WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY AND KENNETH MINOGUE part 1

[jdmars011]

The State is an oppressor. govt is outta control! CRUSH! KILL! DESTROY!

no need for pompous debate. The time for debating ended with the election

of Barry Obama and the Democratic majority in the Congress in 2008. We have GW Bush and republaclowns to thank for the socialist nirvana in DC.

For 45-50 years liberal elites wanted what happened in 2008.

Obama doing what he was elected to do...tax and spend. spend and tax...oppress the rich! class warfare. joke is country broke! HA! HA!

[MrTruthAddict]

What a joke. A full hour of two pompous windbags sitting there agreeing with each other and trying desperately to pretend that only their opponents have an ideology, and thus ulterior motives. It's like when Christians today try to say "I don't have a religion, I have a relationship with an invisible man." It's just laughable.

Rupert Murdoch must have watched shows like this and realized that the arguments are so transparently dishonest that it was necessary to "sex them up" a bit. FAIL

[afortaleza]

@MrTruthAddict The whole thing went over your head. Try again.

[AaronBruceLadner]

They should bring back Firing Line.

[MikhailSilverwood]

A true Marxist would not make some wishwashy excuse trying to apologise for the inadequecies of the USSR.

A Marxist, based on proper Marxian readings, would say: The Soviet Union is state-capitalism, not communist.

[TheConservatveLibral]

@MikhailSilverwood Thank you my friend... I have been saying the very same... They were Stalinist, not Marxist...

[Questfortruth86]

@MikhailSilverwood

You're wrong. Marx expelled many anarcho-communists (Bakunin, Covelli, etc) from the first socialist international because they supported a "natural" and gradual transition to communism. The Marxians, on the other hand, supported violent revolutions (like the 1844 revolution, where Marx was a major agitator), and a "dictatorship of the proletariat." Additionally, Lenin was the epitome of Marxism (until it collapsed in 1921), and Stalin was his hand-picked successor.

[MikhailSilverwood]

@Questfortruth86 Where do you get your history from!!! Bakunin had been organising a conspiracy organ that was the commit a coup upon the First International. As for that Marx organised his expulsion. The problem was that, when the 1840 workers revolts started happening, Marx supported them all the way, because he understood that socialism could never come without mass workers fighting for their rights. Bakunin, forever the middle class elitist, refused to participate, staying a sectarian.

[MikhailSilverwood]

@Questfortruth86 Secondly, if Bakunin did ever support the gradual transition into communism, then he is a fool. The history of capitalism shows that the bourgeois ruling class will never surrender their profits and privilege, and the only practical means of actually ending capitalism is by overthrowing the bourgeoisie. To make the working class the ruling class, and thereby eradicating oppression and exploitation forever.

[MikhailSilverwood]

@Questfortruth86 Thirdly, workers have only ever used violence as a means of defending themselves. When the Paris Commune happened, it was hailed by Marx and Engels as a perfect example of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Paris was the first example in human history of worker self-govern. The only time that the workers had to be violent was when they came up against the Prussian army trying to crush them.

When the bourgeois counterrevolution comes, workers either fight back or be killed.

[MikhailSilverwood]

@Questfortruth86 Finally, Stalin's rise to power was a counterrevolution, not a succession. When the workers took power in 1917, every capitalist country tried to crush it: they feared that the example of worker power would spread into being a world revolution. And so millions of soldiers invaded Russia so at to destroy the soviet. After the civil war, Russia plunged into poverty and all the most progressive workers had been killed; Russia was slipping into barbarism.

[MikhailSilverwood]

@Questfortruth86 Lenin did his best to keep the country stable; he put Stalin as head of the central committee, which was a bureacratic position and not one of power. After Lenin died, Stalin spent five years building up bureacratic elitist forces, which then allowed him to rise to power in 1928. All the great Bolsheviks, Bukrakin, Zinoviev, Trotsky, were either killed or expelled, which then created the Stalinist state capitalist tyrannic monster we read about in history books.

[MikhailSilverwood]

I'm from the hard-left, so I don't agree with what those three are saying.

Some parts are close; others I disagree entirely.

But I heavily enjoyed watching this video, and its other parts.

[anSiarach]

"Why can't evolution be intelligent design?"

