Pat Buchanan Calls a Spade a Spade

[Kramer]

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=133893

[Michael Tee]

I  like Buchanan when he talks about the illogic of the U.S. wars of unprovoked aggression or about the sinister and totally unwarranted influence of the Israel Lobby on American politics.  I don't like him when he draws ludicrous comparisons between the Tea Parties and the radical politics of the 1960s.

The Sixties radicals were faced with a country which was sacrificing the lives of about 200 young Americans every week in a cruel and senseless war of unprovoked aggression, generated by lies every bit as crude and obviously ridiculous as the lies with which the Bush administration lied the U.S. into the Iraq War; they were fighting a racist society still coming to grips with the Civil Rights legislation of the mid-Sixties and trying to accomplish their goals through democratic channels despite the repeated assassinations of their most promising leaders.

While Buchanan is twisting his knickers in feigned outrage over the mass demonstrations of the Left and their supposed "violence" (mostly property destruction) he says absolutely nothing - - not one God-damn word!! - - about the mysterious assassinations of independent politicians like JFK or real progressives like RFK or Martin Luther King.  Not a word about the repeated massacres of student demonstrators by agents of the state at Kent State or Orangeburg or Jackson State.  It's incredible - - he must think his readers are a bunch of fucking morons with no memories of their own recent history.  Not a single word about the massive police violence inflicted on peaceful Civil Rights demonstrators at Selma, at Mongomery, at Birmingham.  The assassination of Medgar Evers?  Never happened.  Medgar who?  The police killings of Fred Hampton and Mark Clark.

Well, all I can say about Buchanan is that he's uneven - - sometimes he nails it and sometimes he doesn't.

[Kramer]

there is not comparisons to the Tea Party and liberals was Buchanan's point.

Liberals are just plane liars and have serious anger management issues.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/03/30/rove_shouted_down_called_war_criminal_at_book_signing.html

[Michael Tee]

I'd say it's the right-wing anti-government nuts that have the anger managment problems, and you don't have to look all the way back to the Sixties to the examples I posted from there.

Try today's headlines about "Christian Warriors" an anti-government militia arrested in Michigan for plotting to massacre law enforcement officers in honour of Jesus Christ.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/03/29/michigan.arrests/index.html?hpt=T1

Let me know when you find any "Leftists" as dangerous as these wackos.

[sirs]

Leave it to Tee to find an extreme splinter faction, and try to paintbrush that as an example of your typical right wing

Typical Tee, is what it is

[Kramer]

I'd say it's the right-wing anti-government nuts that have the anger managment problems, and you don't have to look all the way back to the Sixties to the examples I posted from there.

Try today's headlines about "Christian Warriors" an anti-government militia arrested in Michigan for plotting to massacre law enforcement officers in honour of Jesus Christ.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/03/29/michigan.arrests/index.html?hpt=T1

Let me know when you find any "Leftists" as dangerous as these wackos.

They seem like the kinda folk Obama would have a beer with. Ever heard of Bill Ayers or Rev. Wright? Not the type of Christians that Bush would hang around or attend services with. These Michigan guys seem like they attend a similar type of church Obama attended for 20 years. Get the connection? It's called hate. Anyone attending a so-called 'CHRISTIAN' church when they hear hate speech or plans to kill people they best get out of that church real fast, I know I would. You see Mikey there are people that call themselves Christian but they aren't. Kinda like there are peaceful practicing Muslims and then the ones that spread hate and terror. Except it appears that many mainstream Muslims actually sit back and let themselves get paint brushed along with the radical Muslims.

I would think you would be the kinda fella that would be intelligent enough to be aware of these very obvious differences. This is where your credibility gets shot and you look like the typical hate-filled liberal wacko when you say such stupid things as you so often do.

[Amianthus]

Let me know when you find any "Leftists" as dangerous as these wackos.

Does Norman Leboon ring a bell? Earth First? ELF?

[Michael Tee]

<<I would think you would be the kinda fella that would be intelligent enough to be aware of these very obvious differences. This is where your credibility gets shot and you look like the typical hate-filled liberal wacko when you say such stupid things as you so often do.>>

Ahhh.  I think I'm starting to see the rules of the game.  Pat Buchanan and anyone playing from the right end of political spectrum gets to define the "left" in terms of its wildest and craziest extremes, but let someone playing from the LEFT end of the political spectrum try the same technique and everyone on the right is screaming "FOUL!" at the top of their lungs.  Thanks for straightening me out, guys.

