William Buckley Passses Away

[dilbert]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- National Review founder William F. Buckley Jr. died overnight in the study of his Stamford, Connecticut, home, the magazine announced on its Web site Wednesday.

The conservative commentator was 82.

"He died while at work," said Kathryn Jean Lopez, editor of the National Review Online, in a written statement. "If he had been given a choice on how to depart this world, I suspect that would have been exactly it. At home, still devoted to the war of ideas."

His assistant, Linda Bridges, says he had been ill with emphysema and was found dead by his cook, the Associated Press reported.

Buckley founded the National Review in 1955 became famous for his intellectual political writings in the magazine.

The magazine claims to be the most widely-circulated journal of conservative opinion.

Buckley's writings are widely credited for supporting the growth of the U.S. conservative movement in the latter half of the 20th century.

He gained a following with "Firing Line," his Emmy-winning syndicated public television show.


http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/27/buckley.obit/index.html

[micknaboz]

One down, 30 million or so to go.

[shiva2999]

The man responsible for Joe Lieberman.

[Merc]

A great American and inspirational man. He will be sorely missed.

[JLB]

:rip:

[shiva2999]

Gore Vidal gets to piss on his grave.

Life is good.

[35Pete]

There is a battle for the throne of Hades right now.

At halftime it was no contest. Buckley's kicking ass.

Buckley 51, Satan 3.

[JLB]

a man that Chris Matthews regarded very highly.

a man who spoke out against Iraq and also had doubts when we 1st went in there although he did try to understand it at first but later totally denounced the action as it was swiftly made clearer to him.

yep he was different that's for sure.

[shiva2999]

a man who spoke out against Iraq and also had doubts when we 1st went in there although he did try to understand it at first but later totally denounced the action as it was swiftly made clearer to him.


Buckley went out just like Lee Atwater.

Another right-wing propagandist with buyer's remorse.

[JLB]

not at all he was a true conservative and never compromised it a day of his life.

[ckg68]

Even if dude did:

a. say people who were HIV positive should be tattooed on the forearms and near the ass,

b. publish in National Review an opinion that blacks didn't deserve the right to vote,thus backing segregationists.

[JLB]

May he please :rip:

[pmoon6]

One down, 30 million or so to go.**** you, Buckley was a scholar and represented the best in conservative thought.

I find it funny that some people relish anothers death or wish it, just because they disagree on their politics.

If the left has become that way, they are no better than the right.

[uppy]

Buckley went out just like Lee Atwater.

Another right-wing propagandist with buyer's remorse.

Lee Atwater saved this country and the world from Mike Dukakis he

was a great man

[pmoon6]

In my humble opinion, Buckley kicked Gore Vidal's ass all over the stage.

[shiva2999]

**** you, Buckley was a scholar and represented the best in conservative thought.


What a claim to fame.

[uppy]

You have it backwards Pmoon the right has never wished death on the left.But the
left wishes death on all that disagree with them

[shiva2999]

In my humble opinion, Buckley kicked Gore Vidal's ass all over the stage.

Buckley behaved like a dick.

He will go down in history as a dick enabler.

Personally, I think he was horrified toward the end at what he had wrought.

[JLB]

http://newsmax.com/insidecover/Nancy_Reagan_Buckley/2008/02/27/76145.html

Nancy Reagan, widow of former President Ronald Reagan, is mourning the death of her “dear friend,” William F. Buckley.

"I was deeply saddened this morning when I learned of Bill Buckley’s death," Reagan told Newsmax, through her assistant Wren Powell.

"He and his wife Pat were dear friends of ours for a long long time. Ronnie valued Bill’s counsel throughout his political life and after Ronnie died, Bill and Pat were there for me in so many ways.

"Bill Buckley’s devotion to this country was evident in everything he wrote. My love and deepest sympathy go out to his son, Chris, and the entire Buckley family."

[pmoon6]

What a claim to fame.I guess he has failed in your eyes.

I would however put this for your consideration.

He offered an alternative opinion of political thought in his time.

He cannot be discounted as he funded the National Review with his own money and subscribers.

His claim to fame is he stood up to the liberal maelstrom and fought the good fight.

[shiva2999]

I guess he has failed in your eyes.

I would however put this for your consideration.

He offered an alternative opinion of political thought in his time.

He cannot be discounted as he funded the National Review with his own money and subscribers.

His claim to fame is he stood up to the liberal maelstrom and fought the good fight.

I think he caused way more damage than any good he possibly did.

He reminded me of the Alec Guiness character in Bridge on the River Kwai.

Upright, principled and ultimately perverse.

"My God, what have I done?"

[pmoon6]

You have it backwards Pmoon the right has never wished death on the left.But the
left wishes death on all that disagree with themThat's OK.

The left can rejoice in the death of their perceived enemies.

I never knew until today how deep their hatred was.

From now on, they can spew all the self righteous bullshit they want on this board.

They are hypocrites and scumbags, just as the people they depise.

[TheCrystalBall]

I saw Noam Chomsky absolutely destroy Buckley in a debate. Buckley was way out of his league for this one.

After a while, Buckley resorted to snide remarks instead of to the facts, thereby unofficially conceding defeat.

Its actually a good watch. Take a glimpse.

Part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYlMEVTa-PI

Part 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9Samvw6Z08

[caseedo]

"The decline of the right, and perhaps of America more generally, is summed up in the intellectual slouch from the heights of Buckley to the depths of Hewitt and Reynolds and Limbaugh and Coulter and Kristol and O’Reilly and Hannity and Bush," -Spencer Ackerman Washington Independent

http://www.washingtonindependent.com/view/rip-wfb

[nehemiah]

nancy reagan is still alive?

[nehemiah]

Everyone detected with AIDS should be tatooed in the upper forearm, to protect common-needle users, and on the buttocks, to prevent the victimization of other homosexuals.
~dickweed buckley
http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/books/00/07/16/specials/buckley-aids.html&OQ=_rQ3D3Q26orefQ3DsloginQ26orefQ3Dslogin&OP=53848d18Q2Fm-8Q60mi_1TQ7B__lmQ60__zTmttmtQ3DmQ5BQ5DmTP81)90TmQ6 0a1z08KG9)iTXFlq0

[micknaboz]

That's OK.

The left can rejoice in the death of their perceived enemies.

I never knew until today how deep their hatred was.

From now on, they can spew all the self righteous bullshit they want on this board.

They are hypocrites and scumbags, just as the people they depise.

You assume too much. I don't rejoice in his death, and I didn't hate him.
I simply stated a fact. I do feel for whatever family he has that grieves for him, cuz losing a loved one is always hard.

That being said I ain't gonna miss him. He promoted and enabled a philosophy that culminated in the ascendancy of GWbush into the white house, a position he was neither qualified nor deserving of. We will be paying for this presidency for many years, and I have no doubt he will indeed go down in history as the worst president ever. And Buckley helped create him.

[pmoon6]

An obituary for those interested.

WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY: R.I.P., ENFANT TERRIBLE
February 27, 2008


William F. Buckley was the original enfant terrible.

As with Ronald Reagan, everyone prefers to remember great men when they weren't being great, but later, when they were being admired. Having changed the world, there came a point when Buckley no longer needed to shock it.

But to call Buckley an "enfant terrible" and then to recall only his days as a grandee is like calling a liberal actress "courageous." Back in the day, Buckley truly was courageous. I prefer to remember the Buckley who scandalized to the bien-pensant.

Other tributes will contain the obvious quotes about demanding a recount if he won the New York mayoral election and trusting the first 100 names in the Boston telephone book more than the Harvard faculty. I shall revel in the "terrible" aspects of the enfant terrible.

Buckley's first book, God and Man at Yale, was met with the usual thoughtful critiques of anyone who challenges the liberal establishment. Frank Ashburn wrote in the Saturday Review: "The book is one which has the glow and appeal of a fiery cross on a hillside at night. There will undoubtedly be robed figures who gather to it, but the hoods will not be academic. They will cover the face."

