Rachel Maddow Takes On Pat Buchanan (VIDEO): "You're Playing With Fire... You're Living In The 1950s

Which is it?

or


T
K
O?

The statements aren't mutually incompatible, a more careful read will show you that he claims she was primarily selected for her gender and ethnicity but that this was not the only criteria.

Like "old man" or "gramps?"

Yeah, perhaps a little bit high-school-smoking-in-the-bathroom-when-confronted-by-the-principle.

I'm not sure how it's "in lieu of." Perhaps more "littered." I think I gave Finn a much more detailed response than he deserved from a "young jedhi" like myself. Do you think that I made no actual argument(s)? Or did you stop reading after the "gramps" bit? I'm expected to keep reading after my age/experience is belittled to hear the other's argument aren't I? Don't sell Finn short here.

It's more than fair game to make cheeky old man jokes if posters are perfectly willing to belittle my posts and reduce me to my age. In short, I don't have a glass jaw, and I'm not really concerned if people can't stand what they dish out.

As a note, next time I employ lame high school comebacks, I'll do a study on the fine american cinema jem "Teen Wolf" first. My only regret is that I couldn't think of more off the cuff.

Or maybe you just expect better from me. If so, that could be a nice complement. Perhaps I'm being lazy right now. If I don't' have a little fun while composing a large post, I'll lose interest. I'm sure Finn has the same pleasure by referring to me as "the youth."

T
K
O

Rachel Maddow corrected the record today:

"Rachel Maddow respectfully corrects some of the falsehoods about the role of race in America expressed in a previous show by guest and colleague Pat Buchanan."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/

Well I didn't see anything but that there, but I admit not getting very far into the one-liners. Sometimes it's the icing on a cake, other times it's all there is and that one wasn't looking too promising.



I don't think your one-liners were offensive and I doubt anyone else, including Finn, would. It just struck me as suddenly vapid in comparison to the previous posts in the exchange.



It certainly was less substantial than you normally are.

Good catch RG.

I guess they aren't mutually incompatible. Finn did explain that J-Lo almost made the list but lacked the legal background.

T
K
O

Diest

I can't improve upon Robert's response.

I can confirm that it doesn't bother me, in the least, that you might refer to me as "gramps." I'm 55 years of age, and I've learned that age can bring wisdom.

It doesn't always, and it may not have done so in my case, but the vast majority of people who make it to 50 years or older appreciate that their thinking has matured since they were fiery youths.

I'm sorry if you have taken offense at my reference to your youth. "Young Jedi" is actually far more a compliment than an insult.

I have previously given you credit for responding to everything someone posts and not taking the easy way out of finding a comment you can take out of context and leap upon. The credit is still yours.

However, you are, undeniably, young. Not because of your avatar or because of your bio, but because of your arguments.

There is nothing inherently wrong with your being young, but you are at a stage in your life when you cannot imagine that you might think differently 30 to 40 years from now. Those of us who are older than you have been where you are.

It certainly doesn't mean that your points are to be disregarded because of your youth, but when I see your youth influencing your thought I will point it out. When you see my age influencing my thought you are free to point it out. Neither of us has to agree with the other's comments.

I know this can be seen as self-serving, but it is fairly typical of the young to get pissed off when someone older than them comments on their youth in a debate. I know it pissed me off when it happened 30 years ago, but when you are 50 or older you will look back on these days and realize that youth and innocence influenced your thinking.

My bet is that 30 or 40 years from now you will be a "conservative," but I may be dead by then and so may not be around to see my prediction come true, but perhaps you will remember this thread and think: "Ahh, that old fart Finn wasn't so wrong."

Regardless, I enjoy your posts and I enjoy your youth and innocence. I'm sure I can seem condescending, but if I really thought you were a punk clown, I would not bother to spend time responding to you.

Just try to read what is posted before you respond by reflex, and please keep posting on A2K.

Gabby Hayes thinks you're a weasel.

Ahem... no.

That is not RG's point to me. He was saying that my posts were usually MORE substantive. My age, and experience may make me young. My passion and drive may as well, but my arguments do not. Know your limits here Finn. It might be condescending to declare your ideas better due to your age or your specific experiences? No. It is condescending.

There is always someone older or someone with more experience than you. I don't expect you to yield to their ideas/arguments because you are younger or less experienced than them. It's intellectually cowardly to play the age card. If you plan to use your experience as leverage, then don't just say you have experience that is relevant, share it. Specifically.

For instance, I'm a defense contractor here in DC with many connections to several offices on capitol hill with other people of my generation. I suppose you could say your age gives you a better vantage than my proximity to many of the things that get discussed here.

Frankly, I don't give a damn about your experience or age. It's meaningless until you give it context, and beyond that you still have to make a logical argument. If your arguments lack so much that they require you to use your age as leverage, guess what? Your ideas suck.

Oh, and one more thing.

Stop talking bout my generation.

T
K
O