It's not just the interviewer being lame. The editing cuts to him to get his nonverbal reactions way too often, as though we need to refer to him to understand what these men are saying. If the interviewer is going to do the conventional thing and not add much in the way of substance to the discussion, then let us just have straightforward exposition from the interviewees.
Exactly. He goes out of his way to promote a poltical agenda.
By being such a shameless cheerleader, he allows Buckley to appear disinterested and academic. This is a rare position for Buckley, who is notoriously incapable of backing-up the "party line" with historical data or basic theory.
@redgiemental I agree, i have watched a lot of videos with this guy as the interviewer and he is always the same. He never lets the proper guests speak he over-frames the questions and likes the sound of his voice WAY too much. He needs to understand he is not the star of the show he is just the enabler of them,
Buckly is definitely a libertarian on drugs. He doesn't want the state telling people what to do with their bodies even if it leads to abuse and death. But when it comes time to apply the same principle to abortion, once again, he gets liberal with his principles and flip flops.
Then the Constitution of the U.S. is irretrievably distorted. The 14th Ammendment states that you must be born in order to have constitutional rights. That is the basis for Roe v. Wade. Furthermore, with the defeat of the Equal Rights Ammendment by conservatives, there is no constitutional legal precedence that would give a fetus equal rights under the law.
I'm sorry but you are either dead wrong or lying when you say what you say about equal rights for the unborn.
I'd suggest you dampen your glibness and read the indictment under which Scot Peterson was tried in that bastion of conservative ideals--California. He was charged with two counts of felony murder: one for his wife and one for unborn child.
Oh, and I think do I need to remind you that the Dred Scott case also set certain precedents of value before the law.
As for Dred Scott, despite the 13th Amendment abolition of slavery & the 15th & 24th Amendment voting rights, the Supreme Court's ruling on the case that Scott was subhuman & not entitled to equal rights because he was property has never been overturned & Scott was never freed by the courts. What is clear, under the Constitution, is that property has no rights. It really is such a waste of time to have to remind an ignorant, fool not to bring up examples that prove your opponent's argument.
Yet again, you miss the point, rather badly I might add. Every time anyone points to the infallibility of the law and the constitution and the SCOTUS I just love to disappoint them by pointing out the idiotic, unethical and counterintuitive arguments that a simple majority of the judges fall for. Kelo, Scott, Roe there are too many to mention.
You're faith in the ability of government to get things right would be laughable if it weren't so naive.
I haven't missed any points because you haven't made any that hold up in the law or a simple debate. Now, who said the law was infallible? If anyone is disappointed it's you with laws that are not perfect. Your hatred of something that doesn't fit your ideals includes the Constitution which is the very instrument that makes this country possible. As imperfect as the Constitution may be, I will respect & defend it as any real patriot would from blabbering, presumptuous, vigilantes.
The Constitution says nothing about murder. Peterson was tried in State, not Federal Court. The indictment for Lacy's murder was first whereas the fetus was 2nd degree. If their rights had been equal, then the indictment & conviction would not have been different since his intent to kill Lacy & the fetus were the same. But the fetal death was tantamount to an unlicensed, unauthorized, illegal abortion. Now, unlike your ignorant, false accusations & reasoning, my arguments are credible.
Now you're simply making things up. Had you actually read what I told you to, you'd find on the very first page (I can send it to you if you like) that BOTH counts, Were for 1st degree (premeditated) murder. Its all in the documents if you bother to look at them.
I have the first page of the indictment. Go ahead and quote it verbatim and we'll see who's lying, stupid, or just plain ignorant when it comes to proving someone wrong. Put up or shut up.
Check the .pdf I sent you. Under both cases its a violation of statute 187 with the special circumstance of premeditation in both instances. Literacy helps.
As for your other exercise in verbal flatulence (I won't it an idea) if I understand you correctly, there is no law, no matter how unjust that can or should be resisted. That we should all shut up and move on when confronted by something abhorrent and that anything we do against injustice is vigilantism and unpatriotic.
ROFLMAO! First, an indictment alone establishes no legal precedence, whatsoever. As they say, you can indict a ham sandwich. I said indictment AND conviction. They are not mutally exclusive. Legal precedence requires both. The indictment claims 2 murders, 1st & 2nd degree, but doesn't specify an appropriation. Besides, if the murders were equal, there would be no need for 2nd degree murder or special circumstances. Lacy is explicitly specified "a human being" while the fetus is not.