The president of Yale sent alumni thousands of copies of McGeorge Bundy's review of the book from the Atlantic Monthly calling Buckley a "twisted and ignorant young man." Other reviews bordered on the hyperbolic. One critic simply burst into tears, then transcribed his entire crying jag word for word.

Buckley's next book, McCarthy and His Enemies, written with L. Brent Bozell, proved that normal people didn't have to wait for the Venona Papers to be declassified to see that the Democratic Party was collaborating with fascists. The book -- and the left's reaction thereto -- demonstrated that liberals could tolerate a communist sympathizer, but never a Joe McCarthy sympathizer.

Relevant to Republicans' predicament today, National Review did not endorse a candidate for president in 1956, correctly concluding that Dwight Eisenhower was not a conservative, however great a military leader he had been. In his defense, Ike never demanded that camps housing enemy detainees be closed down.

Nor would National Review endorse liberal Republican Richard Nixon, waiting until 1964 to enthusiastically support a candidate for president who had no hope of winning. Barry Goldwater, though given the right things to say -- often by Buckley or Bozell, who wrote Goldwater's Conscience of a Conservative -- was not particularly bright.

But the Goldwater candidacy, Buckley believed, would provide "the well-planted seeds of hope," eventually fulfilled by Ronald Reagan. Goldwater was sort of the army ant on whose body Reagan walked to greatness. Thanks, Barry. When later challenged on Reagan's intellectual stature, Buckley said: "Of course, he will always tend to reach first for an anecdote. But then, so does the New Testament."

With liberal Republicans still bothering everyone even after Reagan, Buckley went all out against liberal Republican Sen. Lowell P. Weicker Jr. When Democrat Joe Lieberman challenged Weicker for the Senate in 1988, National Review ran an article subtly titled: "Does Lowell Weicker Make You Sick?"

Buckley started a political action committee to support Lieberman, explaining, "We want to pass the word that it's OK to vote for the other guy or stay at home." The good thing about Lieberman, Buckley said, was that he "doesn't have the tendency of appalling you every time he opens his mouth."

That same year, when the radical chic composer Leonard Bernstein complained about the smearing of the word "liberal," Buckley replied: "Lenny does not realize that one of the reasons the 'L' word is discredited is that it was handled by such as Leonard Bernstein." The composer was so unnerved by this remark that, just to cheer himself up, he invited several extra Black Panthers to his next ****tail party.

When Arthur Schlesinger Jr. objected to his words being used as a jacket-flap endorsement on one of Buckley's books in 1963, Buckley replied by telegram:

"MY OFFICE HAS COPY OF ORIGINAL TAPE. TELL ARTHUR THAT'LL TEACH HIM TO USE UNCTION IN POLITICAL DEBATE BUT NOT TO TAKE IT SO HARD: NO ONE BELIEVES ANYTHING HE SAYS ANYWAY."

In a famous exchange with Gore Vidal in 1968, Vidal said to Buckley: "As far as I am concerned, the only crypto Nazi I can think of is yourself."

Buckley replied: "Now listen, you queer. Stop calling me a crypto Nazi, or I'll sock you in your goddamn face and you'll stay plastered."

Years later, in 1985, Buckley said of the incident: "We both acted irresponsibly. I'm not a Nazi, but he is, I suppose, a fag."

Writing in defense of the rich in 1967, Buckley said: "My guess is, that the last man to corner the soybean market, whoever he was, put at least as much time and creative energy into the cornering of it as, say, Norman Mailer put into his latest novel and produced something far more bearable -- better a rise in the price of soybeans than 'Why Are We in Vietnam?'" (For you kids out there, Norman Mailer was an America-hating drunkard who wrote books.)

Some of Buckley's best lines were uttered in court during a lengthy libel trial in the '80s against National Review brought by the Liberty Lobby, which was then countersued by National Review. (The Liberty Lobby lost and NR won.)

Irritated by attorney Mark Lane's questions, Buckley asked the judge: "Your Honor, when he asks a ludicrous question, how am I supposed to behave?"

more...

http://www.anncoulter.com/

[shiva2999]

That's OK.

The left can rejoice in the death of their perceived enemies.

I never knew until today how deep their hatred was.

From now on, they can spew all the self righteous bullshit they want on this board.

They are hypocrites and scumbags, just as the people they depise.

:rofl:

I love it when big, tough, gun-toting rugged individualists go all drama queeny.

[pmoon6]

:rofl:

I love it when big, tough, gun-toting rugged individualists go all drama queeny.I am getting better.

At least I didn't threaten anyone.

The therapy must be working.:D

[dilbert]

I am getting better.

At least I didn't threaten anyone.

The therapy must be working.:D


I credit the meds.

[micknaboz]

I am getting better.

At least I didn't threaten anyone.

The therapy must be working.:D

Whew! Thats a relief. I was getting ready to go buy some extra deadbolts for all the doors. :)

[anEinherjer]

To blame Buckley for Bush is pretty crude.

Whatever you think of his politics, I think we'd all be far better off with more Buckleys and far few Coulters and Glenn Becks and Sean Hannitys....

[shiva2999]

To blame Buckley for Bush is pretty crude.

Whatever you think of his politics, I think we'd all be far better off with more Buckleys and far few Coulters and Glenn Becks and Sean Hannitys....

Bah.

Bill Buckley spent his whole life as one thing.

A pimp for selfishness.

And Americans like Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity are his demon seeds,

[anEinherjer]

I think I can see where you can get from one to the others, but it's a pretty convoluted path.

I'd suggest MTV is a bigger reason for Coulter, Beck, Hannity than Buckley.

[shiva2999]

I think I can see where you can get from one to the others, but it's a pretty convoluted path.

I'd suggest MTV is a bigger reason for Coulter, Beck, Hannity than Buckley.

MTV?

How are sex, drugs and rock & roll responsible for a new generation of right-wing swine?

And why not throw in videogames and gay marriage into the mix?

Buckley was a professional right-wing propagandist.

He has spawned and enabled 50 years of right-wing propagandists.

He is directly responsible for where your country finds itself today.

[pmoon6]

Up From Liberalism

"I will not cede more power to the state. I will not willingly cede more power to anyone, not to the state, not to General Motors, not to the CIO. I will hoard my power like a miser, resisting every effort to drain it away from me. I will then use my power, as I see fit. I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth. That is a program of sorts, is it not? It is certainly program enough to keep conservatives busy, and liberals at bay. And the nation free." William F. Buckley Jr., in Up From Liberalism

[ckg68]

To blame Buckley for Bush is pretty crude.

Whatever you think of his politics, I think we'd all be far better off with more Buckleys and far few Coulters and Glenn Becks and Sean Hannitys....

Can't argue with that.

Keith Olbermann said as much when noting the death of Buckley on Countdown Wednesday night.

The transcript isn't up yet;I'll post his remarks on it when I can.

[ckg68]

I think I can see where you can get from one to the others, but it's a pretty convoluted path.

I'd suggest MTV is a bigger reason for Coulter, Beck, Hannity than Buckley.

MTV? Naaaah.

The McLaughlin Group is a much better progenitor of the crap these bungholes spew...all heat,no light,I am certain of my opinion,I am right about it,I will not apologize for it,etc. ad infinitum.

Firing Line was more light than heat.

[micknaboz]

Up From Liberalism
I will then use my power, as I see fit.

Isn't that what Bush has been doing? Ignoring the constitution, abusing signing statements, acting like he is above the law?

[shiva2999]

Up From Liberalism

"I will not cede more power to the state. I will not willingly cede more power to anyone, not to the state, not to General Motors, not to the CIO. I will hoard my power like a miser, resisting every effort to drain it away from me. I will then use my power, as I see fit. I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth. That is a program of sorts, is it not? It is certainly program enough to keep conservatives busy, and liberals at bay. And the nation free." William F. Buckley Jr., in Up From Liberalism

Fear and greed.

[35Pete]

Fear and greed.
We have ceded too much power to the state now Shiva and look at the mess that we are in.

I did like that he also mentioned that he would not cede more power to General Motors.

