@MikeEMECO it means bombing the living shit out of vietnam. don't forget just cause he wants to be easy on panama here, he was still a right-wing warmonger
Still one of my favorite speeches. No teleprompter, no notes, just pure intellect by an outstanding communicator and the father of modern conservatism.
If you go to the CSPAN website and search for Panama Canal Treaties in their online video library, you can watch the entire debate, which is almsot 2 hours. It is very interesting and informative to watch Buckley's team vs. Reagan's team. Some very funny lines between Buckley and Reagan too!
"Say No to China" --- WFB... man ahead of his time. It's seems cowardly how our politicans shirk away from taking on Red China. Communism should not be tolerated. We can begin by telling the damn profane old chinese man who runs the dirty sordid food restaurant in our neighborhood to speak proper english or go back to his communist country.
1:11 "I want to be looking the Soviet Union in the face & say no the next time (it) wants to send its tanks running over students ... in Czechoslovakia."
Yeah, BIll. Did you say "No" to the U.S. when the National Guard mowed down 4 students at Kent State in Ohio while they protested the Vietnam War?
1:22 "I want to say no to Red China when it subsidizes genocide in Cambodia."
Hey Bill! Did you say "No" to the U.S. when it supported Pol Pot because he was also an enemy of Vietnam? Eh Bill?
The Kent State shooting (I go to school there) was not a result of "the U.S.". The National Guard was commanded by the state of Ohio, not the federal government. To compare accidently shooting at rioters to the brutal suppression of a democratic movement by invading totalitarian regimes is obscene.
The United States did not support Pol Pot, but the non-communist resistance. One journalist making the same acusations lost a libel suit. There is no evidence backing the allegation.
@kissfan7 "The National Guard was commanded by the state of Ohio." That may have been so, but the NG are a federal force, therefore the comparison is entirely apt. And the shooting was hardly an "accident". Is that what they're teaching today?
"The United States did not support Pol Pot" The US most certainly supported Pol Pot's gov while it was fighting the Vietnamese. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Get your history straight. American foreign policy & morality are incompatible concepts.
Is so, not "may be". The KSU protesters wrecked downtown, burned down the ROTC building, and threw rocks at the National Guard, who were commanded by a state. Tragic as it was (especially since some of the dead weren't rioting), there is absolutly no comparing it to the invasion of an entire nation by half a dozen armies in order to brutally crush democracy. You owe the decendants of the dead an apology.
Do you have evidence on US support for Pol Pot that the court didn't?
Is the National Guard a state institution? No it is not. It is a national institution. Comparing KS with the Czech events, there is a difference in the scale of the events and in the reason for the protests, but not in response of the state. Contrary to your assertion, the events are emminently comparable. They are both examples of state violence in the context of public speech.
Pol Pot: 1. Nayan Chanda's 'Brother Enemy' 2. Evans & Rowley's 'Red Brotherhood at War' & references therein.
What occured at KSU was not simply "public speech", but riots. Indeed, the only reason we remember May 4th is that it was the exception rather than the rule. The purpose of sending the National Guard was to prevent more riots. The purpose of the invasion of Czechloslovakia was to crush democracy. It's not just apples and oranges. It's apples and napalm.
Since I do not have access to the works in question, what specific sources did they use?
@kissfan7 "Since I do not have access to the works in question, what specific sources did they use?"
There's this new thing they have. It's called a library. Aren't you conservatives always telling everyone how YOU are the ones who do the work and everyone else stis around collecting welfare? Well? Go out and do some work, superman.
"Aren't you conservatives always telling everyone how YOU are the ones who do the work[...]"
I wouldn't know, what with me being a liberal and all.
Here's how grown-up discussion works. A makes a claim. B questions that claim and shows some evidence that the claim may not be true. A must then specifically state the primary source that claim comes from, not two secondary sources. It is the claimer who must "[g]o out and do some work", not the claimee (pretend that's a real word).
Furthermore, don't you even fucking ASSUME to tell me to whom I should apologize, you fucking scumbag conservative TWAT. Go to El Salvador & Guatemala where - in the 1980s, in the name of anti-communism - 10s of 1000s of peasants were murdered by right wing death squads, & apologize for Ronald Reagan's support. You fucks make me fucking sick. You have no clue as to the depth of my hatred for conservative scum like you who attempt to get "moral" on me. Fuck you motherfuck. Fuck you.
As you can clearly see from my first post, I am not a conservative, but a liberal. Second, the US supported the Christian Democrats, who were targets of those same death squads. One of them even tried to kill an American diplomat.
If someone says something you disagree with, please try to act like an adult and counter their statement with facts and logic, not random swearing. One or two fucks is understandable, but seven just makes you look silly and sophomoric.
@kissfan7 "I am not a conservative, but a liberal." No, it's not clear at all. Not at all.
"the US supported the Christian Democrats, who were targets of those same death squads." I suggest you bone up on your 80s El Salvador & Guatemala history. The vast number of murders & tortures were prosecuted by right-wing government groups against peasants, many of whom had no politics whatsoever. You can find cheap copies of the human rights reports of the day on Amazon. Or ... hey! Go to the library.
It is, in fact, crystal clear, since I've told you flat out I'm a liberal. What have I said that suggests otherwise?
Your statement that the victims were mostly working class in now way detracts from my point, which is that US-backed Christian Democrats (many of whom were workers) were also killed and that a US diplomat was targeted specifically because he opposed the death squads. Your vauge request that I read human rights reports in no way detracts from these facts.
@kissfan7 As long as you're not trying to suggest Carter's and, even moreso, Reagan's support was not directed to the right wing death squads, or that the target of these paramilitary units was primarily peasants. These are the conclusions of human rights agencies who were on the ground observing during the time; observations ignored by Reagan. I get into arguments all the time with right-wing idiots who think Ronald Reagan was some kind of saint or human rights some sort of communist plot.
Carter's and Reagan's aid wasn't directed to the right wing death squads. As I've pointed out three times now, an American diplomat was almost killed BECAUSE the United States threatened to stop aid unless the governments cut back on the death squads. Even in Guatemala most of the civilian deaths occured during an arms embargo on the government set up by the United States. Killings went down in El Salvador during the period of US aid.
"Carter's & Reagan's aid wasn't directed to the right wing death squads"
Look, kid: Everyone on Earth knew about what was going on. Every human rights organization in existence at the time was operating in Central America as observers. The fact that US aid money wasn't stamped "NO DEATH SQUAD USE" is a fatuous argument. The money was going to the right wing governments & they doled it out. cont ...
@kissfan7 When it came time for policy renewal in Congress, both Carter and Reagan somehow found the rationalization that "The human rights situation is improving." and Congress would pony up. But the human rights orgs never claimed any such thing. When Congress finally cut off aid during Reagan's admin, he created the Iran-Contra connection.
Before you use condecending name-calling, make sure you know the difference between Central Americans. The Contras were Nicaraguans, not Salvadorans or Guatemalans.
First, minor point. Most human rights NGOs are regional, so not all "in existence at the time" were there. Second, the Truth Commission on El Salvador counted 2,600 claims of violence in 1980. In 1985, 140. Report of the UN Truth Commission on El Salvador. The Guatemala embargo went from 1978 to '83, the bloodiest years.
You have yet to anwer the main points. Why did the death squads target a US diplomat and the US-backed Christian Democrats? These two facts run counter to your entire theis, but you keep ignoring them.
@kissfan7 "death squads target a US diplomat" Are you talking about Robert White? If so, White was referred to by Reagan administration henchman as a "leftist sympathizer." He was replaced not long after Reagan took office. He was outspoken and adamant about death squad activity. That's reason enough for him to be a target. If this is not the diplomat, who is it you're talking about?
Give me your sources. One main source is William Blum's 'Killing Hope' and many references therein.
@kissfan7 Yes, thanks, kid. I know the difference between a Contra, a Guatemalan, and a Salvadoran. I even know (*gasp*) the Contras were formed of the remains of the dictator Anastasio Somoza's much loathed National Guard (created & trained by the United States Marines). I have a master's degree in geography from UCLA, thank you. What's your point?
Since "Killing Hope" has been praised by bin Laden, I'm going to need primary sources.
It was Thomas Pickering, not White. Why did the death squads target Christian Democrats?
If you know the difference, why mention Iran-Contra?
You're treating this like an imature competition rather than an adult discussion. I don't care about your resume, name-calling is unnecessary, and the random swearing is just silly. I've met Holocaust deniers who have political sciene Ph. D.'s.
@kissfan7 "Since "Killing Hope" has been praised by bin Laden" means what? Bin Laden reccommended Blum's book. This is Blum's fault? What'd you look that up on Google? I've given you one of my sources, you've given me nothing. What are your sources, Wikipedia?
In addition to Blum's book. I have dozens of others on Central America during this period..
"Thomas Pickering" ... "Christian Democrats" Why don't you explain these. In what way do these disprove the US was funding Guat. & El Salv?
What needs to be explained? Pickering was threated, not White. I mention him and the Christian Democrats because he is an American official and they are the party the US backed.
I never claimed the US didn't fund those governments. I specifically questioned your statement that they directly funded the death squads. All the evidence shows any unbiased person that the US opposed the death squads.
You need a heavy dose of Socratic wisdom. Stop insulting, swearing like a twelve year old, braging about irrelevant academic accomplishments, and telling me how many books you have.
This isn't a game. You're talking about people's lives here. You have never seen real suffering in your privliged life, so you see dead bodies in Central America, Eastern Europe, and Ohio as a way to bulster your intellectual insecurity. You don't give two shits about what I, Buckley, or anyone else has to say.