I would contend that the real problem is that fact that you have no sense of humor. I was just having a little fun, and thought that a comment like that would be funny in that context. That was all. I am in no way homophobic and I strongly support GLBT rights.
I also have a little challenge for you. Make a clear and convincing case that my comment was actually homophobic- in other words, that it was actually hurtful, prejudiced, or discriminatory towards the GLBT community. Betcha can't! :)
Challenge? What challenge is there in brushing aside an embarrassing and unhelpful Ad Hominem attack?
You've posted insipid comments in the guise of "humor" making value judgments against someone's purported sexuality.
The idea that one can make any asinine and base accusation, then accuse any who disagree of lacking in sense of humor is a fallacy in the strictest sense.
If what you really mean to allege is that some pious folks preach anti-gay slogans while being in the closet, then say so.
Wish Chris and Bill would just talk without the host. I could watch three weeks of a program like that.
ClarenceDoskocil 5 months ago 3
I LIKE RATIONAL THINKERS.
Rest in peace William F. Buckley Jr.
soretips 8 months ago 3
Is he flirting with buckley?
SUpersaiyajinjerkbag 10 months ago
Two of my heros, what great minds!
The presenter pretends to be way too engaged and interested in each subject, perhaps he is, but he looks like a caricature.
Rut267 1 year ago
Buckley wins.... again
DanzHanzen 1 year ago
contraception reduces the need for an abortion.
pupil8 1 year ago
Buckeley's a genius on drugs
radomu1 1 year ago
Comment removed
weestro7 2 years ago
It's not just the interviewer being lame. The editing cuts to him to get his nonverbal reactions way too often, as though we need to refer to him to understand what these men are saying. If the interviewer is going to do the conventional thing and not add much in the way of substance to the discussion, then let us just have straightforward exposition from the interviewees.
weestro7 2 years ago
this interviewer is awful
CacaLauncher23 2 years ago 4
The presenter is annoying leading and pushing for a certain answer too often.
redgiemental 3 years ago 28
Exactly. He goes out of his way to promote a poltical agenda.
By being such a shameless cheerleader, he allows Buckley to appear disinterested and academic. This is a rare position for Buckley, who is notoriously incapable of backing-up the "party line" with historical data or basic theory.
irad222222 3 years ago 11
@redgiemental I agree, i have watched a lot of videos with this guy as the interviewer and he is always the same. He never lets the proper guests speak he over-frames the questions and likes the sound of his voice WAY too much. He needs to understand he is not the star of the show he is just the enabler of them,
Greylin91 1 week ago
Buckely had to come in and calm that idiot mediator down. The man has answered, he was saying.
Godsmasher22 3 years ago 4
Buckly is definitely a libertarian on drugs. He doesn't want the state telling people what to do with their bodies even if it leads to abuse and death. But when it comes time to apply the same principle to abortion, once again, he gets liberal with his principles and flip flops.
bondurango 3 years ago
Anyone who thinks that abortion only involves one person and one person's body has their sense of reality irretrievably distorted.
BlacksuitedSPECTRE 3 years ago
Then the Constitution of the U.S. is irretrievably distorted. The 14th Ammendment states that you must be born in order to have constitutional rights. That is the basis for Roe v. Wade. Furthermore, with the defeat of the Equal Rights Ammendment by conservatives, there is no constitutional legal precedence that would give a fetus equal rights under the law.
bondurango 3 years ago
I'm sorry but you are either dead wrong or lying when you say what you say about equal rights for the unborn.
I'd suggest you dampen your glibness and read the indictment under which Scot Peterson was tried in that bastion of conservative ideals--California. He was charged with two counts of felony murder: one for his wife and one for unborn child.
Oh, and I think do I need to remind you that the Dred Scott case also set certain precedents of value before the law.
BlacksuitedSPECTRE 3 years ago
As for Dred Scott, despite the 13th Amendment abolition of slavery & the 15th & 24th Amendment voting rights, the Supreme Court's ruling on the case that Scott was subhuman & not entitled to equal rights because he was property has never been overturned & Scott was never freed by the courts. What is clear, under the Constitution, is that property has no rights. It really is such a waste of time to have to remind an ignorant, fool not to bring up examples that prove your opponent's argument.
bondurango 3 years ago
Yet again, you miss the point, rather badly I might add. Every time anyone points to the infallibility of the law and the constitution and the SCOTUS I just love to disappoint them by pointing out the idiotic, unethical and counterintuitive arguments that a simple majority of the judges fall for. Kelo, Scott, Roe there are too many to mention.