Personal empowerment is the key. Concentrated power, whether it be in corporatism, conglomerates, monopolies, cartels. or governments, is an anethma to such empowerment.

I don't want the poor and the disenfranchised to be "taken care of". Because on a mass scale that requires something in return.

No, I want the shackles removed from them that keep them where the are now. And that is everywhere there is concentrated power.

[pmoon6]

Isn't that what Bush has been doing? Ignoring the constitution, abusing signing statements, acting like he is above the law?Bush is the head of the state. He was talking about the individual here.

[Merc]

He is directly responsible for where your country finds itself today.

Wow! Thanks Bill for making us the richest, most powerful nation in history and also the freest nation ever conceived or created. What a wonderful legacy to bestow on the man shiva and here I thought you disliked him.

[35Pete]

Wow! Thanks Bill for making us the richest, most powerful nation in history and also the freest nation ever conceived or created. What a wonderful legacy to bestow on the man shiva and here I thought you disliked him.

That used to be true. About 35 years ago or so. Things started to really head for the shitter around after JFK's assasination.

Now we're swirling the bowl.

[shiva2999]

We have ceded too much power to the state now Shiva and look at the mess that we are in.


The state isn't your problem Pete.

The problem is the people you have designated to run that state and the mindset that allowed them to achieve power.

[anEinherjer]

MTV?

How are sex, drugs and rock & roll responsible for a new generation of right-wing swine?

Style over substance. Loud and crude over refined and polite.

That's what I'm talking about.

I don't care whether or not you agree with his politics, that has no bearing on my point.

[shiva2999]

Style over substance. Loud and crude over refined and polite.

That's what I'm talking about...

:rofl:

I thought I'd never see the day where a death-metal fan bemoans the ascendency of the loud and crude over the refined and polite.

Too funny.

[dilbert]

:rofl:

I thought I'd never see the day where a death-metal fan bemoans the ascendency of the loud and crude over the refined and polite.

Too funny.

I don't think it is his fault that you don't understand or can't hear the music.

[dilbert]

Fear and greed.


Intelligence and independence.

[shiva2999]

I don't think it is his fault that you don't understand or can't hear the music.

Gee, maybe I did fail to realize that a bunch of Norwegian geeks named Sven, Thor and Lars screaming about death, destruction and dismemberment is actually a cry for society to return to the more genteel virtues.

[shiva2999]

Intelligence and independence.

Go back to Buckley's piece and tell me what the very first word is.

[dilbert]

It is 'I' of course.

When one talks about his own beliefs and how he will use them to better prmote true freedom, one has to start with his or her own values.

Freedom of the masses is not present without freedom of the individual.

[dilbert]

Gee, maybe I did fail to realize that a bunch of Norwegian geeks named Sven, Thor and Lars screaming about death, destruction and dismemberment is actually a cry for society to return to the more genteel virtues.

I thought Scandanavians were the purest on Earth?

[35Pete]

The state isn't your problem Pete.

The problem is the people you have designated to run that state and the mindset that allowed them to achieve power.

History is replete with the majority of governments, i.e, the "state" using it's power to control and dictate to the public. The idea of a free nation is the exception, not the norm.

The concept of a free nation is still almost foreign in the historical sense. Genealogically, the nature of the state is to ultimately result in repression of the very people that it always claims to provide for.

Don't mislead yourself into thinking that an expansive all emcompassing government can always maintain itself as a "good government". Even in Canada. You never know what will evolve in ten, fifteen years.

And if you have a huge centralized, multi-tentacled apparatus in place, then it's a hell of a lot harder, if not damn near impossible to escape it's reaches.

History contradicts your assertion that big gov't is good if "good guys" run it.

[shiva2999]

History is replete with the majority of governments, i.e, the "state" using it's power to control and dictate to the public. The idea of a free nation is the exception, not the norm.

The concept of a free nation is still almost foreign in the historical sense. Genealogically, the nature of the state is to ultimately result in repression of the very people that it always claims to provide for.

Don't mislead yourself into thinking that an expansive all emcompassing government can always maintain itself as a "good government". Even in Canada. You never know what will evolve in ten, fifteen years.

And if you have a huge centralized, multi-tentacled apparatus in place, then it's a hell of a lot harder, if not damn near impossible to escape it's reaches.

History contradicts your assertion that big gov't is good if "good guys" run it.

1. Of course the vast majority of gov'ts through history have been repressive and authoritarian. Duh. As a civilization, we are only 150 years past the practice of slavery.

However, as you well know, this does not mean that gov't is a bad idea. Only that it has been implemented badly by bad men.

Will you please stop using this logical fallacy? You do it all the time.

Just because something does not work does not mean that it's a bad idea or cannot be made to work eventually.

2. I have NEVER argued for "an expansive all emcompassing government" and so when you choose to argue against it you are not addressing my position but merely bashing a strawman of your own construction.

[shiva2999]

I thought Scandanavians were the purest on Earth?

Huh?

[shiva2999]

It is 'I' of course.

When one talks about his own beliefs and how he will use them to better prmote true freedom, one has to start with his or her own values.

Freedom of the masses is not present without freedom of the individual.

Lord, I beseech you, one of these days will you please teach dilbert how to man up during these discussions and quit dodging points he doesn't wish to understand? I am sick and tired of asking so called conservatives simple questions and getting pointless speeches about "true freedom" in return.

Your faithful servant

shiva.

[35Pete]

1. Of course the vast majority of gov'ts through history have been repressive and authoritarian. Duh. As a civilization, we are only 150 years past the practice of slavery.

However, as you well know, this does not mean that gov't is a bad idea. Only that it has been implemented badly by bad men.
Will you please stop using this logical fallacy? You do it all the time.

Just because something does not work does not mean that it's a bad idea or cannot be made to work eventually.

2. I have NEVER argued for "an expansive all emcompassing government" and so when you choose to argue against it you are not addressing my position but merely bashing a strawman of your own construction.

It is only a logical fallacy if based on the theoretical. In the practical case of human nature, it is my opinion, and I want to stress opinion, that, given even the nature of government in the 20th century, we are not even close to having what is called "benevolence" in public service. Sure there are a lot of decent, honorable public servants. Many in fact. But the ruthless, the control freak narcisistic double high authoritarians, by the very nature of their duplicity, ruthlessness, and confidence gaming ability, will invariably win out over the truly benevolent public servant.

It's happened in nearly every nation and every society.

So, while theoretically there is a "chance" of benevolent government, my position is that the odds are extremely slim and that's it's a fool's bet to assume that if you assemble a state apparatus that only those, or even mostly those with altruistic intentions will command over it. Especially in the land of me me me.

As to #2. Point taken. But at times you seem to bless every social related gov't action that comes down the pike. Perhaps it is perception on my part. But I find these trojan horses to be particularly wicked in their deception. The income tax was passed on what? the top 1% of Americans and was well under 10% at the time of passing.

Now the tax is confiscatory to everyone but the super-rich and the very poor (although I'll argue the hidden inflation tax from the Federal Reserve destroys the underclass), and the IRS code is used as a weapon and for control.

All started with the good intentions of "helping the average American" by raising more revenue.

A classic evolved trojan horse.

[pmoon6]

It is only a logical fallacy if based on the theoretical. In the practical case of human nature, it is my opinion, and I want to stress opinion, that, given even the nature of government in the 20th century, we are not even close to having what is called "benevolence" in public service. Sure there are a lot of decent, honorable public servants. Many in fact. But the ruthless, the control freak narcisistic double high authoritarians, by the very nature of their duplicity, ruthlessness, and confidence gaming ability, will invariably win out over the truly benevolent public servant.

It's happened in nearly every nation and every society.

So, while theoretically there is a "chance" of benevolent government, my position is that the odds are extremely slim and that's it's a fool's bet to assume that if you assemble a state apparatus that only those, or even mostly those with altruistic intentions will command over it. Especially in the land of me me me.

