-conservatives” when it came to contemporary foreign policy issues.[95] He has also been known to refer to his association with “temporary neocon allies”.[96]
ME AGAIN:
So, the guy has commie roots which remain in its his militant atheism–the absured notion that religion is the main evil on earth and all would be well without it. Then, he turned neocon. Well, there’s a huge literature on the Trotkyite roots of the neocons.
“Commies didn’t murder anyone, corrupt regimes calling themselves communists did.”
That made for a good laugh. Not sure how to respond to such an incredible assertion.
See the works of RJ Rummel and the Black Book off Communism. Please do some research before you post. I’m not getting paid for this seminar.
If you want to see the contribution of the free market on human welfare, just look at a chart of life expectancy in the US from 1900 through the present, keeping in mind that we had relative laissez-faire from 1900 through the thirties and no Med–Med until 1967. BTW, you can’t find the start of Medicare-Medicaid on the chart by sight!
Still waiting for the instructions of Jesus to murder anyone. Jesus was not a politician or political philosopher and had no positive political prrogram that anyone has ever been able to explain to me.
Communism is a political philosophy and it implicitly and explicitly authorizes its adherents to use force to install and maintain it. And did they ever use force!
Your move.
You missed this part:
“1. Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., $103,100
2. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., $101,332 ”
“Also – can the Free NY crowd explain the fundamental contradiction between its apparent disgust for the influence of money in politics and its usual “anything goes” free marketism”
There is no free market. If government didn’t interfere in the marketplace there would be no need to buy influence.
BP, I think the Catholic Church, at least here in the US, has a policy to excommunicate politicians that support abortion. They do not have anything like that concerning the death penalty. Notre Dame does not decide these rules, but as an institution of the Catholic Church they must adhere to them. Sure, you can easily debate the merits of this rule, but Notre Dame cannot. They’re simply following the laws they’re required to follow. That’s why the difference between their handling of Bush and Obama.
As for Byron and his ilk, I don’t think Notre Dame has ever been much concerned with what anti-religion “freethinkers” have thought of them. If someone were truly concerned with free thinking and open-mindedness, wouldn’t they allow Notre Dame and conservative Christians to have their views, even if they differed from their own?
Is someone stopping them? ND is free to think what they want, and I’m free to think that they (and their “ilk”) are cowardly hypocrites.
Oh, and “pro-war neocon commie” sounds like a pretty good description of Hitchens to me, assuming “self-absorbed a$$hole” isn’t available.
By the way it has been proven time after time that not all prisoners on death row are guilty. There are documented cases of innocent people being executed in the US. The State of Illinois put a moratorium on all executions after 4 men on death row were found to be innocent. The only reason the men were found to be innocent was because a university professor and his students would not relent in their efforts to find the truth.
People like Buchanan would argue that since they were found innocent the system worked. The problem is that it was people outside the system that fixed a horrible injustice and people like Buchanan fought them the whole time.
No Mr. Buchanan, not everyone on death row is guilty. But you would put them to death anyway and so did Bush.
Buchanan a Fascist? I think someone needs to find out what Fascism actually is before you start throwing around the label.
Lawrence O’Donnell doesn’t have a clue:
Pope Benedict XVI (then, Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith), “with guidance to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, stated succinctly, emphatically and unambiguously” as follows:
June, 2004 “Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.” http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=1125
Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick: More Concerned with ‘Comfort’ than Christ?, Catholic Online, 7/11/2004
What Ardent Practicing Catholics Do (1)
By Fr. John De Celles, 9/1/2008
“Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is … a grave and clear obligation to oppose them … [I]t is therefore never licit to … “take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or vote for it.”
In other words: it is always a grave or mortal sin for a politician to support abortion.
On Sunday, before the whole nation, (Rep. Nancy Pelosi) claimed to be an “ardent, practicing Catholic.” Imagine if someone came in here and said “I’m a mafia hit man and I’m proud of it.” Or “I deal drugs to little children.” Or “I think black people are animals and it’s okay to make them slaves, or at least keep them out of my children’s school.”
Are these “ardent practicing Catholics”? No, they are not.”
And neither is a person who ardently supports and votes to fund killing 1 to 1.5 million unborn babies every single year. Especially if that person is in a position of great power trying to get others to follow her. Someone, for example, like a Catholic Speaker of the House, or a Catholic candidate for Vice President of the United States, or a Catholic senior Senator who is stands as the leading icon his political party. Like the proud and unrepentant murderer or drug dealer, they are not ardent Catholics. They are, in very plain terms, very bad Catholics.”
But the reason I say all this is not because I want to embarrass them or even correct them — they’re not even here. It’s because of you. Because back in the 1850’s when Catholic bishops, priests, and politicians were either silent or on the wrong side of the slavery debate, they risked not only their souls, but the souls of every other Catholic they influenced. I cannot do that, and I won’t do that.
Some would say, well Father, what about those people who support the war in Iraq, or the death penalty, or oppose undocumented aliens? Aren’t those just as important, and aren’t Catholic politicians who support those “bad Catholics” too?
Simple answer: no. Not one of those issues, or any other similar issues, except for the attack on traditional marriage is a matter of absolute intrinsic evil in itself. Not all wars are unjust — and good Catholics can disagree on facts and judgments. Same thing with the other issues: facts are debatable, as are solutions to problems.”
“What Ardent Practicing Catholics Do: Correcting Pelosi”, National Review Online, 9/1/2008 6:00AM
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTY1MzAwOTc5MmViMzUyYzM5YmY3OWFkYzdkMzY0YzM=
Probably the Jews-suck-Hitler-wasn’t-so-bad thing, Ike.
@Mike Walsh – AIG gave $23,000 to Obama’s campaign in 2008 – that represents a miniscule fraction of the over-half-billion-dollars Obama-Biden raised during the 2008 cycle. Tell me again how 0.00383% of Obama’s total take is improper influence.
Also – can the Free NY crowd explain the fundamental contradiction between its apparent disgust for the influence of money in politics and its usual “anything goes” free marketism that would, I gather, support unlimited and unrestricted donations to candidates from corporations, individuals, foreigners, and anyone else who cared to donate? After all, the SCOTUS has held that donating money to a politician is protected by the 1st Amendment.