Because there is nothing intelligent about evolution.

[ProNorden]

Good topic, on the reductionistic template approach to issues that undermines leftist thought. Ideology vs. philosophical free inquiry.

Buckley, Minogue, and Sobran are great trio to discuss it.

And no, there is no Conservative 'ideology' in this strict sense. Colloqially used as in a describable coherent set of ideas and principles? Sure.

[DrRockso99]

It's true that most Republican politicians are hypocrites, but at least what they claim to advocate is economic freedom and true liberty and equality.

The Democrats on the other hand just may be entirely genuine in their desire to see America become a socialist nation.

Which is worse? The guy who says he wants to take you to hell, and isn't lying, or the guy who says he'll take you to heaven, but can't be trusted to do it.

[nl1098]

There is a true difference in today's republicans and true conservatives.

[gdbalck]

Indeed, they lost their way without a true leader. Too easy or too imperative to vacillate on ideals in order to please the 5th estate. Not that it ever worked, in the end they will still bludgeon conservatism, since they are constitutionally unable to see pat their own ideology. Ask McCain what it got him. The Republican party became McCain, stood for all and nothing at the same time. It's a shame, our country is being dismantled before our eyes because of their lack of courage.

[TheConservatveLibral]

@nl1098 :'-(

[MrTruthAddict]

@nl1098 The reason why is that unless you mix in flashy graphics and booming intros, conservatism can't be sold. When people drone on like these two airbags did for an hour, it is easy to see how flimsy their "arguments" are. It's just two pompous asses stroking each others egos.

Faux News found the formula that sells their ideology, and that's "FEAR" plain and simple. Whip people up into a frenzy about the evil "libruls" and homos and communists and we'll sell a lot of commercial spots.

[lrn2wlk4life]

humich: We have the Bachmann, Palin, Bush, Grahm, DeLay-types to strike the same chord as McKinny, Franken , Frank, Pelosi, Murtha, Reed-types do to us.

Bush with tits?!? Goodness man, at least our candidate hasn't accepted millions of dollars in donations when he knew all along he isn't a natural born citizen and therefore eligible to be President.

[shumich]

"Goodness man" Are you a limey there old bloke? Palin and McCain are mavericks like the Religious Right is a persecuted minority. Ho, ho, ho... Come on, there are much smarter, more capable Republicans out there than Palin. It's an insult to the American people she was even considered to be vice-president. "Your" party needs to grow up. BTW, I dislike both parties. They would take money from Hitler and Stalin if it got them elected. Power is more addictive than crack. Republicans are hypocrits.

[lrn2wlk4life]

limey old bloke, sweet. I'd rather be a right wing nut job that a liberal with no nuts and no job. No wonder boys put on dresses when women these days will defend anything but their own.

[shumich]

So you armchair tough guy. Watching football and Nascar does not make you tough. I worked construction such as, roofing, framing and laying carpet (eating it too) for five years. I'm also missing half my thumb cause of someone bumping into me. I'll slap you in a dress and f*ck you up the *ss pussy. Oh yeah, big foot and Elvis were spotted with the 'liberal media' this weekend. Ho, ho, ho, ho.F*ck you I won't do what ya tell me. Go worship socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor.

[lrn2wlk4life]

Sorry about your situation. They say people make their own luck. I can't imagine that temper helps much. You and me both are proud of our work. No need to take from the rich, we earn our own way in life. I'd never accept welfare.

[GallagherXXX]

If you gave Buckley an enema, he could be buried in a matchbox!!!

[PBSmithy]

"about whom, more"

[dalexb98]

Buckely has a tendency to parse words and attempts to thwart a point, not by refuting it, but by the over analysis of the defintion of a particular word.

[rasarx1]

I doubt your intellectual honesty here. If you whine about my attitude, you have to make sure you don't admire the same attutide in someone else. In my two paragraphs you have decided I'm pumpous. Yet there is ample written and video evidence of the epitome of pomous arrogance which defines your hero, Buckley. If you claim I'm being insulting to some indeterminate group and yet your post starts by calling me directly an ass, your hypocricy discredits any valid point you may have. continued

[rasarx1]

If you have a problem with "divisiveness", Buckley's positions certainly were divisive, such as being pro wars of aggression when the country is generally against such deeds. As for insults, that was a routine part of Buckley's discourse. Calling demonstrators Nazis was one of them. Calling anti-war activists "traitors" was another one. He had little tolerance for opposing views. But he was a master of looking sophisticated and dapper and many fell for it without scratching the surface.

