@firstatheist, you libbie progressives' minds have become weakened by 1) decades of dependence upon others and 2) raging cases of syphilis destroying your cerebral cortexes. How odd, a Log Cabin Fudge Packer like me coming here and espousing the virtues of conservatism to you. Ah, the snobbish arrogance of a neurotic intellectual like me, more typical of the aristocratic libs, for my Closet Gay status confines me to purgatory--I hate everyone, yet nobody likes me...
Well time proved Buckley wrong. Yes, we exclude genocide and all of that other shit. However, we don't exclude the mere expression or articulation of beliefs simply because they are provocative. Its called the Heckler's veto.
Listen to the first few seconds: "It happened in Sharon" ... Sharon was where young buckley and his neo-nazi brothers had committed an anti-Semitic hate crime
can you blame buckley for getting pissed, the man had a conservative slant and vidal calls him a nazi...like buckley was reinhard heidrich or something. Liberals always go too far.
@WintersWar Right like accusing our president of being born in Kenya and not being a citizen and setting up death panels and fema concentration camps...oh wait.
If you watch the entire debate, there is no other conclusion to draw other than that WFB was ultimately proven correct.
The "New Left" was not a group of peaceful demonstrators, as Vidal states. I am sure there were many peaceful members with good intentions, but many others did indeed go on to promote and carry out violence.
I find it interesting when someone uses the phrase "no other conclusion to draw". Other conclusions have been drawn. You may not agree with them. I does not, however, render them illegitimate.
-In that case, those conclusions are revisionist history. The facts speak for themselves, and any diversion from those facts are indeed, illegitimate. Look it up if you don't believe me.
My father was there. He was also at the Santa Barbara riots. Revolutionary as the aims of some New Leftists may have been, it was only a very small minority of them who preached, let alone practiced, violence against the State or anything/anyone else. There was certainly no violent intent amongst the leaders and organizers of the Chicago demonstrations.
"There was certainly no violent intent amongst the leaders and organizers of the Chicago demonstrations. "
-Not true. The Chicago 7 (or 8 w Bobby Seale) DID incite violence against the Chi police force, & if you watch clip 2, WFB cites Tom Hayden & Rennie Davis as 2 of the leaders of SDS w violent intent.
I know, they were acquitted. But the ruling doesn't change eyewitness accounts.
The Weather Underground also emerged from the SDS, and their terrorist acts of violence are well documented.
Talking about revolution does NOT equal inciting violence against police. Anyone who says it does wouldn't seem to know much about revolutionary leftist politics. I never denied that some leftists, including some New Leftists, have preached and practiced violence, but they are typically a very small minority. Incidentally, I count some such people amongst my friends, so I know what I'm talking about.
Bringing up Weatherman is like bringing up abortion clinic bombers. They're -fringe-.
"Talking about revolution does NOT equal inciting violence against police."
-It shouldn't, but it did at the DNC in 1968.
The Chicago Seven/Eight, who were the ring leaders of the Chicago protests, have been quoted by witnesses, under oath, that they wanted the masses to "fight the pigs" & "fuck up the pigs and the Convention."
This is court testimony.
As for the Weathermen, they were a faction of the SDS, with many members of the SDS, so they are absolutely relevant to the discussion.
Like I said, abortion clinic bombers. They're part of the movement, yes - part of the radical -fringe- of the movement. And yeah, who wouldn't exhort kids to "fight the pigs" when the pigs are busting up your initially completely peaceful protest and beating your friends upside the head?
What, are you one of these people who instinctively trusts someone who runs around in jackboots with legal license to have a gun strapped to their hip and order people around? Give me a break.
your position is, like buckley's, that freedoms and democracy must be abridged whenever profoundly necessary. patriot act. unlawful detention. racial profiling. wars even. smart bombs. the police. national security. manifest destiny. or just those you conclude are right.
I'm kinda bored smackin around every single lefty argument I deal with... read any of my comments and find an error, then come back to me. I'm done on this page.
home study: there are many principled books and persons on the right that you are to acquaint yourself with -- ron paul, lew rockwell, ventura, schiff, hayek, rand, mises, goldwater, even karl hess (the most interesting, as he later became part of the new left) -- all have not inconsiderable problems with lazy casuistry in civil liberties. i would also like to see "tyranny" added to your vocabulary.
The central question that emerges... is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes--the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race.