You're faith in the ability of government to get things right would be laughable if it weren't so naive.
BlacksuitedSPECTRE 3 years ago
I haven't missed any points because you haven't made any that hold up in the law or a simple debate. Now, who said the law was infallible? If anyone is disappointed it's you with laws that are not perfect. Your hatred of something that doesn't fit your ideals includes the Constitution which is the very instrument that makes this country possible. As imperfect as the Constitution may be, I will respect & defend it as any real patriot would from blabbering, presumptuous, vigilantes.
bondurango 3 years ago
The Constitution says nothing about murder. Peterson was tried in State, not Federal Court. The indictment for Lacy's murder was first whereas the fetus was 2nd degree. If their rights had been equal, then the indictment & conviction would not have been different since his intent to kill Lacy & the fetus were the same. But the fetal death was tantamount to an unlicensed, unauthorized, illegal abortion. Now, unlike your ignorant, false accusations & reasoning, my arguments are credible.
bondurango 3 years ago
Now you're simply making things up. Had you actually read what I told you to, you'd find on the very first page (I can send it to you if you like) that BOTH counts, Were for 1st degree (premeditated) murder. Its all in the documents if you bother to look at them.
You said there's no legal precedent.
I've proven you wrong.
BlacksuitedSPECTRE 3 years ago
I have the first page of the indictment. Go ahead and quote it verbatim and we'll see who's lying, stupid, or just plain ignorant when it comes to proving someone wrong. Put up or shut up.
bondurango 3 years ago
Check the .pdf I sent you. Under both cases its a violation of statute 187 with the special circumstance of premeditation in both instances. Literacy helps.
As for your other exercise in verbal flatulence (I won't it an idea) if I understand you correctly, there is no law, no matter how unjust that can or should be resisted. That we should all shut up and move on when confronted by something abhorrent and that anything we do against injustice is vigilantism and unpatriotic.
Great. Just great.
BlacksuitedSPECTRE 3 years ago
ROFLMAO! First, an indictment alone establishes no legal precedence, whatsoever. As they say, you can indict a ham sandwich. I said indictment AND conviction. They are not mutally exclusive. Legal precedence requires both. The indictment claims 2 murders, 1st & 2nd degree, but doesn't specify an appropriation. Besides, if the murders were equal, there would be no need for 2nd degree murder or special circumstances. Lacy is explicitly specified "a human being" while the fetus is not.
bondurango 3 years ago
Wow, love Hitch's take on the unborn. Well said, sir.
mowriter 3 years ago
Wow, just when I think that Peter Robinson can't appear any more homosexual, he somehow finds a way!
BTW, Buckley's thoughts on drug legalization are well thought out and apply to the debate in this country about drug legalization in general.
Interesting video. Keep 'em coming!
warmjets 3 years ago
how is mr. robinson's sexual orientation in any way relevant to their discussion? please keep your homophobic platitudes to yourself.
clemenlw 3 years ago 2
I would contend that the real problem is that fact that you have no sense of humor. I was just having a little fun, and thought that a comment like that would be funny in that context. That was all. I am in no way homophobic and I strongly support GLBT rights.
I also have a little challenge for you. Make a clear and convincing case that my comment was actually homophobic- in other words, that it was actually hurtful, prejudiced, or discriminatory towards the GLBT community. Betcha can't! :)
warmjets 3 years ago
Challenge? What challenge is there in brushing aside an embarrassing and unhelpful Ad Hominem attack?
You've posted insipid comments in the guise of "humor" making value judgments against someone's purported sexuality.
The idea that one can make any asinine and base accusation, then accuse any who disagree of lacking in sense of humor is a fallacy in the strictest sense.
If what you really mean to allege is that some pious folks preach anti-gay slogans while being in the closet, then say so.
spatulasnout 3 years ago
Peter Robinson is not gay. Look him up on Wikipedia.
AllenbysEyes 3 years ago
These interviews are fantastic. And the headings are very witty indeed...
littlegreymen 3 years ago 3
Drugs? What will they think of next?
sirrobpeel 3 years ago