[RuflessRecords]

rasarx, I'll decode your phrase for people who aren't on the far left like you are: "pro wars of aggression" means Buckley supported helping those fighting against takeover by the World Wide Death Camp State of communism. The country is against fighting innocents generally, generally for fighting evil bullies like Communist dictators. Buckley wasn't divisive. Far left demonstrators act exactly like Nazis before they took power, hateful dictator-lovers who shout down everyone they disagree with

[rasarx1]

People like you oversimplify everything to black & white. There can be no one who's against bad policies. It's Bush's you're either with me or against me. Anyone who disagrees w/ you must be "far left". Anyone who criticizes Buckley is a commie. Funny how you unwittingly mention the Nazis. By your definition they were the good guys, because they fought the far left commies first in the Spanish war and then in WWII. So, with your logic, since you're against the commies you must be a Nazi.

[RuflessRecords]

no, the Nazis weren't good, I'm glad they killed Commies, but that doesn't make them good. I never suggested all those who killed Commies were good sorry. I called you far left for using the "pro wars of aggression" nonsense, presumably meaning the American response Buckley supported to attempts by the World Wide Death Camp State of Communism to spread it's repression, torture (real), and repression. The far left screaming, hateful dictator lovers, maybe not incl. you, are close to Nazis.

[RuflessRecords]

oops and murder. I went for double the repression accidentally

[rasarx1]

You lost your credibility when you accuse people with different views of being "far left". I'm as "far left" for disagreeing with the "far right" as you are a Nazi since they also opposed the commies. The point was when you oversimplify the world into only two states of being then you automatically label yourself something you might not appreciate.

And "killing commies" or "killing Nazis" is mighty humanitarian of you. The world is not all about "killing" over ideology.

[RuflessRecords]

nope sorry rasarx, it wasn't just "cuz ya disagreed" i called you far left, you said Buckley was "pro-wars of agresssion" far left code for opposing the takeover and enslavement of various peoples by communism. Buckley was pro wars of freedom or wars of anti-communism, not wars of aggression. He didn't want to invade Canada. If you're not far left, stop using their straight-from-Pravda nonsense about the Cold War talking about our!!! aggression. Maybe you're just a dupe of the far left.

[rasarx1]

multi-part answer: So in your own world you guys have created a code book by which you judge people based on a couple of words. How Orwellian of you. Sorry, but I'll choose words from the English language as I see fit to describe a situation. Labeling pepole is a way of trying to intimidate them into submission when your power of reasoning fails. Simply applying a "far left" label to anyone based on your own criteria doesn't work. If anything, your pro war stance categorizes you in...

[rasarx1]

the same league as both the Nazis and the commies. Those WERE wars of aggression. That's what the world calls it when you attack countries that didn't attack you. The wars Buckley promoted were all based on idealogy. No nation ever attacks another country and admits it was a war of aggression. Every single one of them dresses it in some kind of a high and mighty guise and justifies it. The Nazis also pretended they were fighting for freedom when they attacked Poland and Czech and the rest.

[rasarx1]

At this point trying to defend a completely discredited war such as the vietnam war is comical. The whole world, including its architect, McNamara acknowledge the folly of it. Here you are, 40 years later, defending it and that in itself shows where you stand.

I do stand for freedom. The cause of liberation is not served by turning cold wars into hot ones. Tell the 2-4 million Vietnamese killed in that war we did for their freedom. If we believe our system is better than communism then

[rasarx1]

no need for trying to prove it by attacking other countries. You let them fall under their own corrupt weight. Notice we never attacked USSR, and it fell because it was a failed ideaology. But going to war with the likes of Communists when they haven't attacked you simply serves the central theme of Communist goal of permanent war. It's funny how you and Buckley advocate the same morally bankrupt ideas of achieving goals through permanent war.

