William Buckley Vs Gore Vidal

This is the well know incident between William Buckley and Gore Vidal that occurred during ABC's coverage of the 1968 Democratic convention in Chicago. This version has slightly better sound quality and syncronization.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• William
• Buckley
• Gore
• Vidal

[1960mayhem]

I disagree with most of Buckley's views, but he is like a superhero compared to the juvenile "conservatives" talking out of their asses these days.

[pcgamer010]

"Now listen you queer..."

lmao

[AmericansforFreeIran]

WRONG. Try looking up Godwin's Law. Other than the term Nazi NO connection.

You just made the fool of yourself.

[AmericansforFreeIran]

@normalkuriboh- do you even know what Godwin's law IS?

It is a Usenet term. States: the longer a usenet discussion goes on, the higher the probability of a Nazi comparison.

Absolutely no comparison, this discussion predates Usenet's existence by decades, the axiom determines no win/ lose paradigm, and the discussion in question was not a formal debate, no 'turns'.

Vidal was pompous and peremptory. Doing that invites the very kind of response he got.

Your argument is inept.

[normalkuriboh]

@AmericansforFreeIran WFB loses the argument by Godwin's Law. His argument is flawed in a few other ways, AND he was interrupting Gore's turn. He was the immature juvenile, not Mr. Vidal.

[AmericansforFreeIran]

@gnomechomskylives-

Temper temper! Vidal begins with an absurd premise, follows with arrogant demands for WFB's silence, snd drgenerates to name -calling. WFB offers to bash him at that point, and I don't blame him.

WFB's arguments are NOT logical fallacies. And his citation of SCOTUS opinion is correct. You are way too quick in your broad dismissals.

[brouhahabob]

Shit just got real. 

[JimColyer]

Those were rough times.

[gnomechomskylives]

@butchroy I was actually giving you the benefit of the doubt when I said you were refuting Vidal. Your stated reason only serves to expose you as a servile toady; a fact underscored by your convenient disregard for Buckley's poor debate performance, which was both logically fallacious -with its appeals to emotion- and legalistically sloppy. "Raw intellect" is not something one can measure through words alone; by that logic one could also dismiss Buckley for his vile, uncouth outburst.

[rexmage]

And you'll stay plastered. Heh.

[butchroy]

part 2: You say my nature is petty because I point to Vidal’s bad grammar. I disagree. Their language skills are what I was interested in. You defend Vidal’s statement as being informal. What he said was not informal; it was just wrong – indicative of ignorance and/or intelligence deficiency. Such wording could never come out of my mouth no matter how informal I was being, mad I was, fast I was talking, etc. I’m not convinced that you even know the error I’m referring to.

[butchroy]

part 1: Your comprehension in severely lacking. I said in the opening statement of my comment that I was interested in raw intellect. I did not watch the video because I was interested in the points the two men were making. You say my point is moot; actually mine is not, but YOURS IS. You say to me: “what a feeble attempt at refuting Vidal.” As indicated, I wasn’t attempting to refute Vidal. I was trying to gauge the intellect of these men.