@kissfan7 "You're talking about people's lives here." And about what have you speaking? The semantics of the word "support." The Reagan government was giving aid to the Contras & the governments of El Salvador & Guatemala in the 1980s. Everyone in the world knew these right-wing governments were operating paramilitary squads committing atrocities against their own populations, populations in revolt against deplorable conditions, conditions created, for the most part, by the United States.
@kissfan7 "You have never seen real suffering in your privliged life" Excuse me. Who the fuck are you to say what I have or haven't seen? I've traveled in the third world and seen the poorest of the poor. And if living on the brink of financial ruin is a "privilege," your definition for the word privilege is about as accurate in its fullness as your definition of the word "support."
"You don't give two shits about WF Buckley has to say." Definitely true. He supported all manner of despots.
@kissfan7 "Pickering was threated, not White." And White was relieved of his post.
"I specifically questioned (Wwhether the US gov) directly funded the death squads" Semantics. Everyone knew what the deal was; it was no secret. Ask Robert White. Ask Americas Watch. Ask the Catholic Church. Ask Joan Fucking Didion.
"the US opposed the death squads." Ridiculous. Reagan called them "freedom fighters." There was no oppositon coming from the White House. That's for damned sure.
"Listing the titles of books is not proof." And you? You've provided me with not a single reference. William Blum's books are exhaustively referenced, frequently with US government documents & mainstream newspapers. I get why people want to discredit Blum because of the bin Laden connection, but the charge has no validity.
One of the El Salvador death squads threatened Durante because he negotiated with the rebels. He supported his own attempted assasins?
There you go talking about the Contras again. Do all brown people look alike to you?
Why are you talking about White? I was specifically refering to Pinckering. White's firing has zero to do with the anti-US sentiments of the death squads. You're obfuscating, you coward.
It's obvious you think all Latinos look alike or you wouldn't keep bringing up Nicaragua and confusing the right wing death squads with moderates. At the very least, you see the entire world as black and white.
And chalk up three more random fucks. My nephew shows more poise in his writing then you do.
Comparing your field trips to mass murder is inane. When you heard about May 4th did you feel pain for the loved ones, or did you think "Yes! A rhetorical weapon gainst any who disagree with me"? When you read about Prauge Spring, did measure how much you could compare this to other tragedies? When you read about mass murder, do you quickly jot them down in a notebook, reminding yourself to use this whenever someone calls you on your bullshit?
Just out of curiosity, is "analytical analysis" technically incorrect. One word is an adjective and one is a noun. I really don't care either way, but doesn't "analytical" further define what type of "analysis" he is speaking of. Could he have said a "cavalier, whimsical analysis" and it meant something completely different? I think you can somewhat fault the style, however, technically, I think he was ok with usage.
Even though Reagan had a hard time on Middle Eastern diplomacy, I really feel he did his best, with nothing but the best of intentions. I trust he would do the right thing in our current situation, along with Mitt Romney.....
The reason the Panama Treaty is unpopular is because we were handed our ass in Vietnam and 13 Harvard professors were too sissy to allow more American soldiers to die.
We are going to allow 16 semi-savage countries to cartelize the oil the entire industrial west is dependent on because we don't have a diplomacy to do something about it. @2:00 Buckley digs his shorts out of his elitist self aggrandizing ass.
it make's no matter whether his words were extemporaneous or not. My point nevertheless remains a valid one, in that to precede a noun by the use of it's own adjectival formulation is an act of supreme idiocy.
In the entirety of my life i've yet to hear anybody else say, for example - "unimaginatively unimaginative". There can be NO excuse for this, whether you idolise Buckley or not.
I'd like you to post a DIRECT QUOTE of where I said my arguments are "far superior"
Oh, there is none. Nothing I've seen you write has 1/10th the power, the erudition, the lucidity of Buckley on a mediocre day. In fact, you've missed (intentionally?) my entire point, that Buckley mistakenly used the adjective then instantly corrected with the noun, and assumed that all intelligent people would recognize the oral "typo" and hear the sentence as intended. And he was right: all *intelligent* people did.
no, you've missed the point, AGAIN. And as a result, you've made the same mistake AGAIN!
i'd like you to post a DIRECT QUOTE of where I implied my writing is as good as, or better than William F. Buckley on a mediocre day, or any other day for that matter! That's right, I never have. Therefore your second allusion in as many posts implying that I somehow claimed to possess greater erudition is thus rendered inane!
Secondly, I'd like to know just exactly how it is that you feel able to speak as to the intentions of a man whilst he was speaking 31 years ago?
That's right, you cannot possibly know! i.e. you're actually making facts up - aka LYING!
p.s. please do try not to make the same pathetic attempt to imply that I somehow claim to be more intelligent than mr. Buckley for a third time - I have by now realised that you're rather slow on the uptake, but a third time would be embarrassing! NEXT !
How do I speak to his intentions? How about studying his books and "Firing Line" archives since I was 13? The idea of the man, at his desk, writing "analytical analysis" is Buñuelic adsurdity. But as a slip of the tongue (and he is quite clearly speaking without notes)? Far more likely.
Your first comment was either an easy joke or a moronic put-down of WFB. My comment was a witty riposte, a defense, and a bluff. You could have recognized the gambit and laughed it off, but you didn't. Hmmm.
It is self-aggrandisement alone that allows a man to go so far as to describe his own words as " a witty riposte". You would, I hope, understand were I to dissent somewhat from your unconscionable, childlike levels of self-concern.
As to my original comment; it was neither an "easy joke", nor indeed a "moronic put-down", but rather ONE MAN'S FACTUALLY ACCURATE OBSERVATION OF ANOTHER MAN'S CEREBRALLY-INDIGENT USE OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE!
(as evidenced at 2:34 - which was my original point)
How is defending Mr Buckley, whom I never met, 'childlike self-concern?' (You mean 'childish'.) Dizzy Dean said, 'it isn't bragging if you can do it,' and I have, as every word you write proves. ;-)
One stammer is not a speech impediment, even Einstein double-checked his math, and Mr Buckley's accidental repetition is not idiocy, but your 'CEREBRALLY-INDIGENT' is: what do those words purchase that "idiocy" does not? What rhythm, what poetry do you think you grasp? Strunk & White are crying.
For the THIRD time in this particular thread, you have accused me of saying something that I quite simply have not. This is pathetic - even more so considering it took you a whole 21 days !
I DID NOT say that your "defence" of Buckley was indicative of a childlike self-concern. What I ACTUALLY said was that describing your own words as "a witty riposte" is indicative of childlike levels of self-concern.
Defending Mr. Buckley is one thing, heaping praise upon yourself is quite another!
you say "What rhythm, what poetry do you think you grasp?"
Throughout this entire thread of posts, I have, time and again, downplayed my own intellect - as you will see if you ACTUALLY READ THEM!
As far as I am concerned "cerebrally-indigent" is not an especially conceited use of language. Some of your very own gems of humility might be better suited to meet that description. The aforementioned "witty riposte" for one, "Buñuelic adsurdity" for another! lol!
The truth is that what I said in my original post was 100% accurate & was merely an observation of fact!
Some people are unable to accept that somebody they like would say something quite so inane as " analytical analysis", and so they have to make things up to make themselves feel better e.g. "this PBSmithy, he thinks he's sooo smart!" well, I don't and have never said so!
you're the 2nd to make that false claim, back it up!
It's obvious from your 1st comment, that your implication is that I think I am smart!
I haven't any doubt in my mind that you will now attempt to deny that that was your implication because you are probably a coward! Nevertheless, your comment is right there in black & white and can be seen for what it is!
Apparently, some unfortunates are unable to get past their own idol-worshiping tendencies and have to spit the dummy, and throw their toys out of the buggy!
These will be my last messages! I can no longer be bothered to leave comments on this thread as i have better things to do with my life!
If it had been down to me there would have been no thread, simply my 1st comment which is open in it's meaning (no cowardly allusions) and factually accurate in every way. But no, the first Buckley "devotee" had to come along and make a big fuss about it using lies and implied, hidden meanings (as the thread will show!).
Throughout the thread I have been factual & have denied that I am anything other than an average person! That was not enough for the 2nd "devotee", who felt impelled to leave his own little "allusion" (in a cowardly way, much like his counterpart - as the thread will show!).
If your idolisation of Buckley is so strong that your fragile ego cannot take his mistake pointed out, then that is, in my opinion, a character flaw in your personality and something you should really deal with asap!
(3) Did devotee no.1 claim to know the intention of Buckley as he was speaking 3 decades ago (impossible), and then state his presumption as fact? Yes!
(4) Did I ever refer to myself as being especially smart? No!
(5) Did both devotees make untrue, underhand allusions that I had at some point claimed to be especially smart? yes!
You are still making wrong assumptions. Also, I thought those last posts were your last. Or, at least, that is what you said. "These will be my last messages!" There's a direct quote!
@PBSmithy Mr. Buckley said "A HARD analytical analysis" and this is the opposite of an analysis that is not well thought out or accepted as justifiable. There can be analyses that are not analytical because they are spoken out of ignorance of the facts. Mr. Buckley was a master of the English language and of the skill of debating. His unique accent that comes off as pompous to some fail to realize it evolved from from learning English as a 3rd language and he was always respectful. R.I.P.