Lastly, what is this fascination you have

[rasarx1]

with "Pravda"? Where do you come up with this stuff? Everything I have said is from our own public records. I read history. Who reads "Pravda"? In case you didn't get the memo, USSR fell. They are immaterial. It's over. But if the stuff that I have said look to you like the stuff in Pravda, perhaps you are the one who reads Pravda that because I have never seen a Pravda. I get the feeling that you are a person from the 60s time frame to talk like this. It was before my time. Sorry.

[rasarx1]

3rd part: unless you're consistent in your standards by which you measure opinions your intellectual honesty will be suspect. If you don't hold your heros to the same standard that you chastise his detractors with then that makes you either intellectually dishonest or a follower of cult of personality. It's obvious the general public is more interested in celebrities and sports figures than social and foreign policy issues or even voting. If you don't buy that, that's your choice.

[rasarx1]

You extrapolate much too much, such as concluding there are only a certain super smart group who can understand it all. You're being sophistic. Read it again. But by own logic, since anyone who disagrees with you is a pumpous ass that's what you're characterizing yourself by the virtue of disagreeing with me. How idiiotic.

None of this is argument for Chomsky or other leftists so much as an argument against blowhards who exude an air of superiority w/o the substance to convince with logic.

[xereas]

I wonder about anyone who uses the word "sophistic" and the phrases "much too much" and "see bullcrap when they see it" in the same discourse... sounds like a thesaurus job to me...

"You know what you look like to me with your good bag and your cheap shoes..."

[rasarx1]

Sounds like you're an ignorant fool who failed 5th grade English. You got nothing. By the way, your boy Buckley used far more bookish terms. Show me you can parse his choice of words and decode his bullcrap, or were you too high to grasp the meaning?

[xereas]

Sorry, but this is going to be one of those two-post jobs:

It sounds like I failed 5th grade English? Really? I'll have you know that I did very well in 5th grade English. (Before you pounce on that, I should mention that I'm being ironical. Oh, and that my use of "ironical" was meant to be ironic.) Buckley is in no way my "boy." I view Mr. Buckley as a terrible product wrapped in a pretty package. I disagree with him and most of his opinions, but I respect his talent.

[xereas]

That said, Buckley did tend to mask his inadequacies with wit and charm, in much the same way that you (possessing neither wit nor charm) attempt to mask your inadequacies with the use of 10-cent words and a condescending tone. I wasn't disagreeing with your position, I was just saying that you seemed a little stilted. I'm sure you're very intelligent, and that you have a lot to contribute to an intelligent conversation. So tell us what you think. Just... don't try so hard :)

[rasarx1]

I can't write to everyone's liking, sorry. If you can't take my argument apart and attack my style instead, fine. What exactly are you accomplishing here by going after my choice of words?

By the way, since you accused me of using a thesaurus, give me a better word for "sophist" that doesn't come out of thesaurus which everyone uses, and while at it, prove you didn't grab it out of a thesaurus. Also prove to us you are not covering for your inadequacies. See how it is on these boards?

[rasarx1]

It doesn't take members of "intelligentsia" to see bullcrap when they see it. An average person who chooses to read a little and keep an open mind instead of sheepishly attaching themselves to the cult of anybody's personality can see the truth. The label that you're trying to attach to Buckley's detractors easily bounces back to yourself because by your own definition anybody has a different view than you must feel they are the only ones who can see the truth and must be a pumpous ass. Idiot.

[rasarx1]

Thanks for proving my point so beautifully, though unknowingly. Exactly what part of my post were you really addressing, genius?  Logic is not one your strengths, is it? So you assume my post mentioned anything about who has the right to an opinion and who doesn't. Maybe if you took some reading classes you'd sound less like your hero, someone shooting off the hip but trying to compensate for it by using big words like "intelligentsia", albeit in a completely irrelevant context.

[rasarx1]

Buckley's shallow level of knowledge plus his pumpous facade was good enough for the average joe whose knowledge was even less. That's the problem of our society, so little knowledge that hacks like Buckley who lean back and pretend to know what they're talking about can get away with their stupidity.

In school I knew someone like Buckley who'd come to exams, lean back and look confident and sound extra nasal like they knew their stuff, and they would score an F after another.