As to #2. Point taken. But at times you seem to bless every social related gov't action that comes down the pike. Perhaps it is perception on my part. But I find these trojan horses to be particularly wicked in their deception. The income tax was passed on what? the top 1% of Americans and was well under 10% at the time of passing.

Now the tax is confiscatory to everyone but the super-rich and the very poor (although I'll argue the hidden inflation tax from the Federal Reserve destroys the underclass), and the IRS code is used as a weapon and for control.

All started with the good intentions of "helping the average American" by raising more revenue.

A classic evolved trojan horse.Be careful.

Your Daddy won't like you straying too far from the reservation.

[35Pete]

Be careful.

Your Daddy won't like you straying too far from the reservation.

Now now. Quit propagating a myth jackass. ;)

Shiva and I agree in principle on what a better society would be like.

But we certainly disagree on the specifics, and on many fronts. We also seem to see eye to eye with several, but not all of the causitive factors. I happen to believe that nanny-state gov't is a causation of our mess. He disagrees. So be it.

But if everyone's thinking the same, then no one is thinking, right?

Know who said that buddy?

[pmoon6]

Now now. Quit propagating a myth jackass. ;)

Shiva and I agree in principle on what a better society would be like.

But we certainly disagree on the specifics, and on many fronts. We also seem to see eye to eye with several, but not all of the causitive factors. I happen to believe that nanny-state gov't is a causation of our mess. He disagrees. So be it.

But if everyone's thinking the same, then no one is thinking, right?

Know who said that buddy?I don't know.

Was that Alistair Tudsberry or Kant? Maybe Gurdjieff or Carlos Castaneda?

I don't remember.

Please refresh.

[35Pete]

I don't know.

Was that Alistair Tudsberry or Kant? Maybe Gurdjieff or Carlos Castaneda?

I don't remember.

Please refresh.

George Patton.

[micknaboz]

But if everyone's thinking the same, then no one is thinking, right?



Yeah and it was working so well there for awhile for the republicans.
LMAO

And another thing Pete, your use of conservative pejorative terms like "nanny-state" display a deeply ingrained, distinct conservative/republican bias.
May be time for another intervention.

[micknaboz]

George Patton was gay. He was Hoovers bitch.

[35Pete]

Yeah and it was working so well there for awhile for the republicans.
LMAO

And another thing Pete, your use of conservative pejorative terms like "nanny-state" display a deeply ingrained, distinct conservative/republican bias.
May be time for another intervention.

Thoughtless caricaturing based on a black and white lens of how the world, or at least how people in the US think.

Take the polarized lenses off.

In other words, please stop with the binary quantification of all things political.

Thanks.

[micknaboz]

Thoughtless caricaturing based on a black and white lens of how the world, or at least how people in the US think.

Take the polarized lenses off.

In other words, please stop with the binary quantification of all things political.

Thanks.

Oh cmon Pete, get real here. You don't think the republicans vote in lockstep on the majority of their legislation? Just look at the record. Why do you think they called tom delay 'the hammer' in the house?

And no democrats aren't even close to being as bad. There are lots of blue dogs still who vote against Dem legislation and amendments.

Polarized lenses my ass. LMAO

[35Pete]

Oh cmon Pete, get real here. You don't think the republicans vote in lockstep on the majority of their legislation? Just look at the record. Why do you think they called tom delay 'the hammer' in the house?

And no democrats aren't even close to being as bad. There are lots of blue dogs still who vote against Dem legislation and amendments.

Polarized lenses my ass. LMAO

You see the world, at least in my perception of your posts, as liberal v. conservative, republican v. democrat. Hence your weak attempt to slap the "R" label on me.

That's black and white. Hey, I did too at one time.

Think outside of the box that you (and I too at one time) have allowed yourself to be put in.

That's polarized lenses.

Trust me. Both parties have good and bad. Far more bad than good IMO. Lately the bad of the reps has come out full force. God help us when the other hammer (the dems) falls.

The controlling, elitist and manipulative nature of both parties repulses me.

[Merc]

Mick makes me laugh he is so predictable. Pete, he blamed the 11% approval rating of the democrat on the weak kneed republicans and Bush. If/when Obabarama wins and the dems still own both houses, they will unleash the most destructive economic ruin this country has ever seen. When things go down the toilet Mick will blame the republicans for it. Pelosi could shoot Mick in the leg and he'd blame Bush for it on his way to the hospital.

You are myopic in your views Mick. It is disappointing to see. I don't agree with Pete on a lot of political issues but at least he is open to different ideas and doesn't whitewash every failure by saying the republicans caused it. BTW, Mick, the republican party is just about were the dems were in the 80's. They are not conservative any longer. Unfortunately the present day dems have swung so far to the left that they are Socialists in every way. JFK would be considered a right winger today.

[micknaboz]

JFK would be considered a right winger today.

LMFAO

And just where the hell did I blame the congress approval rating on the R's and Bush?

As for your destructive economic ruin you predict, its already in the pipeline, courtesy of your president.

You're just pissed because your world paradigm is being exposed for it destructiveness and is coming undone. Hopefully, and with a little help from the recession, the dems will crush the R's this november, and we can start to turn back the clock on the last 7 years.

[35Pete]

Mick makes me laugh he is so predictable. Pete, he blamed the 11% approval rating of the democrat on the weak kneed republicans and Bush. If/when Obabarama wins and the dems still own both houses, they will unleash the most destructive economic ruin this country has ever seen. When things go down the toilet Mick will blame the republicans for it. Pelosi could shoot Mick in the leg and he'd blame Bush for it on his way to the hospital.

You are myopic in your views Mick. It is disappointing to see. I don't agree with Pete on a lot of political issues but at least he is open to different ideas and doesn't whitewash every failure by saying the republicans caused it. BTW, Mick, the republican party is just about were the dems were in the 80's. They are not conservative any longer. Unfortunately the present day dems have swung so far to the left that they are Socialists in every way. JFK would be considered a right winger today.

Here's what I see happening, considering that I am a self-professed goddamn Mensa Rocket Scientist. :D

Obama and Co. will cut the defense budget from 700B to 550B. Still WAY TO HIGH.

Then they'll ram socialized medicine and programs (A through X through the democratically dominated congress).

At least 400-600B in new spending.

The net increase will be between 250-450B in annual spending. They'll jack up taxes to pay for it but it won't be enough because the estimates are nearly always rosy scenario. The tax burden on "the middle ~ under 1/2 million a year ~ will hammer real incomes hard. Economic growth slows faster than the inverse of the rate of the dollar declination. That spells real trouble.

With the dollar weakened already, you'll see it's fiat value plummet faster than a crow shot from my BB gun when I was a teen. With the sub-prime disaster the tip of the iceberg, combined with economic stagflation from burgeoning deficits and out of control spending (no, this is not going to be the Clinton Admin where deficits fell...socialized medicine is THAT expensive when combined with a cut but still super high defense budget), we are going to see Obama faced with a stiff choice. Either cut the social spending or get out of Iraq (The right choice is BOTH). He'll probably get out of Iraq which paves the way for Iran to convert to petroeuros. So, what do we have:

1. ) Defense budget still too high.
2. ) Social spending blooms, making defense look paltry in comparison.
3. ) National debt increases (remember folks, WE pay the private bankers interest on the DEBT, not the deficit) siphoning more money out of the national budget.
4.) Petrodollar conversion to Petroeuro causes hundreds of billions in Wall Street profits to move across the pond.
5. ) With the dollar no longer "pseudo-pegged" to energy commodities it free-falls even faster, accellerationg.
6. ) Inflation and declining real wages wipe out the middle class, small-mid caps fold in spades,
7. ) The day of reckoning happens. America's second intentionally induced (actually third, Panic of 1907) depression occurs.

unless....

biological terrorism or a thermonuclear detonation on US soil occurs.

In which case "it's Bin Laden's fault".

Forwith,

all of you suckers will fall for it hook, line, and sinker.

Because on "rare" occassion, the Gambinos and Genoveses agree.

So it must be "true".

Right?