He was an employee of the CIA. He received direct payments from the CIA's "Operation Mockingbird". Look it up. Carl Bernstein did an excellent piece exposing the CIA's relationship with the media
No, they did, solidly Democratic though they were. Buckley was a low-level operative in Mexico who probably gathered "social data": leads, the disaffected, opportunities, etc.
Operation Mockingbird is in the same vein as Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine" in that they are based on rumor and conspiracy theories that are as forgettable as they are provable.
Well, the problem with "Shock Doctrine" is that it upends all human history: free enterprise is wounded and damaged by war and disaster. It suffers with us. Even WWII, which we won, left our economy in shackles (tax withholding, anyone? Employer tax breaks for medical insurance) by a wartime familiarity.
Of course, the idea of Naomi Klein's Po-Mo softened brain understanding intelligence and counter-intelligence is absurd!
Simply fantastic. And, one might add, Buckley's capacity to draw knee-jerk anti-American comments from intellectual infants like "Lipsbach" might have been his greatest strength...
Wow, in the first minute he says we "were pushed out of Vietnam because we didn't have the guts to do it right" AND he makes fun of the idea of normalizing relations with mainland China, AND he calls several countries which demand the right to control their oil resources "semi-savage"...AND I'M THE INTELLECTUAL INFANT? You IlanRamon are an idiot if you can't see through this smoke and mirror show.
In your world, Vietnam is better off without the US, Red China is a benign country (and Taiwan deserves to be hated), and the OPEC kleptocracies are "countries which demand the right to control their oil resources". Fascinating parallel universve indeed...
Well, compared to Barack Hussein Obama, appeaser-in-chief and debt spender extraordinary, we might soon be pining for the days of Jimmy Carter, who was, at least, original...
Rubbish and platitudes. The authors of all these fawning comments apparently can't get past their awe of Buckley's ridiculously affected delivery., which dazzles them because of their own limitations. The content is all about the benevolence of the US empire - a lie from start to finish.
Please expound on the brilliance. You make no substantive comment about the content of Buckley's blather. Oh, sorry, I just went back and read that you are "at lost with words". LOL
I guess I'm not allowed to express my comments according to your reply.
So what, I was a little redundant. Oh, I'm sorry if that troubles you!? Then again, why should I defend the unequivocal substance of Buckley to the leaders of incoherence-you stinking liberals, because you still won't get it!
He is brilliant because he amalgamated eloquence with substantive thoughts on the issue. Your buddy "the teller prompter king" BHO can't do that. BHO would be HOPELESS without the teller prompter!
Buckley had major flaws but by god was he extremely eloquent, a brilliant debator and phenomenal at speeches and he was erudite as well. He was the complete package.
You've got to be kidding. You "s'pose" Obama is equivalent to Buckley? I guess this shouldn't suprise me-anybody who writes as one would in a text message wouldn't begin to understand the sheer difference in overall intellegence, understanding of political issues, education, and real world accomplishments, etc. that exists between someone like a William Buckley and someone like Obama. Whether you agree with him or not, Obama at his best doesn't even come close.
You have good spelling but poor grammar. "i could care less aout spelling on youtube is typing... what? And for your information, Buckley never ran for a state seat, so good try. Even when he ran for Mayor he said he would demand a recount if he won. Nice try though.
@snobblett Yes, Obama doesn't even come close...he leaves Buckley far behind. Buckley was the privileged son of an oil industrialist and what he did was employ his patrician accent and obese vocabulary to try to shroud his primitive bigoted neuroses.Apparently you have been won over by his pseudo-royal drawl and eloquent hand gestures, but I suppose the electorate was less kind to Wily F. Buckley when they unequivocally voted against him in his hapless run for mayor of New York.
Your an idiot. Just keep drinking the lib kool-aid. Your buddy Obama has no experience in running any corporation, business, etc. Now look at the mess we are in. The great community organizer is at it again:
so far the score is Great Obama Depression 2.2 million lost jobs
Biden: “there’s no possibility to restore 8 million jobs lost in the Great Recession.” Now, go get collect your unemployment check. While your at it, be sure to support the newest rapist-Gore
@snobblett I'm always fetched by anyone who begins with "your[sic] an idiot" , what a convincing start,hardly can get wrong from there. And the racist innuendos about the kool-aid, very chic, you've got some class,son.Obama really was a shmuck for exploding the deficit during the 80s?wait that was the forgetful hollywood actor,or did he eat up the Clinton-created surplus from 00-08?wait that was our cowboy from texas.Who was in charge when Lehman brothers and others fell apart?obama?hmm:)
Your still an idiot. Go grow some flowers somewhere noodle-spine. Kool-aid a racist term? This is why its a waste of time talking to libs. You never get the facts right-you probably know this, but I will say it anyway "never argue with an idiot-they drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience." Reagan defeats the Soviet Union-last time I checked you no longer have to deal with that nuclear threat-now we worry about your buddies-the muslims doing it.Eat it
@snobblett You seem to have made a hobby of uttering the word idiot and evading the issues , my boy. The forgetful B-movie hollywood actor did no such thing, the S.U. was plagued by internal strife, but an educated conservative statesman like yourself knows that history, right billy? ;) So we're religious bigots in addition to racial bigots, yes junior? tch tch, I'm going to have to unplug grandma and redistribute wealth to Southside Chicago Welfare Queens
Reagan didnt defeat the Soviets, eh? More revisionist history from the libs. Go back to school and learn something. Come to think of it, forget that idea, because thats where you learned what you think are facts. Religion? Who said anything about religion? Typical lib response-incorrect facts and then bringing up racism/religion. I find it interesting that libs always are the 1st to do that. Now, go enjoy your "summer of recovery." You live in such a dreamland.Fishlick
@WhenLilacsLast Please, Obama is a total lightweight compared to William F Buckley. Yes, Buckley had a certain affectation, he also believed in the US constitution and freedom, which can't say for Obama. I mean, Obama supports the drug war for goodness sake, though I guess it was alright to smoke marijuana and do lines of coke (or "blow" if you're a trendy tosser like Obama). Buckley believed in freedom, he wasn't always right, but at least he got the idea as he got older. Maybe Obama will too.
@disamjisa A lightweight compared to whom? You're saying the lifelong critic of the civil rights movement was in favor of freedom? lol Buckley was a nothing with a flair for publicity,as Vidal recently put it.This man was a backward creationist catholic and a glorified thug whom the people of new york expressly rejected when he ran his pathetic race for mayor.He had a perennial fear of liberal intellectuals so he pandered to the redneck bible-touting section of the usa called the conservatives
@WhenLilacsLast So he was pandering to the rednecks when he very publicly opposed the drug war. Same vis a vis opposing the Torrijo-Carter treaties.
Some people will never admit that an intellectual or public figure on the other side of politics has something important and interesting to say, or is worthy of attention or honest criticism, due to their deep seated partisanship
There are good politicians and intellectuals on left, Obama is not one of them.
@disamjisa So wishing marijuana legalized was the only good cause buckley ever championed? Only shows there is some good in everyone.I don't dislike bill because he was on the other side, but because he feigned civility while being a brute of the most mordant order.It vexes me how simpletons can't penetrate his thin outer rind of savoir faire.Nevertheless,I do concede he had a flair for publicity - that's a talent.Finally, I don't think Obama is liberal enough,just like JFK.
@WhenLilacsLast He didn't "wish marijuana was legalized". He was in favour of legalizing almost all illicit drugs. He came to the same conclusion that people on the right who are truly libertarian or utilitarian come to, that the drug war is morally and economically wrong. That's a natural conclusion for someone to come to if they believe in personal freedom. Clearly, he did. Who knows what Obama believes?
@WhenLilacsLast (reply part 2) He has Gibbs out attacking the people who mobilized for him and put him in power, the people he came to support. He specifically said he was running to change the way public business was being conducted, and has singularly failed to do so, with signing statements, and jobs for lobbyists. It shows that he's either highly unprincipled, or weak and not in control of the political machinery he's supposed to be the leader of.
The text of this debate is in the latest issue of National Review. When you use reason you come back to conservatism every time. Conservatism works. Liberalism fails.
I was wrong and I apologize for the statement about Buckley. I listened to his speech again and i overlooked that he was arguing for the US to allow Panamanians the right to the canal - or the same things the original americans fought for.
Yes, war: which is exactly what he is NOT mongering here, you moron.
Neo-conservatives are nothing but former liberals, Socialists and Communists who became disenchanted with the Left and re-examined, and re-joined, the grand Western tradition.
And Buckley, who never was a Leftist, was thus never neo-conservative.
I remember when C-SPAN replayed these debates a few years ago. This was when the Senate was debating the Panama Canal treaties early in 1978. Buckley was actually on the opposite side of Reagan in the debate. After Reagan spoke, he called Reagan "the politician in America I most admire" and then made fun of his sense of history and then this closing speech.
A beautiful speech (with only a few rhetorical sleight-of-hands for good measure) and a marked stage presence to boot.
I may disagree with Buckley on many issues, but I do admire his grandstanding eloquence and towering intelligence. (His coy bullying of ideological opposites in other occasions not so much.)
This is a magnificent speech, he is the most eloquent person I have ever heard with the possible exception of Churchill. I don't agree with him on everything but I admire him nonetheless! Go Buckley!
I wish people in the media today spoke like this; God Bless WFB, a true journalist, thinker, devotee to the USA. An example of a man who loved his life and never thought once to apologize for it. May National Review live on in success in your honor, Bill.
My post was intemperate and written after watching a debate between WFB and Noam Chomsky.
Of course, Bill Buckley was not an idiot.