[flyguy359]

copying off you

[fctchk]

Buckleigh postured as an intellectual -cultivating the external trappings of same: the British accent, the darting tongue, the twinkle eye (so the American audience -the only in the world who mistook him for an intellectual- would be alerted to the extra super duper special cleverness of what he just said prior to twinkling) etc.

As if further evidence of his intellectual vacuity was needed, he obliged us with coming out on the side of Intelligent Design against Evolution.

Game over.

[shenpen]

He wrote 50+ books on a wide variety of subject, usually intelligently argued, deep and civil. On ID he was wrong but he never cared much about the issue, not being a scientist, but a political philosopher. Most of his books were great and had the markings of a true intellectual.

[gitupahgitonupah]

If Buckleigh didn't care much about the origin of species, especially ours, that shouldn't come as a surprise. After all, he already knew the answer - his god done it. Bloviating forth on a topic of which one is especially ignorant is not the hallmark of an intellectual.

Some other "issues" he got wrong: the Vietnam War including but not limited to the US' illegal, secret and genocidal carpet bombing of Cambodia; Segregation; Catholicism.

Name one book considered a classic in the cannon.

[torgman]

Joe Sobran should've rethought getting the Hitleresque haircut :)

[Garrettk41]

Learning about William F. Buckley's death yesterday, it made me remember how, for some reason, the opening to his "Firing Line" show fascinated me when I was younger. Could anyone possibly upload it? Thanks.

[genldoz]

Is Ken Kylie Minogue's Daddy? If so, can someone pin a medal on him?

[ChristianBolt]

Buckley's accent, use of words and facts, and intonation seem all too intentional. He is obviously a bright person, but seems to push his personality more than his arguments and facts.

[flightconcord]

He wasnt a native english speaker until he was seven years old, which accounts for his almost half british accent.

[frankiepop]

and that accent ain't east london workin' class. that's british privilege speaking. sniff.

[RadicalCheerleader]

His aristocratic drawl, quasi-British pronunciations, and fondness for Latinate vocabulary seem to have originated at the schools in England and upstate New York he attended as a boy. He shared an accent with some other men of the same age and social class, but his mannerisms and gestures made him entirely unique. Buckley's old-fashioned way of speaking wasn't too far from the British-influenced mid-Atlantic accent, which I've heard referred to as a Connecticut lockjaw sound.

[mosbus1603]

He did speak with a patrician accent and a polysyllabic vocabulary, but Buckley also picked up elements of a Southern drawl from his parents, both of whom were from the South.

[22rifle]

Good thing ol' Kenny is "smart" because he missed out in the looks department. Shudder!

[hhn1000]

He wasn't bad when young; and high intelligence is very attractive to intelligent women.

[frankiepop]

riiiighht

[Lindargata]

Those who claim that Buckley "killed" Chomsky didn't watch the debate in question. Chomsky rammed every idle word down this guy's throat. Every time Buckley tried to apply a double standard and demonise the enemies of the US for terrorism while leaving the US itself out Chomsky called him on it. Check out the end of the debate; Buckley tries to end on a self-righteous note of sarcasm and Chomsky rolls over him.

[BigJonB36]

Not a chance. Chomsky couldn't get a valid thought out without Buckley proving its absurdity the moment it left his mouth.

[toddheap]

Are you on drugs? Bear in mind that Chomsky was likening the US imperialism to Soviet imperialism. Only someone completely unversed in the history of the world since that debate would cliam that Chomsky doesn't look like an uninformed fool in hindsight. I highly doubt he refers his fans to that debate. Conversely, Buckley fans are always referring people to that debate.

[frankiepop]

well you're doubt is wrong. you are highly impassioned for victory. buckley scored many points against liberals, but every great has his nemisis. one for buckley was chomsky, another was mcgovern. buckley could never find an achilles heel on george mcgovern, and buckley quickly admitted so. as he said, mcgovern scored more points AGAINST me than he ever did WITH the americannn peeepel.

[Sage80]

Look at the look on Buckley's face when Minogue calls Karl Marx a genius (c 7:00). Priceless!

[hypersail11]

...Buckley is a character of magnetism and entertainment but I would certainly not say he "killed Chomsky". He did however ask him double barreled questions and continued to ask him circular questions to make Chomsky look inconsistent.....but if that is masterful debate then I can not refute such a point.