Yes William'' we should be free. FREE TO FLY ANY damn Flag we like! Lawful assembly is a sacred right. What would Jefferson say? Our country was founded on rebellion and we have the right to disagree with a war or anything else done in our name.
Freedom is not free. Freedom, must also be regulated. One may not stand in a crowded theater and shout fire at the top of his lungs, no matter how free they may think it is.
WFB made a very good point, your right to freedom, ends when it abridges the freedom of others. And it is exactly what happened in Chicago in 1968.
"WFB made a very good point, your right to freedom, ends when it abridges the freedom of others."
Except that Buckleigh had no problem with the US abridging the freedom of the Vietnamese people by propping up the corrupt and brutal regimes in South Vietnam.
Buckley loved to physically threaten and bully people, when the fact is his skinny ass would've gotten handed to him had he ever had the guts to follow through.
Buckley was exponentially more articulate than that worthless fuck Gore Vidal who only raised his voice and lost his temper when he knew he was outclassed.
Whether you Love Buckley, Or hate him, There was absolutely no reason for Vidal to say what he said in referring to Buckley as a "Crypto Nazi".
I think that so many times people allow their good judgment and logical thinking to become perverted in the absolute disdain and hatred for someone that they disagree with either Politically, or Religiously.
Buckley threw his little tantrum because he had been exposed. He was a racist, war-mongering creep who had a hard-on for Nazi dictators like Franco, Armas and later, Pinochet.
The very last thing Vidal said was absolutely the bottom line of all arguments concerning dissent. How can you fight a war for freedom when you can't practice freedom at home? Actual freedom, mind you. Not the freedom to max out your credit cards or buy a big boat. That's the Right's concept of freedom.
Having watched the whole discussion, I have to say that neither one came off particularly well. They both acted like swine, though Buckley seemed to make better points (and I say this as someone who thinks the war was useless on the USA's part.
"Vidal, the gentleman" - lol. As he refers to Buckley as a "pro crypto nazi, an infantry warrior who never saw a shot fired in anger" . Ad hominem attacks are not gentlemanly.
And, he did not destroy all of Buckley's assertions. But, infact looked the part of a leftist who claims "peaceful protests" in the face of anarchists out of the Democrat party who still today use violence and destruction/interference of others' to gather. Who demand rights they deny of others. v=VO14kMfBa7Y
vidal indeed did not hit any nails squarely on the head with his last comment. However, how anyone ever gets a word in cross-wise to make a point with the incessant interruptions of Buckley's digressions of utter nonsense is what baffles me. Despite this Vidal still not only destroys all of Buckley's assertions, but comes out looking quite the gentleman in doing, given Buckley's childlike behavior. For more see Chomsky vs. Buckley, its quite amusing, unless you're a fan of Buckley.
idk...i mean it seems that vidal was the one that started poking at buckely first, calling him a crypto-nazi...i mean, c'mon. call a guy like buckley that and you have to expect a beating....
Amazing, how g175wb is such an expert upon all things sodomitic...and feckall else.
TemplarLeonem 1 week ago
Another impostor post by that peurile imbecile g17swb.
TemplarLeonem 1 week ago
@firstatheist, you libbie progressives' minds have become weakened by 1) decades of dependence upon others and 2) raging cases of syphilis destroying your cerebral cortexes. How odd, a Log Cabin Fudge Packer like me coming here and espousing the virtues of conservatism to you. Ah, the snobbish arrogance of a neurotic intellectual like me, more typical of the aristocratic libs, for my Closet Gay status confines me to purgatory--I hate everyone, yet nobody likes me...
TempIarLeonem 1 week ago
Recent issue equivalency:
1st Amendment makes racial slurs lawful.
But they are provocative.
Get it, libbies?
Buckley's point is valid. Vidal is a prattling ponce.
TemplarLeonem 1 week ago
I don't understand why Buckley belabors the point of whether or not an action is provocative, after he's allowed that it is lawful.
firstatheist 2 weeks ago
Well time proved Buckley wrong. Yes, we exclude genocide and all of that other shit. However, we don't exclude the mere expression or articulation of beliefs simply because they are provocative. Its called the Heckler's veto.
firstatheist 2 weeks ago
Vidal is just stomping Buckley which is surprising because Buckley is no intellectual light weight.
firstatheist 2 weeks ago
Listen to the first few seconds: "It happened in Sharon" ... Sharon was where young buckley and his neo-nazi brothers had committed an anti-Semitic hate crime
MetrazolElectricity 2 months ago
Buckley is a fascist
Claronium780 4 months ago
can you blame buckley for getting pissed, the man had a conservative slant and vidal calls him a nazi...like buckley was reinhard heidrich or something. Liberals always go too far.