I suggest, though, that he used his undoubted intellect disingenuously. He defended the path of least resistance. Always elucidating the argument of privileged class interest. His intellectual position was 'USA = the Good', but his notion of USA was derived from the elitism of his Ivy League background.
By the way Stellar, you write like an idiot. learn to spell.
Wouldn't that have made a better post the first time around? Shouldn't we leave the name-calling to those with no real point to make (the classic 'I bet you're a fag' as an example)?
I was an immediate devotee (of sorts) after I saw a rather unfriendly '60minutes' profile in 1980 or '81 (I was 15 years old) -- I understand politics now better than then (with hope, even better later than now) and I know that this debate was for one reason: grooming Ronald Reagan for President. Even so, WFB did so with integrity beyond the imagination of his small minded critics.
cloonmore:you're right.Buckley was a conservative who often took the other side, as he did on legalizing drugs. What the problem is, nowadays taking heads 'right or left' never wander from the official script,one can
almost predict what they're going to say ahead of time.
which is why they're all such bores, orsiorsi, whether one agrees with them or not. they behave like herd animals. WFB was a thinking man, and his name doesn't belong in the same sentence with most of the fake pundits around today.
The last remnants of true intellectualism died with The Lost Founding Father February 27, 2008. Go with God, Brother Buckley, your Message Will Not Be Forgotten and a New Generation (of which I belong to) Will Continue to Trumpet It Until Our Time Has Come!
Although I'm a liberal who disagrees with 90%% of his views (sometimes intensely), I'll always respect William Buckley. He took political discussion in this country to a level that I fear we will never reach again. His honesty, wit, and intellectual courage had few equals on either side of the political spectrum. It used to be Buckley and Arthur Schlesinger, now all we have is idiots like Michael Savege and Michael Moore.
that would be sociology... huh... kind of kills my point with that typo. None the less, you have misunderstood Buckley to a degree I can't understand. I would be greatly interested in your argument.
lol, proto-fascist. Well someone has taken freshmen sociolagy. Too funny. Anyway, the man spent his life creating an intellectual defense of individualism against statism. The Soviets would probably still be around without his influence on the conservative movement. A job well done Mr. Buckley, you shall be missed.
All of these neo-commies attacking this great man can do is call him names because their pissed off that he was correct, they were and are wrong and America is better because of him.
All of these neo-commies attacking this great an can do is call him names because their pissed off that he was correct, they were and are wrong and America is better because of him.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
buckley was an articulate but intellectually dishonest proto-fascist; but id still rather listen to him than a cretinous big blubbering vag such as bill o'reilly
nothing about the man was fascist. you're too stupid to argue at his level so you call him names. He was not against free speech, free press, free assembly, freedom of religion or for murdering people who participated in this things.
proto-fascist? i believe you mean crypto-nazi, as your hero gore vidal called him to his face. socialists like yourself would gladly destroy books so you could call anything you disagree with "fascist" without having to explain yourself. fascism, the ever-expanding label with which all things not socialist are described. one day, you'll utter that epithet at something or someone you don't like, and someone else will ask you to explain yourself, point blank. i wish i could be there to hear you.
Thanks for sharing. I would not have minded seeing the Reagan inputs in this debate, but I am sure they are out there somewhere.
My father was a huge fan of Buckley; he's been an NR subscriber for decades and the Firing Line was a weekend tradition throughout most of my childhood.
RIP WFB, you are already missed!
"Now listen, you q----, stop calling me a crypto-Nazi or I will sock you in your g------ face, and you will stay plastered!"
hahaha, that little excerpt is just right for tooyifwn a few comments above. it was gore vidal's calling buckley a crypto-nazi that made him lose his cool like that (a rare occurrence btw).
Thanks for posting this. Would have loved to have seen Reagan's input, but I am sure it's out there to find somewhere. My father was a huge fan. "Firing Line" was a weekend tradition and he has gotten NR for decades.
"Now listen, you queer, stop calling me a crypto-Nazi or I will sock you in your goddamn face, and you will stay plastered...."
though i do not agree with Mr Buckley, one should recognise his remarkable ability to speak vividily and convincing about this subject
Meowwithanh 1 month ago 2
Doing Vietnam right?? What's that mean?
MikeEMECO 1 month ago in playlist william f. buckley jr.
@MikeEMECO it means bombing the living shit out of vietnam. don't forget just cause he wants to be easy on panama here, he was still a right-wing warmonger
MetrazolElectricity 1 month ago
Still one of my favorite speeches. No teleprompter, no notes, just pure intellect by an outstanding communicator and the father of modern conservatism.
PEM9355 5 months ago
Oh those poor, poor United States, always getting pushed around!
sjl62 6 months ago
If you go to the CSPAN website and search for Panama Canal Treaties in their online video library, you can watch the entire debate, which is almsot 2 hours. It is very interesting and informative to watch Buckley's team vs. Reagan's team. Some very funny lines between Buckley and Reagan too!
RJY4356 8 months ago
Wm. F. Buckley Jr., the greatest man of the 20th Century!
vince33x 1 year ago
@vince33x indeed
DaceFalar7 1 year ago
"Say No to China" --- WFB... man ahead of his time. It's seems cowardly how our politicans shirk away from taking on Red China. Communism should not be tolerated. We can begin by telling the damn profane old chinese man who runs the dirty sordid food restaurant in our neighborhood to speak proper english or go back to his communist country.
xtrmsprts 1 year ago
1:11 "I want to be looking the Soviet Union in the face & say no the next time (it) wants to send its tanks running over students ... in Czechoslovakia."
Yeah, BIll. Did you say "No" to the U.S. when the National Guard mowed down 4 students at Kent State in Ohio while they protested the Vietnam War?
1:22 "I want to say no to Red China when it subsidizes genocide in Cambodia."
Hey Bill! Did you say "No" to the U.S. when it supported Pol Pot because he was also an enemy of Vietnam? Eh Bill?
bapyou 1 year ago
@bapyou
The Kent State shooting (I go to school there) was not a result of "the U.S.". The National Guard was commanded by the state of Ohio, not the federal government. To compare accidently shooting at rioters to the brutal suppression of a democratic movement by invading totalitarian regimes is obscene.
The United States did not support Pol Pot, but the non-communist resistance. One journalist making the same acusations lost a libel suit. There is no evidence backing the allegation.
kissfan7 1 year ago
@kissfan7 "The National Guard was commanded by the state of Ohio." That may have been so, but the NG are a federal force, therefore the comparison is entirely apt. And the shooting was hardly an "accident". Is that what they're teaching today?
"The United States did not support Pol Pot" The US most certainly supported Pol Pot's gov while it was fighting the Vietnamese. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Get your history straight. American foreign policy & morality are incompatible concepts.
bapyou 1 year ago
@bapyou
Is so, not "may be". The KSU protesters wrecked downtown, burned down the ROTC building, and threw rocks at the National Guard, who were commanded by a state. Tragic as it was (especially since some of the dead weren't rioting), there is absolutly no comparing it to the invasion of an entire nation by half a dozen armies in order to brutally crush democracy. You owe the decendants of the dead an apology.
Do you have evidence on US support for Pol Pot that the court didn't?
kissfan7 1 year ago
Is the National Guard a state institution? No it is not. It is a national institution. Comparing KS with the Czech events, there is a difference in the scale of the events and in the reason for the protests, but not in response of the state. Contrary to your assertion, the events are emminently comparable. They are both examples of state violence in the context of public speech.
Pol Pot: 1. Nayan Chanda's 'Brother Enemy' 2. Evans & Rowley's 'Red Brotherhood at War' & references therein.
bapyou 1 year ago
@bapyou
What occured at KSU was not simply "public speech", but riots. Indeed, the only reason we remember May 4th is that it was the exception rather than the rule. The purpose of sending the National Guard was to prevent more riots. The purpose of the invasion of Czechloslovakia was to crush democracy. It's not just apples and oranges. It's apples and napalm.
Since I do not have access to the works in question, what specific sources did they use?
kissfan7 1 year ago
@kissfan7 "Since I do not have access to the works in question, what specific sources did they use?"
There's this new thing they have. It's called a library. Aren't you conservatives always telling everyone how YOU are the ones who do the work and everyone else stis around collecting welfare? Well? Go out and do some work, superman.
Cheers.
bapyou 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bapyou
"Aren't you conservatives always telling everyone how YOU are the ones who do the work[...]"
I wouldn't know, what with me being a liberal and all.
Here's how grown-up discussion works. A makes a claim. B questions that claim and shows some evidence that the claim may not be true. A must then specifically state the primary source that claim comes from, not two secondary sources. It is the claimer who must "[g]o out and do some work", not the claimee (pretend that's a real word).
kissfan7 1 year ago
Furthermore, don't you even fucking ASSUME to tell me to whom I should apologize, you fucking scumbag conservative TWAT. Go to El Salvador & Guatemala where - in the 1980s, in the name of anti-communism - 10s of 1000s of peasants were murdered by right wing death squads, & apologize for Ronald Reagan's support. You fucks make me fucking sick. You have no clue as to the depth of my hatred for conservative scum like you who attempt to get "moral" on me. Fuck you motherfuck. Fuck you.
bapyou 1 year ago
@bapyou
As you can clearly see from my first post, I am not a conservative, but a liberal. Second, the US supported the Christian Democrats, who were targets of those same death squads. One of them even tried to kill an American diplomat.
If someone says something you disagree with, please try to act like an adult and counter their statement with facts and logic, not random swearing. One or two fucks is understandable, but seven just makes you look silly and sophomoric.
kissfan7 1 year ago
@kissfan7 "I am not a conservative, but a liberal." No, it's not clear at all. Not at all.