The "other shoe" falls and you have ZERO clue as to what happened. But as usual, you'll pick one side of the same coin to seek redress for the disaster that THEY created. And while you are bickering about "heads or tails", "donkey or elephant" you get another few inches rammed up your colon while they tell you to "relax, enjoy it. We're here to please you".
Dems, Reps. Makes no difference. They all answer to the same masters.

Wealth is not destroyed. It is merely transferred.

Welcome to 1428. Fuedalism in the modern age.

And you'll beg for the chains that enslave you.

[Merc]

http://www.buffalorange.com/showpost.php?p=1952673&postcount=50

[micknaboz]

http://www.buffalorange.com/showpost.php?p=1952673&postcount=50

For the life of me I can't figure out how you people so willingly choose to remain ignorant of whats going on.
I gather you doubt the veracity of the claim in the link?
If you actually paid attention to what was going on in washington, you would know differently. But you choose to remain ignorant, and theres no talking to ignorance.
The republicans have filibustered more things in the last year than the dems did the previous seven.

And besides, that post had nothing to do whatsoever with congressional approval ratings, but nice try.

[35Pete]

For the life of me I can't figure out how you people so willingly choose to remain ignorant of whats going on.
I gather you doubt the veracity of the claim in the link?
If you actually paid attention to what was going on in washington, you would know differently. But you choose to remain ignorant, and theres no talking to ignorance.
The republicans have filibustered more things in the last year than the dems did the previous seven.

And besides, that post had nothing to do whatsoever with congressional approval ratings, but nice try.

Read my post above and get a feel for my contempt for ignorance.

Then sit down and we'll talk.

I'll educate you proper.

But for God's sakes, please shut up about the concept of these parties being any different.

They merely swing the nation into different modes, that's all.

One coin, two sides.

[micknaboz]

They merely swing the nation into different modes, that's all.

One coin, two sides.

To an extent I agree with you. I just favor the dems because they do come down on the side of the middle and lower classes more than their counterparts.

I know many of them are just as corrupted by power and money as the republicans, but at the end of the day they will still do more things for the people who really need it the most.

[micknaboz]

Oh BTW Pete, there aint no way in hell Obama is going on any social spending spree. The treasury is in no shape to be taking on more debt. Its reaching critical mass very quickly.

But raised taxes are something you will definitely see, R or D in the WH. Or at least letting Bush's tax cuts expire.
But with the D's in total control, the rich will get hit harder than the middle class. As how it should be. :)

[Merc]

Read Pete's thread mick, the rich will move their investment capital overseas. The rich, that you hate so much create jobs, the middle class doesn't. Have you read obama's plans? I have. You better do the same before you make a statement like "Oh BTW Pete, there aint no way in hell Obama is going on any social spending spree. The treasury is in no shape to be taking on more debt. Its reaching critical mass very quickly."

And just what the hell is wrong with filibustering? The dems have filibustered almost every single Bush judicial appointee. You call me ignorant but show yourself uninformed about what Obama promises, have no idea that the dems filibuster appointees etc. You better stop calling people names when you make misstatements like you do.

[ckg68]

Merc: Good to see you're echoing the new owner of the Tribune Co. on who to blame for the economic mess we're in now.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/23350846/site/14081545

And,as promised earlier,KO's comments on William Buckley's passing....

"The country's total net vocabulary probably dropped a full percentage point this morning. Our #2 story on the countdown,the erudite conservative icon William F. Buckley has died,fittingly while writing at his desk in his study. Proof that at least in the 20th century people could be judged on personality,whimsy and intelligence and not just on politics. Buckley virtually invented conservative politics in a modern sense,voiced it on his show 'Firing Line'. The last 29 seasons of which were shown on PBS. And some of his positions were gloriously,indefensibly wrong. As a student he opposed U.S. involvement in World War 2,he defended Senator Joseph McCarthy,he suggested tattoos for AIDS patients and ruminated on denying the vote to the uneducated."

[ckg68]

And just what the hell is wrong with filibustering? The dems have filibustered almost every single Bush judicial appointee. You call me ignorant but show yourself uninformed about what Obama promises, have no idea that the dems filibuster appointees etc. You better stop calling people names when you make misstatements like you do.

Oh,like YOU just did? I'm calling immediate :bs: on this.

You. Are. Lying. It's as simple as that.

10 of 229 judicial filibusters in W's first term doesn't sound like "almost every single Bush judicial appointee" to me,now does it Merc?

[micknaboz]

The rich, that you hate so much create jobs, the middle class doesn't.

Thats an out and out misstatement/lie.

And just what the hell is wrong with filibustering? .

Nothing wrong with filibustering, but you're still ignorant of how many times the R's have done it in the last year compared to how many times the D's did it in the previous seven.

[35Pete]

Oh BTW Pete, there aint no way in hell Obama is going on any social spending spree. The treasury is in no shape to be taking on more debt. Its reaching critical mass very quickly.

But raised taxes are something you will definitely see, R or D in the WH. Or at least letting Bush's tax cuts expire.
But with the D's in total control, the rich will get hit harder than the middle class. As how it should be. :)

I don't kinow about that Mik. Clamoring for healthcare is back and the dems may strike while in control of both houses and the white house.

[35Pete]

Read Pete's thread mick, the rich will move their investment capital overseas. The rich, that you hate so much create jobs, the middle class doesn't. Have you read obama's plans? I have. You better do the same before you make a statement like "Oh BTW Pete, there aint no way in hell Obama is going on any social spending spree. The treasury is in no shape to be taking on more debt. Its reaching critical mass very quickly."

And just what the hell is wrong with filibustering? The dems have filibustered almost every single Bush judicial appointee. You call me ignorant but show yourself uninformed about what Obama promises, have no idea that the dems filibuster appointees etc. You better stop calling people names when you make misstatements like you do.

The rich don't give a hill of beans about you or I. This whole globalism thing being "good for America" is bunk. It's good for a small, small minority. Labor is a capital expense, just like materials or energy. Think of offshoring as buying energy efficient light bulbs for corporate headquarters. Same principal. There is no altruism for creation of jobs. None. Nada.

Look at the vertically asymptotic slope of the debt. The interest payments are incredible. Why does the gov't borrow from others? If it borrowed against the full faith and credit of the taxpaying public, which is supposed to personify the gov't, it wouldn't have to charge itself interest, no?

Fillibusters are good. The other half of the sword though is attempting to repeal bad law and facing a fillibuster.

Did you know that congress used to meet for a month or so every year and that's it? Now a US senator is in the Senate all but a few weeks and has a dozen offices with a gazzilion staffers so that they can be extra effective in "cooking up good ideas".

[shiva2999]

Yeah and it was working so well there for awhile for the republicans.
LMAO

And another thing Pete, your use of conservative pejorative terms like "nanny-state" display a deeply ingrained, distinct conservative/republican bias.
May be time for another intervention.

Everytime Pete re-evaluates his positions, he behaves like he's achieved satori.

"Yesterday I was confused, but today I understand everything perfectly".

It will keep happening until Pete can totally eliminate the emotionalism that formed his positions in the first place.

[35Pete]

Everytime Pete re-evaluates his positions, he behaves like he's achieved satori.

"Yesterday I was confused, but today I understand everything perfectly".

It will keep happening until Pete can totally eliminate the emotionalism that formed his positions in the first place.

Cute.

I like the phrasing of your statement. It subtle but quite effective. Being passionate about certain things is not good. Don't constantly keep an open mind. Pick the right positions and stick with them forever. I dunno. What would you advise people on this board do.

Just pick your positions and then they are "open-minded" and "distanced" from the issue.

Don't be like so many. The thinkers here know who we are talking about.

[anEinherjer]

:rofl:

I thought I'd never see the day where a death-metal fan bemoans the ascendency of the loud and crude over the refined and polite.

Too funny.

Good point. :) But I'm not listening to my favored (only) style of music in public. I'm not using it to bludgeon people who disagree with my choice.