WintersWar 10 months ago
@WintersWar Right like accusing our president of being born in Kenya and not being a citizen and setting up death panels and fema concentration camps...oh wait.
nappyweed111 9 months ago
If you watch the entire debate, there is no other conclusion to draw other than that WFB was ultimately proven correct.
The "New Left" was not a group of peaceful demonstrators, as Vidal states. I am sure there were many peaceful members with good intentions, but many others did indeed go on to promote and carry out violence.
JonnyLawrence 2 years ago
I find it interesting when someone uses the phrase "no other conclusion to draw". Other conclusions have been drawn. You may not agree with them. I does not, however, render them illegitimate.
podratic 2 years ago 5
"Other conclusions have been drawn"
-In that case, those conclusions are revisionist history. The facts speak for themselves, and any diversion from those facts are indeed, illegitimate. Look it up if you don't believe me.
JonnyLawrence 2 years ago
My father was there. He was also at the Santa Barbara riots. Revolutionary as the aims of some New Leftists may have been, it was only a very small minority of them who preached, let alone practiced, violence against the State or anything/anyone else. There was certainly no violent intent amongst the leaders and organizers of the Chicago demonstrations.
BlacknWhitesAlright 2 years ago
"There was certainly no violent intent amongst the leaders and organizers of the Chicago demonstrations. "
-Not true. The Chicago 7 (or 8 w Bobby Seale) DID incite violence against the Chi police force, & if you watch clip 2, WFB cites Tom Hayden & Rennie Davis as 2 of the leaders of SDS w violent intent.
I know, they were acquitted. But the ruling doesn't change eyewitness accounts.
The Weather Underground also emerged from the SDS, and their terrorist acts of violence are well documented.
JonnyLawrence 2 years ago
Talking about revolution does NOT equal inciting violence against police. Anyone who says it does wouldn't seem to know much about revolutionary leftist politics. I never denied that some leftists, including some New Leftists, have preached and practiced violence, but they are typically a very small minority. Incidentally, I count some such people amongst my friends, so I know what I'm talking about.
Bringing up Weatherman is like bringing up abortion clinic bombers. They're -fringe-.
BlacknWhitesAlright 2 years ago
"Talking about revolution does NOT equal inciting violence against police."
-It shouldn't, but it did at the DNC in 1968.
The Chicago Seven/Eight, who were the ring leaders of the Chicago protests, have been quoted by witnesses, under oath, that they wanted the masses to "fight the pigs" & "fuck up the pigs and the Convention."
This is court testimony.
As for the Weathermen, they were a faction of the SDS, with many members of the SDS, so they are absolutely relevant to the discussion.
JonnyLawrence 2 years ago
Like I said, abortion clinic bombers. They're part of the movement, yes - part of the radical -fringe- of the movement. And yeah, who wouldn't exhort kids to "fight the pigs" when the pigs are busting up your initially completely peaceful protest and beating your friends upside the head?
What, are you one of these people who instinctively trusts someone who runs around in jackboots with legal license to have a gun strapped to their hip and order people around? Give me a break.
BlacknWhitesAlright 2 years ago
your position is, like buckley's, that freedoms and democracy must be abridged whenever profoundly necessary. patriot act. unlawful detention. racial profiling. wars even. smart bombs. the police. national security. manifest destiny. or just those you conclude are right.
pobaldy66 2 years ago
I'm kinda bored smackin around every single lefty argument I deal with... read any of my comments and find an error, then come back to me. I'm done on this page.
JonnyLawrence 2 years ago
@jon,
home study: there are many principled books and persons on the right that you are to acquaint yourself with -- ron paul, lew rockwell, ventura, schiff, hayek, rand, mises, goldwater, even karl hess (the most interesting, as he later became part of the new left) -- all have not inconsiderable problems with lazy casuistry in civil liberties. i would also like to see "tyranny" added to your vocabulary.
pobaldy66 2 years ago
@JonnyLawrence All that I have seen here is that you are a massive faggot.
TheHerpaderpderp 1 year ago
Not a crypto-Nazi?