"the US supported the Christian Democrats, who were targets of those same death squads." I suggest you bone up on your 80s El Salvador & Guatemala history. The vast number of murders & tortures were prosecuted by right-wing government groups against peasants, many of whom had no politics whatsoever. You can find cheap copies of the human rights reports of the day on Amazon. Or ... hey! Go to the library.
bapyou 1 year ago
@bapyou
It is, in fact, crystal clear, since I've told you flat out I'm a liberal. What have I said that suggests otherwise?
Your statement that the victims were mostly working class in now way detracts from my point, which is that US-backed Christian Democrats (many of whom were workers) were also killed and that a US diplomat was targeted specifically because he opposed the death squads. Your vauge request that I read human rights reports in no way detracts from these facts.
kissfan7 1 year ago
@kissfan7 As long as you're not trying to suggest Carter's and, even moreso, Reagan's support was not directed to the right wing death squads, or that the target of these paramilitary units was primarily peasants. These are the conclusions of human rights agencies who were on the ground observing during the time; observations ignored by Reagan. I get into arguments all the time with right-wing idiots who think Ronald Reagan was some kind of saint or human rights some sort of communist plot.
bapyou 1 year ago
@bapyou
Carter's and Reagan's aid wasn't directed to the right wing death squads. As I've pointed out three times now, an American diplomat was almost killed BECAUSE the United States threatened to stop aid unless the governments cut back on the death squads. Even in Guatemala most of the civilian deaths occured during an arms embargo on the government set up by the United States. Killings went down in El Salvador during the period of US aid.
kissfan7 1 year ago
"Carter's & Reagan's aid wasn't directed to the right wing death squads"
Look, kid: Everyone on Earth knew about what was going on. Every human rights organization in existence at the time was operating in Central America as observers. The fact that US aid money wasn't stamped "NO DEATH SQUAD USE" is a fatuous argument. The money was going to the right wing governments & they doled it out. cont ...
bapyou 1 year ago
@kissfan7 When it came time for policy renewal in Congress, both Carter and Reagan somehow found the rationalization that "The human rights situation is improving." and Congress would pony up. But the human rights orgs never claimed any such thing. When Congress finally cut off aid during Reagan's admin, he created the Iran-Contra connection.
Give me a source for your claims.
bapyou 1 year ago
@bapyou
Before you use condecending name-calling, make sure you know the difference between Central Americans. The Contras were Nicaraguans, not Salvadorans or Guatemalans.
First, minor point. Most human rights NGOs are regional, so not all "in existence at the time" were there. Second, the Truth Commission on El Salvador counted 2,600 claims of violence in 1980. In 1985, 140. Report of the UN Truth Commission on El Salvador. The Guatemala embargo went from 1978 to '83, the bloodiest years.
kissfan7 1 year ago
You have yet to anwer the main points. Why did the death squads target a US diplomat and the US-backed Christian Democrats? These two facts run counter to your entire theis, but you keep ignoring them.
kissfan7 1 year ago
@kissfan7 "death squads target a US diplomat" Are you talking about Robert White? If so, White was referred to by Reagan administration henchman as a "leftist sympathizer." He was replaced not long after Reagan took office. He was outspoken and adamant about death squad activity. That's reason enough for him to be a target. If this is not the diplomat, who is it you're talking about?
Give me your sources. One main source is William Blum's 'Killing Hope' and many references therein.
bapyou 1 year ago
@kissfan7 Yes, thanks, kid. I know the difference between a Contra, a Guatemalan, and a Salvadoran. I even know (*gasp*) the Contras were formed of the remains of the dictator Anastasio Somoza's much loathed National Guard (created & trained by the United States Marines). I have a master's degree in geography from UCLA, thank you. What's your point?
bapyou 1 year ago
@bapyou
Since "Killing Hope" has been praised by bin Laden, I'm going to need primary sources.
It was Thomas Pickering, not White. Why did the death squads target Christian Democrats?
If you know the difference, why mention Iran-Contra?
You're treating this like an imature competition rather than an adult discussion. I don't care about your resume, name-calling is unnecessary, and the random swearing is just silly. I've met Holocaust deniers who have political sciene Ph. D.'s.
kissfan7 1 year ago
@kissfan7 "Since "Killing Hope" has been praised by bin Laden" means what? Bin Laden reccommended Blum's book. This is Blum's fault? What'd you look that up on Google? I've given you one of my sources, you've given me nothing. What are your sources, Wikipedia?
In addition to Blum's book. I have dozens of others on Central America during this period..
"Thomas Pickering" ... "Christian Democrats" Why don't you explain these. In what way do these disprove the US was funding Guat. & El Salv?
bapyou 1 year ago
@bapyou
I knew of bin Laden's praise before.
What needs to be explained? Pickering was threated, not White. I mention him and the Christian Democrats because he is an American official and they are the party the US backed.
I never claimed the US didn't fund those governments. I specifically questioned your statement that they directly funded the death squads. All the evidence shows any unbiased person that the US opposed the death squads.
Listing the titles of books is not proof.
kissfan7 1 year ago
You need a heavy dose of Socratic wisdom. Stop insulting, swearing like a twelve year old, braging about irrelevant academic accomplishments, and telling me how many books you have.
This isn't a game. You're talking about people's lives here. You have never seen real suffering in your privliged life, so you see dead bodies in Central America, Eastern Europe, and Ohio as a way to bulster your intellectual insecurity. You don't give two shits about what I, Buckley, or anyone else has to say.
kissfan7 1 year ago
@kissfan7 "You're talking about people's lives here." And about what have you speaking? The semantics of the word "support." The Reagan government was giving aid to the Contras & the governments of El Salvador & Guatemala in the 1980s. Everyone in the world knew these right-wing governments were operating paramilitary squads committing atrocities against their own populations, populations in revolt against deplorable conditions, conditions created, for the most part, by the United States.
bapyou 1 year ago
@kissfan7 "You have never seen real suffering in your privliged life" Excuse me. Who the fuck are you to say what I have or haven't seen? I've traveled in the third world and seen the poorest of the poor. And if living on the brink of financial ruin is a "privilege," your definition for the word privilege is about as accurate in its fullness as your definition of the word "support."
"You don't give two shits about WF Buckley has to say." Definitely true. He supported all manner of despots.
bapyou 1 year ago
@kissfan7 "Pickering was threated, not White." And White was relieved of his post.
"I specifically questioned (Wwhether the US gov) directly funded the death squads" Semantics. Everyone knew what the deal was; it was no secret. Ask Robert White. Ask Americas Watch. Ask the Catholic Church. Ask Joan Fucking Didion.
bapyou 1 year ago
"the US opposed the death squads." Ridiculous. Reagan called them "freedom fighters." There was no oppositon coming from the White House. That's for damned sure.
"Listing the titles of books is not proof." And you? You've provided me with not a single reference. William Blum's books are exhaustively referenced, frequently with US government documents & mainstream newspapers. I get why people want to discredit Blum because of the bin Laden connection, but the charge has no validity.
bapyou 1 year ago
@bapyou
The Truth Commission is "not a single reference"?
One of the El Salvador death squads threatened Durante because he negotiated with the rebels. He supported his own attempted assasins?
There you go talking about the Contras again. Do all brown people look alike to you?
Why are you talking about White? I was specifically refering to Pinckering. White's firing has zero to do with the anti-US sentiments of the death squads. You're obfuscating, you coward.
kissfan7 1 year ago
@kissfan7 "Do all brown people look alike to you?"
Dude, seriously: Fuck you. End of conversation.
If anyone is full of themselves it's you. Fuck off and suck a fucking dick. Bye.
bapyou 1 year ago
@bapyou
It's obvious you think all Latinos look alike or you wouldn't keep bringing up Nicaragua and confusing the right wing death squads with moderates. At the very least, you see the entire world as black and white.
And chalk up three more random fucks. My nephew shows more poise in his writing then you do.
kissfan7 1 year ago
Oh wow, you saw poor people!
Comparing your field trips to mass murder is inane. When you heard about May 4th did you feel pain for the loved ones, or did you think "Yes! A rhetorical weapon gainst any who disagree with me"? When you read about Prauge Spring, did measure how much you could compare this to other tragedies? When you read about mass murder, do you quickly jot them down in a notebook, reminding yourself to use this whenever someone calls you on your bullshit?
Is this a game?
kissfan7 1 year ago
this is really bad
PatrickWJ 1 year ago
Just out of curiosity, is "analytical analysis" technically incorrect. One word is an adjective and one is a noun. I really don't care either way, but doesn't "analytical" further define what type of "analysis" he is speaking of. Could he have said a "cavalier, whimsical analysis" and it meant something completely different? I think you can somewhat fault the style, however, technically, I think he was ok with usage.
beebeau42 1 year ago
semi - savage , this guy lol
AdamDLDixon 1 year ago
Great speech, and still relevant today. No need for a teleprompter for this guy. :-)
Wiytithst 2 years ago
16 semi-SAVAGES (OPEC)!!!!
NAZI NAZI NAZI
SuperCreamface 2 years ago
This guy was evil's willing servant. He was a crypto-demon and if he threatened to smash my face I woul do the flying headbutt on him.
mykcheck1212 2 years ago
Even though Reagan had a hard time on Middle Eastern diplomacy, I really feel he did his best, with nothing but the best of intentions. I trust he would do the right thing in our current situation, along with Mitt Romney.....
brian8793 2 years ago
He forgot to mention religious persecution in China. Big bad problem.......
brian8793 2 years ago
The reason the Panama Treaty is unpopular is because we were handed our ass in Vietnam and 13 Harvard professors were too sissy to allow more American soldiers to die.