The style of America these days is loud, public, crude behavior. You see it everywhere, people clowning around to get a spot on Springer, or Judge Judy. You see idiots acting purposefully stupid on Idol. You see pundit shows pitting X vs. Y no matter what the issue, each one screaming soundbites at each other (consider how quaint and insightful the early days of Crossfire would seem today).

To me, it all started with MTV - say, the late 80's. Morton Downey. Howard Stern.

Funny stuff, in general, but no way to discuss how society should or shouldn't be, in my opinion. I wouldn't invite the local state delegate candidates to an Amon Amarth concert!

[Dr. Who]

What is confounding on this board is the presence of individuals who spout vitriol that is certain to garner an emotional reaction; then they congratulate themselves and accuse those who disagree with them of having only emotion and not reason on their side.

It's Lucy and the football every time.

William Buckley was a man of integrity and intellect. He was capable of decency and friendship towards those he disagreed with. The ugliness and contempt of those who at the very least implicitly rejoice in his passing reveals the impoverished nature of their souls. The fact that they can feel self-righteous in such an emotion ought to disgust any person of ordinary moral sensibility.

[ckg68]

aE: Like I said before,this crap predates MTV.

If you really want to kick someone's ass for how debate,etc. is today,set the wayback machine for when The McLaughlin Group first started airing and kick John McLaughlin's ass-along with the rest of the panel. Then go back and kick Joe Pyne's ass. And,while you're at it,do the same with Wally George.

[35Pete]

LMFAO

And just where the hell did I blame the congress approval rating on the R's and Bush?

As for your destructive economic ruin you predict, its already in the pipeline, courtesy of your president.

You're just pissed because your world paradigm is being exposed for it destructiveness and is coming undone. Hopefully, and with a little help from the recession, the dems will crush the R's this november, and we can start to turn back the clock on the last 7 years.

If and when it doesn't happen are you going to blame the Republican Party or are you going to say "the hell with both of them"?

Seriously.

Me thinks, based on observations of the typical American, that when the "clock doesn't get turned back" all types of rationalizations for why it didn't happen will start to flow freely from the partisan well spring.

I'm just being honest based on decades of experience and several presidencies.

The same people criticizing Bush now will be the same "yeah-but" crowd when the dems failt to do what you say they will do.

Or do other things that they say that they will do but with consequences that people either denied, poo-pooed or laughed at.

So, What will it be? Principle or party?

Honest question for you or anyone else that wishes to answer it.

[pmoon6]

George Patton was gay. He was Hoovers bitch.Bull.

You just don't like him because he had the temerity to slap a liberal when he wanted to tuck tail and run.

[pmoon6]

Here's an article I ran across. It gives you some insight into the man, the second page is deals more with politics.

William F. Buckley Jr.
A friend of one of the country's leading conservatives looks at WFB's career as a writer and editor, his public life and the time he spent as an undercover CIA agent.


By Chris Weinkopf

Sept. 3, 1999 | "It's amazing we weren't all killed," is how the story usually begins. I have heard it at least a dozen times. Among friends and family of William F. Buckley Jr., it's a favorite.

Like all old and many-times retold anecdotes, the details are fuzzy, and depend largely on who is recounting them, but the general outline is always the same. It takes place just outside the ritzy Swiss ski resort of Gstaad, in the more low-key village of Rougemont, where Bill and his wife, Pat, spend their winters. Bill is behind the wheel of his white four-wheel-drive station wagon, driving down one of those steep, windy roads that cling to the side of the mountain -- a narrow strip of pavement with sheer rock on one side and a hundred-foot drop on the other.

It's an unseasonably warm day; too warm for Bill, who decides to remove his sweater. The passengers watch in terror as he fumbles with one hand -- the other still on the wheel -- to yank off the pullover, now wrapped around his head and completely blocking his vision. Amazingly, the car stays on course, and the passengers live to tell the tale.

Which they are happy to do. The story speaks to two of their friend's most endearing characteristics -- his calm disposition and the divine providence that seems to make it possible. Both infuse his writing and explain Bill Buckley's success at making politics his living, but not his life.

I first met WFB, as his friends and colleagues refer to him in writing, four years ago, when I started working at National Review, the conservative journal he owns and founded. After retiring as editor in 1990, Buckley withdrew from the day-to-day operations of the magazine. Except for the occasional glimpse at a meeting or a luncheon, or a handshake at his annual Christmas party, we junior staffers rarely saw him. But we were always aware of his presence -- for young conservatives, the name Buckley is second only to Reagan on the hero scale -- and we found it, quite frankly, intimidating. When, 18 months into my tenure at NR, Frances Bronson, his indispensable secretary, summoned me to a 5 p.m. meeting at WFB's Upper East Side Manhattan apartment, I was terrified. Buckley soon assuaged my fears, offering me an iced coffee (which I despise, but drank anyway) and an invitation to join him for six weeks in Switzerland to provide research for his planned novel, "The Redhunter: A Novel Based on the Life of Senator Joe McCarthy." I gladly accepted the assignment.

Buckley writes all his books in Switzerland, and has done so for four decades. On average, he puts out one a year, plus 100 columns and scores of longer pieces, obituaries and editorials. In Rougemont he works eight hours a day, seven days a week, all six weeks. But he is as adamant about maintaining his recreation schedule as he is about finishing his book on time. He lunches at a local inn and skis for one to two hours in the afternoon. Every evening in his study, he hosts a ****tail-and-cigar hour for his male house guests. The one thing Buckley won't tolerate is idle time. When he gets a haircut, he brings a book. In a restaurant, he usually calls over the waitress to order right away, and then asks for dessert midway through the entree, so that no time is lost between courses. He settles the bill as soon as she brings the coffee.

Eric Alterman wrote in June in an online book club discussion that Buckley has a talent uncommon among those with deep political convictions -- that he is unlikely to "ruin a dinner party" with indelicate partisan banter. That's probably because he has had much practice at the art of dinner partying. Pat Buckley is an accomplished hostess and socialite. In Switzerland, the Buckleys entertain between four and eight friends no fewer than three times a week. The affairs exemplify their commitment to good manners and etiquette, offset by an unwillingness to let convention get in the way of a good time. The appetizer might be foie gras, but the hors d'oeuvre is almost always bread bits covered in peanut butter. ("If peanut butter were as expensive as caviar," Bill has said more than once, "it would be served at Buckingham Palace teas.") When guests overstay their welcome, Bill plays "Goodnight Ladies" on the piano.

more...http://www.salon.com/people/feature/1999/09/03/wfb/

[shiva2999]

The style of America these days is loud, public, crude behavior. You see it everywhere, people clowning around to get a spot on Springer, or Judge Judy. You see idiots acting purposefully stupid on Idol. You see pundit shows pitting X vs. Y no matter what the issue, each one screaming soundbites at each other (consider how quaint and insightful the early days of Crossfire would seem today).

To me, it all started with MTV - say, the late 80's. Morton Downey. Howard Stern.


Look, I hold no brief for MTV but I have to point out all the people and shows you mention have nothing to do with MTV.

Is America a nation of ass holes? Sure.

But that is not the fault of MTV.

Blame capitalism.

[shiva2999]

What is confounding on this board is the presence of individuals who spout vitriol that is certain to garner an emotional reaction; then they congratulate themselves and accuse those who disagree with them of having only emotion and not reason on their side.


So your emotional reaction is my fault?

[shiva2999]

Being passionate about certain things is not good. Don't constantly keep an open mind.

Strawman.

I have never said this.

Passion is fine. It just needs to be guided by reason.

And I have always encouraged people to have open minds.

But having an open mind does not require elevating bullshit to the level of truth.

And how does one distinguish truth from bullshit?

By letting reason and logic, not passion, guide you.

[35Pete]

Strawman.

I have never said this.

Passion is fine. It just needs to be guided by reason.

And I have always encouraged people to have open minds.

But having an open mind does not require elevating bullshit to the level of truth.

And how does one distinguish truth from bullshit?

By letting reason and logic, not passion, guide you.


Pile on the fallacies with a few of your own while you are at it.

Elvating bull shit to the level of truth. Is that a statement of fact?