[Kramer]

<<I would think you would be the kinda fella that would be intelligent enough to be aware of these very obvious differences. This is where your credibility gets shot and you look like the typical hate-filled liberal wacko when you say such stupid things as you so often do.>>

Ahhh.  I think I'm starting to see the rules of the game.  Pat Buchanan and anyone playing from the right end of political spectrum gets to define the "left" in terms of its wildest and craziest extremes, but let someone playing from the LEFT end of the political spectrum try the same technique and everyone on the right is screaming "FOUL!" at the top of their lungs.  Thanks for straightening me out, guys.

If you read the article (try clearing your mind first) the reason Buchanan wrote it was because of the very charge you levy against Conservatives which in reality the left is using to smear Tea Party people. Funny how that works; you accuse people of doing what you are doing when in reality you are the only one doing the smearing. Did Buchanan smear or just state facts?

here's an example of what I'm talking about. I hope you have enough brains to see the connection. See link!

http://biggovernment.com/amarcus/2010/03/30/video-the-egg-man-of-seachlight-nevada/

[Kramer]

Let me know when you find any "Leftists" as dangerous as these wackos.

Does Norman Leboon ring a bell? Earth First? ELF?

OR

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62S4FI20100329

[Kramer]

Mikey I can see that you are feverishly writing up a reply. Can't wait to see how you spin this one!

[Michael Tee]

<<If you read the article (try clearing your mind first) the reason Buchanan wrote it was because of the very charge you levy against Conservatives which in reality the left is using to smear Tea Party people.>>

Well, I read the article again and I could read it a hundred times more, but it does not really change with each re-reading.  Buchanan starts off with what he considers are exaggerated claims from Frank Rich and some other source "smearing" the Tea Party nitwits.  Verbally out on a limb?  Maybe yes.

But Buchanan is not really going to focus on the verbal excesses of the right or the left.  He gets right down to the business of comparing which side is the more violent in deed, rather than in word.  According to Buchanan, the left wins that contest hands down.  As I pointed out in my reply post, Buchanan is actually insulting the intelligence of his readers - - because when you cut away from violent rhetoric and into violent action, there is no question at all about it - - the extreme right wins the contest hands down over the extreme left.  As my examples prove conclusively.

<<Funny how that works; you accuse people of doing what you are doing when in reality you are the only one doing the smearing. >>

I accused Buchanan of misrepresenting the violence of the right (basically by ignoring it) and comparing it to the "violence" of the left.  I'm still trying to see what your objection to my factual rebuttal actually is.

<<Did Buchanan smear or just state facts?>>

He smeared by "just" stating cherry-picked facts that standing alone would support his ludicrous conclusions.  He smeared by ignoring facts that everyone knows about that would have easily contradicted the conclusions that he drew from the cherry-picked facts in isolation from the real history of the events.  Hope that answers your question.

<<here's an example of what I'm talking about.>>

An example of nothing except some overheated rhetoric.  In terms of which side is actually the more violent, verbal hyperbole from either side is usually irrelevant.  

<<I hope you have enough brains to see the connection.>>  

Well, I sure as bitchin hell had enough brains to see the irrelevance of your example.

[Michael Tee]

To just add to my last post, it's as if Buchanan had reported on a ball game that the Yankees had won 14 to 3 against the Jays by stating that the Jays were much the better team because they scored three runs on the Yankees, never mentioning the 14 that the Yankees had scored on the Jays.  Did he "just report the facts?"  Sure, just not all the facts.

[Universe Prince]

Pat Buchanan and anyone playing from the right end of political spectrum gets to define the "left" in terms of its wildest and craziest extremes, but let someone playing from the LEFT end of the political spectrum try the same technique and everyone on the right is screaming "FOUL!" at the top of their lungs.

Well, Michael Tee regularly attempts to define all of the political right by the wildest and craziest extremes, and regularly insists anyone trying the same think about the political left is not facing reality and/or from Bizarro world. I would say if he doesn't like it when it is used against him, perhaps he should stop using it against others. I would say that, but Michael Tee also regularly assures that whatever tactics he uses are justified because he is right. Go figure.

[Kramer]

To just add to my last post, it's as if Buchanan had reported on a ball game that the Yankees had won 14 to 3 against the Jays by stating that the Jays were much the better team because they scored three runs on the Yankees, never mentioning the 14 that the Yankees had scored on the Jays.  Did he "just report the facts?"  Sure, just not all the facts.

You accuse Buchanan of not reporting all the facts and he's not even a reporter, he's a commentator. 24/7 the New York Times and other MSM outlets lie, distort, mislead, and shade the truth but you are OK with the people that call themselves PRESS not doing their job. Plus Buchanan claims to be a Conservative where as the MSM just acts impartial. You are a silly boy Mikey. I betcha $10 bucks you work or used to work at a university or some other liberal institution because you are way far gone. That would have to explain it.