We are going to allow 16 semi-savage countries to cartelize the oil the entire industrial west is dependent on because we don't have a diplomacy to do something about it. @2:00 Buckley digs his shorts out of his elitist self aggrandizing ass.
kristiemansfield 2 years ago
2:34 - " analytical analysis" - is there any other kind?
A tautological tautology, if ever I heard one!
PBSmithy 2 years ago
You simply must upload all your televised debates with your extemporaneous closing arguments, as they are, apparently, far superior to Mr Buckley's.
We await.
somercet1 2 years ago
it make's no matter whether his words were extemporaneous or not. My point nevertheless remains a valid one, in that to precede a noun by the use of it's own adjectival formulation is an act of supreme idiocy.
In the entirety of my life i've yet to hear anybody else say, for example - "unimaginatively unimaginative". There can be NO excuse for this, whether you idolise Buckley or not.
I'd like you to post a DIRECT QUOTE of where I said my arguments are "far superior"
I await!
PBSmithy 2 years ago
Oh, there is none. Nothing I've seen you write has 1/10th the power, the erudition, the lucidity of Buckley on a mediocre day. In fact, you've missed (intentionally?) my entire point, that Buckley mistakenly used the adjective then instantly corrected with the noun, and assumed that all intelligent people would recognize the oral "typo" and hear the sentence as intended. And he was right: all *intelligent* people did.
Your serve. :-D
somercet1 2 years ago
I've missed the point?
no, you've missed the point, AGAIN. And as a result, you've made the same mistake AGAIN!
i'd like you to post a DIRECT QUOTE of where I implied my writing is as good as, or better than William F. Buckley on a mediocre day, or any other day for that matter! That's right, I never have. Therefore your second allusion in as many posts implying that I somehow claimed to possess greater erudition is thus rendered inane!
PBSmithy 2 years ago
Secondly, I'd like to know just exactly how it is that you feel able to speak as to the intentions of a man whilst he was speaking 31 years ago?
That's right, you cannot possibly know! i.e. you're actually making facts up - aka LYING!
p.s. please do try not to make the same pathetic attempt to imply that I somehow claim to be more intelligent than mr. Buckley for a third time - I have by now realised that you're rather slow on the uptake, but a third time would be embarrassing! NEXT !
PBSmithy 2 years ago
How do I speak to his intentions? How about studying his books and "Firing Line" archives since I was 13? The idea of the man, at his desk, writing "analytical analysis" is Buñuelic adsurdity. But as a slip of the tongue (and he is quite clearly speaking without notes)? Far more likely.
Your first comment was either an easy joke or a moronic put-down of WFB. My comment was a witty riposte, a defense, and a bluff. You could have recognized the gambit and laughed it off, but you didn't. Hmmm.
somercet1 2 years ago
It is self-aggrandisement alone that allows a man to go so far as to describe his own words as " a witty riposte". You would, I hope, understand were I to dissent somewhat from your unconscionable, childlike levels of self-concern.
As to my original comment; it was neither an "easy joke", nor indeed a "moronic put-down", but rather ONE MAN'S FACTUALLY ACCURATE OBSERVATION OF ANOTHER MAN'S CEREBRALLY-INDIGENT USE OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE!
(as evidenced at 2:34 - which was my original point)
PBSmithy 2 years ago
How is defending Mr Buckley, whom I never met, 'childlike self-concern?' (You mean 'childish'.) Dizzy Dean said, 'it isn't bragging if you can do it,' and I have, as every word you write proves. ;-)
One stammer is not a speech impediment, even Einstein double-checked his math, and Mr Buckley's accidental repetition is not idiocy, but your 'CEREBRALLY-INDIGENT' is: what do those words purchase that "idiocy" does not? What rhythm, what poetry do you think you grasp? Strunk & White are crying.
somercet1 2 years ago
For the THIRD time in this particular thread, you have accused me of saying something that I quite simply have not. This is pathetic - even more so considering it took you a whole 21 days !
I DID NOT say that your "defence" of Buckley was indicative of a childlike self-concern. What I ACTUALLY said was that describing your own words as "a witty riposte" is indicative of childlike levels of self-concern.
Defending Mr. Buckley is one thing, heaping praise upon yourself is quite another!
PBSmithy 2 years ago
you say "What rhythm, what poetry do you think you grasp?"
Throughout this entire thread of posts, I have, time and again, downplayed my own intellect - as you will see if you ACTUALLY READ THEM!
As far as I am concerned "cerebrally-indigent" is not an especially conceited use of language. Some of your very own gems of humility might be better suited to meet that description. The aforementioned "witty riposte" for one, "Buñuelic adsurdity" for another! lol!
PBSmithy 2 years ago
PBSmithy is so smart. Why don't we all just listen to him, shall we?
iamcreepindeath 2 years ago
When did I say that I was smart?
I'd like a direct quote please!
The truth is that what I said in my original post was 100% accurate & was merely an observation of fact!
Some people are unable to accept that somebody they like would say something quite so inane as " analytical analysis", and so they have to make things up to make themselves feel better e.g. "this PBSmithy, he thinks he's sooo smart!" well, I don't and have never said so!
you're the 2nd to make that false claim, back it up!
PBSmithy 2 years ago
Comment removed
iamcreepindeath 2 years ago
When did I say that you said you were smart?
I'd like a direct quote please!
I never made a false claim. Take heed to your own advice and "back it up," PBSmithy.
iamcreepindeath 2 years ago
It's obvious from your 1st comment, that your implication is that I think I am smart!
I haven't any doubt in my mind that you will now attempt to deny that that was your implication because you are probably a coward! Nevertheless, your comment is right there in black & white and can be seen for what it is!
Apparently, some unfortunates are unable to get past their own idol-worshiping tendencies and have to spit the dummy, and throw their toys out of the buggy!
Blind idol worship!!!
PBSmithy 2 years ago
p.s.
These will be my last messages! I can no longer be bothered to leave comments on this thread as i have better things to do with my life!
If it had been down to me there would have been no thread, simply my 1st comment which is open in it's meaning (no cowardly allusions) and factually accurate in every way. But no, the first Buckley "devotee" had to come along and make a big fuss about it using lies and implied, hidden meanings (as the thread will show!).
PBSmithy 2 years ago
Throughout the thread I have been factual & have denied that I am anything other than an average person! That was not enough for the 2nd "devotee", who felt impelled to leave his own little "allusion" (in a cowardly way, much like his counterpart - as the thread will show!).
If your idolisation of Buckley is so strong that your fragile ego cannot take his mistake pointed out, then that is, in my opinion, a character flaw in your personality and something you should really deal with asap!
PBSmithy 2 years ago
Nice faulty assumption. And a personal attack, to boot! That is great logic; I would hate to see you in a real debate.
iamcreepindeath 2 years ago
(1) Did Buckley say "analytical analysis"? Yes!
(2) Is that a tautology? yes!
(3) Did devotee no.1 claim to know the intention of Buckley as he was speaking 3 decades ago (impossible), and then state his presumption as fact? Yes!
(4) Did I ever refer to myself as being especially smart? No!
(5) Did both devotees make untrue, underhand allusions that I had at some point claimed to be especially smart? yes!
All of my claims are true, all of yours are lies!
debate, lol - what debate?
PBSmithy 2 years ago
You are still making wrong assumptions. Also, I thought those last posts were your last. Or, at least, that is what you said. "These will be my last messages!" There's a direct quote!
iamcreepindeath 2 years ago
yeah well - I suppose you've got me there! (apart from the bit about wrong assumptions!)
Definately my last message!!!
PBSmithy 2 years ago
@PBSmithy
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA, PBSmithy!
iamcreepindeath 1 year ago
@PBSmithy Mr. Buckley said "A HARD analytical analysis" and this is the opposite of an analysis that is not well thought out or accepted as justifiable. There can be analyses that are not analytical because they are spoken out of ignorance of the facts. Mr. Buckley was a master of the English language and of the skill of debating. His unique accent that comes off as pompous to some fail to realize it evolved from from learning English as a 3rd language and he was always respectful. R.I.P.
legalman1980 8 months ago
@legalman1980 moron.
somercet1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Kopy paste if you think youtube needs to fix flagging/everything
abba149 2 years ago
R.I.P. my brother, you were truly a great and wise man.
RatkoUSA 2 years ago 3
Stewie Griffin ?
CoxXximus 2 years ago
I just noticed it now. Yeeeeeeeesssssssss!!!!!
jeffhegarty 2 years ago
He was an employee of the CIA. He received direct payments from the CIA's "Operation Mockingbird". Look it up. Carl Bernstein did an excellent piece exposing the CIA's relationship with the media
userid8765 2 years ago
That was a good one! The CIA, stronghold of the Left, employed WFB? Can't stop laughing...
IlanRamon 2 years ago
No, they did, solidly Democratic though they were. Buckley was a low-level operative in Mexico who probably gathered "social data": leads, the disaffected, opportunities, etc.
somercet1 2 years ago
Operation Mockingbird is in the same vein as Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine" in that they are based on rumor and conspiracy theories that are as forgettable as they are provable.
nodalboogie 2 years ago
Your government failed you educationally, and your lack of intellectual curiosity and acceptance of PC dogma identifies you as a true right-winger.