National Review editorial, 8/24/1957:
The central question that emerges... is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes--the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race.
dbrooks7 2 years ago 3
Yes William'' we should be free. FREE TO FLY ANY damn Flag we like! Lawful assembly is a sacred right. What would Jefferson say? Our country was founded on rebellion and we have the right to disagree with a war or anything else done in our name.
Surrealist6 2 years ago 5
Gore Vidal is great!
DaHonestAbe 2 years ago 3
Freedom is not free. Freedom, must also be regulated. One may not stand in a crowded theater and shout fire at the top of his lungs, no matter how free they may think it is.
WFB made a very good point, your right to freedom, ends when it abridges the freedom of others. And it is exactly what happened in Chicago in 1968.
otef434 2 years ago
"WFB made a very good point, your right to freedom, ends when it abridges the freedom of others."
Except that Buckleigh had no problem with the US abridging the freedom of the Vietnamese people by propping up the corrupt and brutal regimes in South Vietnam.
fctchk 2 years ago
Buckley loved to physically threaten and bully people, when the fact is his skinny ass would've gotten handed to him had he ever had the guts to follow through.
churchofstfu 2 years ago 3
Buckley was exponentially more articulate than that worthless fuck Gore Vidal who only raised his voice and lost his temper when he knew he was outclassed.
SUPERDUPERJIMBO 2 years ago
Whether you Love Buckley, Or hate him, There was absolutely no reason for Vidal to say what he said in referring to Buckley as a "Crypto Nazi".
I think that so many times people allow their good judgment and logical thinking to become perverted in the absolute disdain and hatred for someone that they disagree with either Politically, or Religiously.
Ma007rk 2 years ago 2
Yup, he got owned. That's hilarious.
edwarddecosta 2 years ago
Buckley threw his little tantrum because he had been exposed. He was a racist, war-mongering creep who had a hard-on for Nazi dictators like Franco, Armas and later, Pinochet.
Jelperman 2 years ago
Buckley kicked the little twerp's candy ass.
edwarddecosta 2 years ago
Keep telling yourself that. Buckley got owned.
Jelperman 2 years ago 3
Reptilian Buckley was given more air time.
Fuck the talking head announcer.
Thanks Gore.
frickadele 2 years ago
The very last thing Vidal said was absolutely the bottom line of all arguments concerning dissent. How can you fight a war for freedom when you can't practice freedom at home? Actual freedom, mind you. Not the freedom to max out your credit cards or buy a big boat. That's the Right's concept of freedom.
walterroy 2 years ago 2
You got that right!
jokerxtreme 2 years ago
Having watched the whole discussion, I have to say that neither one came off particularly well. They both acted like swine, though Buckley seemed to make better points (and I say this as someone who thinks the war was useless on the USA's part.
Ouray71 2 years ago
Buckley is a tool.
fathead8489 2 years ago
"Vidal, the gentleman" - lol. As he refers to Buckley as a "pro crypto nazi, an infantry warrior who never saw a shot fired in anger" . Ad hominem attacks are not gentlemanly.
And, he did not destroy all of Buckley's assertions. But, infact looked the part of a leftist who claims "peaceful protests" in the face of anarchists out of the Democrat party who still today use violence and destruction/interference of others' to gather. Who demand rights they deny of others. v=VO14kMfBa7Y
right4us 3 years ago
Vidal absolutely hits the nail on the head with his last comment.
lelvish1 3 years ago 3
no doubt.
camaples 3 years ago
I don't see how. Seemed closer to striking a gopher with a pillow than a nail with a hammer.
Still, you don't get this anymore. Everyone's gotten so obtuse and gangrened. It's a the courtyard of an asylum now.
ruddyclap 3 years ago
vidal indeed did not hit any nails squarely on the head with his last comment. However, how anyone ever gets a word in cross-wise to make a point with the incessant interruptions of Buckley's digressions of utter nonsense is what baffles me. Despite this Vidal still not only destroys all of Buckley's assertions, but comes out looking quite the gentleman in doing, given Buckley's childlike behavior. For more see Chomsky vs. Buckley, its quite amusing, unless you're a fan of Buckley.
RyanLoveheart 3 years ago
lol, well put.
donkey69donkey69 2 years ago
idk...i mean it seems that vidal was the one that started poking at buckely first, calling him a crypto-nazi...i mean, c'mon. call a guy like buckley that and you have to expect a beating....
samhuggies 2 years ago 3