You cannot possibly be logical and reasonable if you expression passion? Really? How so Dr. Spock? ;)

[shiva2999]

You cannot possibly be logical and reasonable if you expression passion?


Once again, I did not say this.

And it has been my experience around here that people let passion rule when logic and reason do not support that passion.

[35Pete]

Once again, I did not say this.

And it has been my experience around here that people let passion rule when logic and reason do not support that passion.

I, as much as, and dare I say more than many, back up my reasoning with facts, logic, and analysis.

If you are truly speaking about me then you are sadly mistaken.

[shiva2999]

I, as much as, and dare I say more than many, back up my reasoning with facts, logic, and analysis.

If you are truly speaking about me then you are sadly mistaken.

Pete

Have you not changed your positions a number of times here, even though you provided "facts", "logic" and "analysis" for those positions you subsequently rejected?

And when you looked back at those previous positions, did you not come to the conclusion that
the reason you held those positions was because of passion, not reason?

And was it not the reason you changed those positions because your passion could no longer keep your logic and reason in thrall?

I am not trying to insult you, nor am I questioning your intellect.

What I am suggesting is you should keep in mind that you HAVE been seduced by emotionalism before through your conditioning as an American and a conservative.

And although in a number of instances you have been able to throw off the chains of that conditioning, you have to understand that even though you have been successful in individual cases that does not mean that you never have to worry about the pernicious effects of that conditioning in ALL future circumstances.

[35Pete]

Pete

Have you not changed your positions a number of times here, even though you provided "facts", "logic" and "analysis" for those positions you subsequently rejected?

And when you looked back at those previous positions, did you not come to the conclusion that
the reason you held those positions was because of passion, not reason?

No I did not. Do not inject a history of this where it does not exist. If you look carefully you will see two things: 1.) I generally move in one direction, that of maximum liberty and freedom. 2.) modifying a position based on new found information or emerging information is the sign of intelligent thinking. Flexible thinking. Where, and how, you came up with the idea that I changed my position based on passion almost borders on the fabricated. I'm not accusing you of that but it is so patently absurd that if I didn't know better...

And was it not the reason you changed those positions because your passion could no longer keep your logic and reason in thrall?

Bull based on more bull. Where are you getting this?


I am not trying to insult you, nor am I questioning your intellect.

What I am suggesting is you should keep in mind that you HAVE been seduced by emotionalism before through your conditioning as an American and a conservative.

Bwhahahahaha! Come on. Now you are insulting me.

And although in a number of instances you have been able to throw off the chains of that conditioning, you have to understand that even though you have been successful in individual cases that does not mean that you never have to worry about the pernicious effects of that conditioning in ALL future circumstances.
Complete bunk.

[35Pete]

Pete

Have you not changed your positions a number of times here, even though you provided "facts", "logic" and "analysis" for those positions you subsequently rejected?

And when you looked back at those previous positions, did you not come to the conclusion that
the reason you held those positions was because of passion, not reason?

No I did not. Do not inject a history of this where it does not exist. If you look carefully you will see two things: 1.) I generally move in one direction, that of maximum liberty and freedom. 2.) modifying a position based on new found information or emerging information is the sign of intelligent thinking. Flexible thinking. Where, and how, you came up with the idea that I changed my position based on passion almost borders on the fabricated. I'm not accusing you of that but it is so patently absurd that if I didn't know better...

And was it not the reason you changed those positions because your passion could no longer keep your logic and reason in thrall?

Bull based on more bull. Where are you getting this?


I am not trying to insult you, nor am I questioning your intellect.

What I am suggesting is you should keep in mind that you HAVE been seduced by emotionalism before through your conditioning as an American and a conservative.

Bwhahahahaha! Come on. Now you are insulting me.

And although in a number of instances you have been able to throw off the chains of that conditioning, you have to understand that even though you have been successful in individual cases that does not mean that you never have to worry about the pernicious effects of that conditioning in ALL future circumstances.
Complete bunk.

[shiva2999]

Where, and how, you came up with the idea that I changed my position based on passion almost borders on the fabricated.

Once again, this is not what I said.

Go back and read it again.

Tell me. what was the reason you rejected my 9/11 position for so many years, even though I provided to you the exact same facts, reason and analysis you are now providing to others?

[shiva2999]

And BTW, I see you got so emotional about what I said, you felt it necessary to respond with the exact same reply twice?

[35Pete]

Once again, this is not what I said.

Go back and read it again.

Tell me. what was the reason you rejected my 9/11 position for so many years, even though I provided to you the exact same facts, reason and analysis you are now providing to others?

Programming. Like the rest of America.

[shiva2999]

Programming. Like the rest of America.

Exactly.

And how are people programmed?

By encouraging emotional attachments to positions that cannot be justified reasonably.

You'd think that you'd understand this with your Catholic upbringing and all.

[GilPerreault]

Buckley behaved like a dick.


I see you took notes. :bigasskiss:

[35Pete]

Exactly.

And how are people programmed?

By encouraging emotional attachments to positions that cannot be justified reasonably.

You'd think that you'd understand this with your Catholic upbringing and all.

Ive broken through that. Unfortunately most don't. Do me a favor though. Instead of trying to ad-hoc psychoanalyze, if you and I disagree on the specifics then let's debate them, OK? In general I believe that we are in agreement regarding the mess in this country and what caused it (albeit I give blame to the two-parties, not just one) but a lively intellectual discussion would be refreshing and educating for not just you and I, but anyone with an open mind. Fair enough?

[shiva2999]

Ive broken through that. Unfortunately most don't. Do me a favor though. Instead of trying to ad-hoc psychoanalyze, if you and I disagree on the specifics then let's debate them, OK? In general I believe that we are in agreement regarding the mess in this country and what caused it (albeit I give blame to the two-parties, not just one) but a lively intellectual discussion would be refreshing and educating for not just you and I, but anyone with an open mind. Fair enough?

Uh, Pete

The issue in this thread is American conservatism's affection for William F Buckley.

I know that you, and others, would prefer to think of that affection as a result of critical thinking and dispassionate analysis.

I have a different opinion.

So if you decide to enter a discussion that revolves around character and behavior, why would you be surprised when your character and behavior is analyzed as a result?

[35Pete]

Uh, Pete

The issue in this thread is American conservatism's affection for William F Buckley.

I know that you, and others, would prefer to think of that affection as a result of critical thinking and dispassionate analysis.

I have a different opinion.

So if you decide to enter a discussion that revolves around character and behavior, why would you be surprised when your character and behavior is analyzed as a result?
Who decided that the discussion was about character and behavior? If you did then I certainly didn't know that you had that ability. If some are talking about character then fine, but that doesn't mean that I have to towards you, or you towards me. Not exactly a strong argument there.

[shiva2999]

Who decided that the discussion was about character and behavior?

The thread is about the legacy of William F Buckley.

His opinions, if you take a look at them, are all about denigrating the character and behavior of the left and praising the character and behavior of the right.

As I've said for years, conservatism is a position deeply antithetical to logic and reason.

So then you have to ask yourself, why are ostensibly smart people enamored of a position that denies their own God-given intelligence?

Take a guess.

[Merc]

Uh, Pete

The issue in this thread is American conservatism's affection for William F Buckley.

I know that you, and others, would prefer to think of that affection as a result of critical thinking and dispassionate analysis.

I have a different opinion.

So if you decide to enter a discussion that revolves around character and behavior, why would you be surprised when your character and behavior is analyzed as a result?

Shiva, conservatism is about the strength of the individual and giving each person the opportunity to succeed. It is about teaching a man to fish rather than giving him a fish every day so he is dependent on you for his well being. Conservatism is about unleashing the creative nature in each human being rather than having the state dictate how and in which way the individual can excel.