The shock doctrine, by another name is the "strategy of tension" used by the CIA supported Italian P2 group. Look it up. We are the terrorists.
kristiemansfield 2 years ago
Well, the problem with "Shock Doctrine" is that it upends all human history: free enterprise is wounded and damaged by war and disaster. It suffers with us. Even WWII, which we won, left our economy in shackles (tax withholding, anyone? Employer tax breaks for medical insurance) by a wartime familiarity.
Of course, the idea of Naomi Klein's Po-Mo softened brain understanding intelligence and counter-intelligence is absurd!
somercet1 2 years ago
Simply fantastic. And, one might add, Buckley's capacity to draw knee-jerk anti-American comments from intellectual infants like "Lipsbach" might have been his greatest strength...
IlanRamon 2 years ago
Wow, in the first minute he says we "were pushed out of Vietnam because we didn't have the guts to do it right" AND he makes fun of the idea of normalizing relations with mainland China, AND he calls several countries which demand the right to control their oil resources "semi-savage"...AND I'M THE INTELLECTUAL INFANT? You IlanRamon are an idiot if you can't see through this smoke and mirror show.
lipsbach 2 years ago
In your world, Vietnam is better off without the US, Red China is a benign country (and Taiwan deserves to be hated), and the OPEC kleptocracies are "countries which demand the right to control their oil resources". Fascinating parallel universve indeed...
IlanRamon 2 years ago
Indeed, some people even pine over the good old days of president GHW Bush. Good luck.
lipsbach 2 years ago 2
Well, compared to Barack Hussein Obama, appeaser-in-chief and debt spender extraordinary, we might soon be pining for the days of Jimmy Carter, who was, at least, original...
IlanRamon 2 years ago
Rubbish and platitudes. The authors of all these fawning comments apparently can't get past their awe of Buckley's ridiculously affected delivery., which dazzles them because of their own limitations. The content is all about the benevolence of the US empire - a lie from start to finish.
lipsbach 2 years ago
Brilliant...Absolutely Brilliant...I'm at lost with words... Brilliant, Absolutely
We need more intellectual giants like Buckley once again.
The libs are brainy, but they are lacking, lacking substance, because their ideology refrains God, therefore, their knowledge is imbalanced.
There are intelligent Conservatives, but they are simply unaware.
gm8382 2 years ago
Please expound on the brilliance. You make no substantive comment about the content of Buckley's blather. Oh, sorry, I just went back and read that you are "at lost with words". LOL
lipsbach 2 years ago
I guess I'm not allowed to express my comments according to your reply.
So what, I was a little redundant. Oh, I'm sorry if that troubles you!? Then again, why should I defend the unequivocal substance of Buckley to the leaders of incoherence-you stinking liberals, because you still won't get it!
He is brilliant because he amalgamated eloquence with substantive thoughts on the issue. Your buddy "the teller prompter king" BHO can't do that. BHO would be HOPELESS without the teller prompter!
gm8382 2 years ago 3
Hear, hear!!
Lupine0012 2 years ago
Buckley always knew that being entertaining was as important to persuasion as being eloquant.
And the two, together, were his ticket to heaven on earth.
Holdenon3 2 years ago 4
Buckley had major flaws but by god was he extremely eloquent, a brilliant debator and phenomenal at speeches and he was erudite as well. He was the complete package.
klimes86 2 years ago 5
Comment removed
rayza563 3 years ago
You've got to be kidding. You "s'pose" Obama is equivalent to Buckley? I guess this shouldn't suprise me-anybody who writes as one would in a text message wouldn't begin to understand the sheer difference in overall intellegence, understanding of political issues, education, and real world accomplishments, etc. that exists between someone like a William Buckley and someone like Obama. Whether you agree with him or not, Obama at his best doesn't even come close.
snobblett 3 years ago 11
Comment removed
rayza563 3 years ago
You have good spelling but poor grammar. "i could care less aout spelling on youtube is typing... what? And for your information, Buckley never ran for a state seat, so good try. Even when he ran for Mayor he said he would demand a recount if he won. Nice try though.
mn155605 3 years ago 2
@snobblett Yes, Obama doesn't even come close...he leaves Buckley far behind. Buckley was the privileged son of an oil industrialist and what he did was employ his patrician accent and obese vocabulary to try to shroud his primitive bigoted neuroses.Apparently you have been won over by his pseudo-royal drawl and eloquent hand gestures, but I suppose the electorate was less kind to Wily F. Buckley when they unequivocally voted against him in his hapless run for mayor of New York.
WhenLilacsLast 1 year ago
@WhenLilacsLast
Your an idiot. Just keep drinking the lib kool-aid. Your buddy Obama has no experience in running any corporation, business, etc. Now look at the mess we are in. The great community organizer is at it again:
so far the score is Great Obama Depression 2.2 million lost jobs
Biden: “there’s no possibility to restore 8 million jobs lost in the Great Recession.” Now, go get collect your unemployment check. While your at it, be sure to support the newest rapist-Gore
snobblett 1 year ago
@snobblett I'm always fetched by anyone who begins with "your[sic] an idiot" , what a convincing start,hardly can get wrong from there. And the racist innuendos about the kool-aid, very chic, you've got some class,son.Obama really was a shmuck for exploding the deficit during the 80s?wait that was the forgetful hollywood actor,or did he eat up the Clinton-created surplus from 00-08?wait that was our cowboy from texas.Who was in charge when Lehman brothers and others fell apart?obama?hmm:)
WhenLilacsLast 1 year ago
@WhenLilacsLast
Your still an idiot. Go grow some flowers somewhere noodle-spine. Kool-aid a racist term? This is why its a waste of time talking to libs. You never get the facts right-you probably know this, but I will say it anyway "never argue with an idiot-they drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience." Reagan defeats the Soviet Union-last time I checked you no longer have to deal with that nuclear threat-now we worry about your buddies-the muslims doing it.Eat it
snobblett 1 year ago
@snobblett You seem to have made a hobby of uttering the word idiot and evading the issues , my boy. The forgetful B-movie hollywood actor did no such thing, the S.U. was plagued by internal strife, but an educated conservative statesman like yourself knows that history, right billy? ;) So we're religious bigots in addition to racial bigots, yes junior? tch tch, I'm going to have to unplug grandma and redistribute wealth to Southside Chicago Welfare Queens
WhenLilacsLast 1 year ago
@WhenLilacsLast
Reagan didnt defeat the Soviets, eh? More revisionist history from the libs. Go back to school and learn something. Come to think of it, forget that idea, because thats where you learned what you think are facts. Religion? Who said anything about religion? Typical lib response-incorrect facts and then bringing up racism/religion. I find it interesting that libs always are the 1st to do that. Now, go enjoy your "summer of recovery." You live in such a dreamland.Fishlick
snobblett 1 year ago
@WhenLilacsLast Please, Obama is a total lightweight compared to William F Buckley. Yes, Buckley had a certain affectation, he also believed in the US constitution and freedom, which can't say for Obama. I mean, Obama supports the drug war for goodness sake, though I guess it was alright to smoke marijuana and do lines of coke (or "blow" if you're a trendy tosser like Obama). Buckley believed in freedom, he wasn't always right, but at least he got the idea as he got older. Maybe Obama will too.
disamjisa 1 year ago
@disamjisa A lightweight compared to whom? You're saying the lifelong critic of the civil rights movement was in favor of freedom? lol Buckley was a nothing with a flair for publicity,as Vidal recently put it.This man was a backward creationist catholic and a glorified thug whom the people of new york expressly rejected when he ran his pathetic race for mayor.He had a perennial fear of liberal intellectuals so he pandered to the redneck bible-touting section of the usa called the conservatives
WhenLilacsLast 1 year ago
@WhenLilacsLast So he was pandering to the rednecks when he very publicly opposed the drug war. Same vis a vis opposing the Torrijo-Carter treaties.
Some people will never admit that an intellectual or public figure on the other side of politics has something important and interesting to say, or is worthy of attention or honest criticism, due to their deep seated partisanship
There are good politicians and intellectuals on left, Obama is not one of them.
disamjisa 1 year ago
@disamjisa So wishing marijuana legalized was the only good cause buckley ever championed? Only shows there is some good in everyone.I don't dislike bill because he was on the other side, but because he feigned civility while being a brute of the most mordant order.It vexes me how simpletons can't penetrate his thin outer rind of savoir faire.Nevertheless,I do concede he had a flair for publicity - that's a talent.Finally, I don't think Obama is liberal enough,just like JFK.
WhenLilacsLast 1 year ago
@WhenLilacsLast He didn't "wish marijuana was legalized". He was in favour of legalizing almost all illicit drugs. He came to the same conclusion that people on the right who are truly libertarian or utilitarian come to, that the drug war is morally and economically wrong. That's a natural conclusion for someone to come to if they believe in personal freedom. Clearly, he did. Who knows what Obama believes?
disamjisa 1 year ago
@WhenLilacsLast (reply part 2) He has Gibbs out attacking the people who mobilized for him and put him in power, the people he came to support. He specifically said he was running to change the way public business was being conducted, and has singularly failed to do so, with signing statements, and jobs for lobbyists. It shows that he's either highly unprincipled, or weak and not in control of the political machinery he's supposed to be the leader of.
disamjisa 1 year ago
WOW thats pretty stupid
hey hey. if ne1 is reading this. Qp
07bitch 3 years ago
The text of this debate is in the latest issue of National Review. When you use reason you come back to conservatism every time. Conservatism works. Liberalism fails.
xplund 3 years ago 7
Thats true, you can "google" it if you disagree...
danoftherepublic 3 years ago
Don't confuse conservatism with neoconservatism, which is what Buckley was - a war monger.
kristiemansfield 2 years ago
I was wrong and I apologize for the statement about Buckley. I listened to his speech again and i overlooked that he was arguing for the US to allow Panamanians the right to the canal - or the same things the original americans fought for.
kristiemansfield 2 years ago
Yes, war: which is exactly what he is NOT mongering here, you moron.