[lborchardt]

If Buckley didn't kill Chomsky in that debate, history did.

[hypersail11]

...He rarely brings points to the table that are as valid as his guests have over the years on his show, Firing Line. He is however, incredibly keen at asking a question, finding a specific point half way through his guest's response and asking a follow up question to that point (without letting the guest finish their initial point) and continuing this process until he has side tracked them so far off course he can make them look illogical and therefore, himself superior in intellect.

[hypersail11]

maidenman69 :

William F Buckley is intelligent as shown by his graduation from Yale but he is not (in my opinion) a master at the art of debate.

[cordcordcordcord]

HA! because idiots never get into the ivys. do you know anything about the world around you?

of course, that's not to say buckley's not smart, but linking intelligence to degrees is absurd and naive.

[pobasted]

Buckley is such a caricature. It makes me laugh my ass off that someone actually talks like him.

[Sage80]

the usual liberal tactic... ad hominem smearing.

[kihadat]

i don't think you can support that generalization. anyway, it's a common opinion that buckley's mannerisms are odd and comical.

[Skipn27]

Yeah. But then again, he spoke two languages before he learned English.

How many languages do you speak, my friend?

[cmgollatz]

Does computer code count?

[cmgollatz]

Does computer code count?

[702gtzmk]

that william F buckley is a devil, lol, hes smooth though

[GrassAndRocks]

i can't believe someone just said he killed Chomsky.

Chomsky destroyed him.

[Sage80]

No one was destroyed. Both are very intelligent men.

[kihadat]

Buckley was destroyed. No doubt.

They might both be intelligent, but Chomsky has memory like an elephant. He knows everything about seemingly everything.

[maidenman69]

Buckley is masterful in debate, but the main reason why he succeeds in debate is because his ideas are generally correct. Many who hold the true side on a debate aren't persuasive because they don't have the rhetorical skills of Buckley or the historical knowledge. BTW, he killed Chomsky, trapping him in his own fanatical inconsistencies.

[house25]

look at buckley's face! he is tired of deceveing and arguing with people who are always right. ha!

[HeavyHeaded]

Buckley is so smugly self-congratulatory that he cannot think properly, or at least he cannot think in a disinterested way. What plagued him throughout his life was that he always had an agenda. He could never simply consider, discern, weigh the issues. A pseudo-thinker, an intellectual imposter.

[robotactionstar]

You haven't the slightest clue what you are talking about. Your funny.

[Greenfish654]

Why can't all conservatives be like Buckley

[jugganaut26]

because political conservatism has since degenerated into hysteria and unreason masquerading around as leadership and level-headedness

[JimFar0]

Professor Minogue's critique of Marxism is flawed by its uncritical reliance upon Karl Popper. pseudoscience, he called it a "metaphysical research program." (He eventually recanted, more or less, this postion in 1978). But this suggests to me that if he could brand Darwinism as unfalsifiable, then perhaps there was something wrong with his conception of falsifiability since working scientists (like JBS Haldane) had no problem in describing how Darwinism could be falsified.

[tevonx]

I wish we had all "Firing Lines" available. Great discussions.

[cognito20]

Even as someone who does not always agree with Mr. Buckley, I agree. The greatest discussion program of all time, and it's not even a particularly close competition. Buckley is also my favorite political writer of all time...far better than most of his counterparts on the left.

[retribution92]

There's a great Firing Line episode where Noam Chomsky tears Buckley apart.

[thejapanshop]

Hardly. I'd say they equally presented their side well. However, it is clear today Chomsky was/is on the wrong side of history.

[DanLackey]

Yes. . . if you enjoy exquisite sophistry . . .

[handle342618]

Yes Danlackey, I must agree. My father and I say, he is exquisite, graceful talented and absolutely nonsensical.

I can't believe people fall for this crapola. Anyone who knows their history will also be aware of his gross mistakes on concrete matters like the communists 'before' the nazis in greece gaffe he suffered with Chomsky. Good comment, buckley just goes round in circles.

[Pippin76]

Buckley is certainly the best the right has....

[betomas]

Then it can be said without a pause that the Right doesn't have much.

[Jeit]

I think the answer to William's last question is: the Marxist blames external forces for his own internal underperformance.