That is what Buckley preached. The new liberalism is all about making as many people as possible dependent on the nanny state. The state is dictatating every possible aspect of our lives. It is intolerable. Hillary's health care plan would have told future Doctors what specialty they could go into. It would dictate what Dr. you can see and when. Obama wants to take over my child's education beginning the day he is born (0-5 program)

I do not want the state raising my boy. That is my job and I guarantee i am far more educated than the dopes that are teaching in the public schools. I don't want their values or their opinions thrust on my little one. i want him strong and independent and to have a realistic view of the word. I don't want an indoctrinated little robot preaching about global warming at the dinner table because his moron of a teacher saw Al Gore's incredibly skewed movie.

I am a conservative because I believe in the inherent worth of each individual and that if given the chance and motivation to succeed they can accomplish something in life. Liberalism's legacy is the welfare state and generations of broken families dependent on the state for their well being.

The little guy is down for his nap so I have to go finish building a computer.

[35Pete]

The thread is about the legacy of William F Buckley.

His opinions, if you take a look at them, are all about denigrating the character and behavior of the left and praising the character and behavior of the right.

As I've said for years, conservatism is a position deeply antithetical to logic and reason.

So then you have to ask yourself, why are ostensibly smart people enamored of a position that denies their own God-given intelligence?

Take a guess.

Conservatism is based on emotion far greater than "American Liberalism". But both are based more on reflexive behavior than on thought. One side cares about itself and takes orders, the other side cares about others and takes orders.

Neither truly think for themselves.

I abhore the pigeonholing. But if you look at the posters on this board that actually provide any substance: you, ckg, anEin, me, JimKelly, ect... we, if you must, and I mean must label us, are "classical liberals". But notice the widely divergent attitudes among us. Americans would label us, slot us into a spot, and be done with it. But we (the classicals) have as much in common as we have in differences. And there lies an interesting dichotomy. Don't you think? None of us really want to tell others how to live their lives, but yet we cannot agree on so many of the specifics. I find that interesting to say the least.

[35Pete]

Shiva, conservatism is about the strength of the individual and giving each person the opportunity to succeed. It is about teaching a man to fish rather than giving him a fish every day so he is dependent on you for his well being. Conservatism is about unleashing the creative nature in each human being rather than having the state dictate how and in which way the individual can excel.

That is what Buckley preached. The new liberalism is all about making as many people as possible dependent on the nanny state. The state is dictatating every possible aspect of our lives. It is intolerable. Hillary's health care plan would have told future Doctors what specialty they could go into. It would dictate what Dr. you can see and when. Obama wants to take over my child's education beginning the day he is born (0-5 program)

I do not want the state raising my boy. That is my job and I guarantee i am far more educated than the dopes that are teaching in the public schools. I don't want their values or their opinions thrust on my little one. i want him strong and independent and to have a realistic view of the word. I don't want an indoctrinated little robot preaching about global warming at the dinner table because his moron of a teacher saw Al Gore's incredibly skewed movie.

I am a conservative because I believe in the inherent worth of each individual and that if given the chance and motivation to succeed they can accomplish something in life. Liberalism's legacy is the welfare state and generations of broken families dependent on the state for their well being.

The little guy is down for his nap so I have to go finish building a computer.

Why do you have to identify with anyone or any group? Why paint yourself with a label?

What's wrong with "I am Merc"?

[shiva2999]

Shiva, conservatism is about the strength of the individual and giving each person the opportunity to succeed. It is about teaching a man to fish rather than giving him a fish every day so he is dependent on you for his well being. Conservatism is about unleashing the creative nature in each human being rather than having the state dictate how and in which way the individual can excel.

That is what Buckley preached. The new liberalism is all about making as many people as possible dependent on the nanny state. The state is dictatating every possible aspect of our lives. It is intolerable. Hillary's health care plan would have told future Doctors what specialty they could go into. It would dictate what Dr. you can see and when. Obama wants to take over my child's education beginning the day he is born (0-5 program)

I do not want the state raising my boy. That is my job and I guarantee i am far more educated than the dopes that are teaching in the public schools. I don't want their values or their opinions thrust on my little one. i want him strong and independent and to have a realistic view of the word. I don't want an indoctrinated little robot preaching about global warming at the dinner table because his moron of a teacher saw Al Gore's incredibly skewed movie.

I am a conservative because I believe in the inherent worth of each individual and that if given the chance and motivation to succeed they can accomplish something in life. Liberalism's legacy is the welfare state and generations of broken families dependent on the state for their well being.

The little guy is down for his nap so I have to go finish building a computer.

You DO know that none of the above is supported in ANY way by facts, logic or reason?

But it sure does FEEL good believing it, huh?

I've never understood how some people don't get the inherent irony of speechifying about individualism and freedom while calling themselves "dittoheads".

[Merc]

You DO know that none of the above is supported in ANY way by facts, logic or reason?

But it sure does FEEL good believing it, huh?

I've never understood how some people don't get the inherent irony of speechifying about individualism and freedom while calling themselves "dittoheads".

Those are the "ideals" of conservatism Shiva. What 'facts" do you want? Philosophy isn't facts it is beliefs. Go read some of Buckley's books. The second part is my philosophy on how I want to raise my son so what facts do you want? Are you saying I really don't feel or believe that? WTF? Please try and ask pertinent questions in the future.

[shiva2999]

Those are the "ideals" of conservatism Shiva. What 'facts" do you want? Philosophy isn't facts it is beliefs. Go read some of Buckley's books. The second part is my philosophy on how I want to raise my son so what facts do you want? Are you saying I really don't feel or believe that? WTF? Please try and ask pertinent questions in the future.

Hey, Hitler had "ideals" too.

And "beliefs" are supposed to be based on something other than personal whim and ego gratification.

Just because someone "believes" something doesn't make that "belief" intelligent or beneficial or good.

I hope you teach this to your son.

[uppy]

Conservatism is based on emotion far greater than "American Liberalism".

ROTFLMAO

[Merc]

Hey, Hitler had "ideals" too.

There you go again, using the Hitler tag on a conservative. Wonderful of you to prove my point that liberals always resort to name calling eventually. They love to throw Hitler and Nazi at you. So anyone with ideals is a "Hitler-like" character. Nice.


And "beliefs" are supposed to be based on something other than personal whim and ego gratification.

Just because someone "believes" something doesn't make that "belief" intelligent or beneficial or good.

I completely agree Shiva.


I hope you teach this to your son.

I will. Of course I will. When he comes home from school with his head filled with liberal garbage I will explain the world of freedom to him and the real ideals that this country is based on.

[shiva2999]

There you go again, using the Hitler tag on a conservative. Wonderful of you to prove my point that liberals always resort to name calling eventually. They love to throw Hitler and Nazi at you. So anyone with ideals is a "Hitler-like" character. Nice.


But, of course I didn't say this. My point was, since I guess you didn't get it is that anyone can have ideals.

Ideals aren't enough. Not for Hitler, not for Buckley and not for you and me.



I completely agree Shiva.


Then let me suggest you keep it in mind when it comes to your own "beliefs".


I will. Of course I will. When he comes home from school with his head filled with liberal garbage I will explain the world of freedom to him and the real ideals that this country is based on.

What, thievery, rape and murder?

Sounds like child abuse to me.

[Merc]

Sounds like child abuse to me.

Let's leave my kid out of this OK. I don't like the way your tone is going with respect to my son and how I am as a father, so I request we both leave him out of this conversation from here on out.

[shiva2999]

Let's leave my kid out of this OK. I don't like the way your tone is going with respect to my son and how I am as a father, so I request we both leave him out of this conversation from here on out.

hey pal, you were the one that brought him into the conversation, not me.

I had to teach this lesson to uppy too.

If you don't want your kids mentioned or your fathering skills questioned, then don't use them to try and score cheap rhetorical points.

[Merc]

Ok bud, we're done.

[shiva2999]

Ok bud, we're done.

I didn't ask to hear about your philosophy on how to raise your son.

[pmoon6]

I didn't ask to hear about your philosophy on how to raise your son.How's your son doin'?

[shiva2999]

How's your son doin'?

They're still out of jail.

Thank goodness for small mercies.

Went to my youngest daughter's piano recital today.

I'm going to get her to teach me how to play "Dance of the Sugar Plum Fairies".