Neo-conservatives are nothing but former liberals, Socialists and Communists who became disenchanted with the Left and re-examined, and re-joined, the grand Western tradition.
And Buckley, who never was a Leftist, was thus never neo-conservative.
somercet1 2 years ago
I remember when C-SPAN replayed these debates a few years ago. This was when the Senate was debating the Panama Canal treaties early in 1978. Buckley was actually on the opposite side of Reagan in the debate. After Reagan spoke, he called Reagan "the politician in America I most admire" and then made fun of his sense of history and then this closing speech.
RJY4356 3 years ago 3
I've never seen the full debate. What were the opposing positions of Reagan and Buckley?
jeffhegarty 3 years ago
Comment removed
redhexagon 2 years ago
A beautiful speech (with only a few rhetorical sleight-of-hands for good measure) and a marked stage presence to boot.
I may disagree with Buckley on many issues, but I do admire his grandstanding eloquence and towering intelligence. (His coy bullying of ideological opposites in other occasions not so much.)
K2nsl3r 3 years ago 3
Do you have the full video of this speech?
Briannyc77 3 years ago 8
This is a magnificent speech, he is the most eloquent person I have ever heard with the possible exception of Churchill. I don't agree with him on everything but I admire him nonetheless! Go Buckley!
klimes86 3 years ago 6
Presentation and delivery is everything.....
Briannyc77 3 years ago 2
I might disagree with Buckley on a lot of political issues, but he's always intellectually honest.
eirefrance 3 years ago 9
wow
ShudeBwerkin 3 years ago 4
"sixteen semi-savage countries" - I love you Buckley!
BrandenburgConcerti 3 years ago 7
I wish people in the media today spoke like this; God Bless WFB, a true journalist, thinker, devotee to the USA. An example of a man who loved his life and never thought once to apologize for it. May National Review live on in success in your honor, Bill.
AAD718 3 years ago 5
This has been flagged as spam show
he was an idiot whilst alive... he's a tit post mortem.
caballistical 3 years ago
You're the idiot and no one else!
Even hardcore liberals call William Buckley a genious and he's the reason political shows exist- he was the first!
I bet you're a fag like Vidal..
StellarMortem 3 years ago
My post was intemperate and written after watching a debate between WFB and Noam Chomsky.
Of course, Bill Buckley was not an idiot.
I suggest, though, that he used his undoubted intellect disingenuously. He defended the path of least resistance. Always elucidating the argument of privileged class interest. His intellectual position was 'USA = the Good', but his notion of USA was derived from the elitism of his Ivy League background.
By the way Stellar, you write like an idiot. learn to spell.
caballistical 3 years ago
Wouldn't that have made a better post the first time around? Shouldn't we leave the name-calling to those with no real point to make (the classic 'I bet you're a fag' as an example)?
eirefrance 3 years ago
yeah I second StellarMortem....you ARE an idiot! :)
Silvercardinal7 3 years ago 3
Seconding StellarMortem must be a privileged position. I salute you!
caballistical 3 years ago
I was an immediate devotee (of sorts) after I saw a rather unfriendly '60minutes' profile in 1980 or '81 (I was 15 years old) -- I understand politics now better than then (with hope, even better later than now) and I know that this debate was for one reason: grooming Ronald Reagan for President. Even so, WFB did so with integrity beyond the imagination of his small minded critics.
daleroes 3 years ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Very well spoken. But what he was arguing for was the perpetuation of the colonial tradition. That I cannot accept.
sandrup 3 years ago
No, he was arguing in favor of the treaty, i.e., Panamanian self-determination.
cloonmore 3 years ago 7
cloonmore:you're right.Buckley was a conservative who often took the other side, as he did on legalizing drugs. What the problem is, nowadays taking heads 'right or left' never wander from the official script,one can
almost predict what they're going to say ahead of time.
orsiorsi186 3 years ago
which is why they're all such bores, orsiorsi, whether one agrees with them or not. they behave like herd animals. WFB was a thinking man, and his name doesn't belong in the same sentence with most of the fake pundits around today.
cloonmore 3 years ago
The last remnants of true intellectualism died with The Lost Founding Father February 27, 2008. Go with God, Brother Buckley, your Message Will Not Be Forgotten and a New Generation (of which I belong to) Will Continue to Trumpet It Until Our Time Has Come!
Inter arma enim silent leges,
ATMD
AllTerroristsMustDie 3 years ago 3
Isn't this WFB at his best? With every Buckley mannerism, oratorical flourish, and the rigorous intellect in full flower...a classic!
iviewer855 3 years ago 3
Buckley's smokin' -- Man, it only just occurred to me since WFB passed -- I hope somebody saved all those episodes of Firing Line . . .
daleroes 3 years ago
*standing ovation*
cloonmore 3 years ago
He was the best debater of the last century.
usmelly 3 years ago
Fantastic. Wonderful argument.
williamhudson1 3 years ago 3
Although I'm a liberal who disagrees with 90%% of his views (sometimes intensely), I'll always respect William Buckley. He took political discussion in this country to a level that I fear we will never reach again. His honesty, wit, and intellectual courage had few equals on either side of the political spectrum. It used to be Buckley and Arthur Schlesinger, now all we have is idiots like Michael Savege and Michael Moore.
He was a worthy opponent. I'll miss the bastard.
RIP
kissfan7 3 years ago 14
@kissfan7 Keith Olbermann, Ann Coutler, Michael Savage, Chris Matthews, etc, all garbage!!!
MikhailSilverwood 1 year ago
that would be sociology... huh... kind of kills my point with that typo. None the less, you have misunderstood Buckley to a degree I can't understand. I would be greatly interested in your argument.
gekko148 3 years ago 2
lol, proto-fascist. Well someone has taken freshmen sociolagy. Too funny. Anyway, the man spent his life creating an intellectual defense of individualism against statism. The Soviets would probably still be around without his influence on the conservative movement. A job well done Mr. Buckley, you shall be missed.
gekko148 3 years ago 6
All of these neo-commies attacking this great man can do is call him names because their pissed off that he was correct, they were and are wrong and America is better because of him.
electricalcomplex 3 years ago 3
All of these neo-commies attacking this great an can do is call him names because their pissed off that he was correct, they were and are wrong and America is better because of him.
electricalcomplex 3 years ago 2
Does anyone have vid of Reagan's closing words at this debate?
boobtuber06 3 years ago
Awesome guy... awesome mind. Very convincing arguments.
chukmaty 3 years ago 3
A brilliant and humorous man and a great loss.
clambake33 3 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
buckley was an articulate but intellectually dishonest proto-fascist; but id still rather listen to him than a cretinous big blubbering vag such as bill o'reilly
tooyjfwn 3 years ago
nothing about the man was fascist. you're too stupid to argue at his level so you call him names. He was not against free speech, free press, free assembly, freedom of religion or for murdering people who participated in this things.
Fallschirmjager11 3 years ago 2
proto-fascist? i believe you mean crypto-nazi, as your hero gore vidal called him to his face. socialists like yourself would gladly destroy books so you could call anything you disagree with "fascist" without having to explain yourself. fascism, the ever-expanding label with which all things not socialist are described. one day, you'll utter that epithet at something or someone you don't like, and someone else will ask you to explain yourself, point blank. i wish i could be there to hear you.
volvo242tank 3 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
hehehe, I'm so glad this psuedointellectual tool is rotting in hell right now.
hehehehehheheehe
BoDiddleyHeadHunter 3 years ago
judge not that ye be not judged
bgdaddy3 3 years ago
Let me guess. You are another neo-commie, America hating, che guevera t-shirt wearing moron.
Reggie1971 3 years ago 4
A great mind has passed.
tabber87 3 years ago
RIP. What a great American and such a brilant mind. I have and always will be amazed when this gentleman speaks. Thanks for posting.
fmscribs 3 years ago
Look at him striding at 2:00. Now THAT'S human discussion at its finest.
2ndPistonHonda 3 years ago
It's not discussion, my friend, it is rhetoric.
caballistical 3 years ago
Thanks for sharing. I would not have minded seeing the Reagan inputs in this debate, but I am sure they are out there somewhere.
My father was a huge fan of Buckley; he's been an NR subscriber for decades and the Firing Line was a weekend tradition throughout most of my childhood.
RIP WFB, you are already missed!
"Now listen, you q----, stop calling me a crypto-Nazi or I will sock you in your g------ face, and you will stay plastered!"
Edbrooks1977 3 years ago
hahaha, that little excerpt is just right for tooyifwn a few comments above. it was gore vidal's calling buckley a crypto-nazi that made him lose his cool like that (a rare occurrence btw).
volvo242tank 3 years ago
Thanks for posting this. Would have loved to have seen Reagan's input, but I am sure it's out there to find somewhere. My father was a huge fan. "Firing Line" was a weekend tradition and he has gotten NR for decades.
"Now listen, you queer, stop calling me a crypto-Nazi or I will sock you in your goddamn face, and you will stay plastered...."
RIP WFB, You're already missed!
Edbrooks1977 3 years ago 2