Hacker News Reader

It may be because Pat Buchanan has such fine examples of articulation and argumentation as this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_byv2uQHEI

Failure to update in light of evidence is most definitely an indicator against brilliance.

View on HN

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com