RIP Bill, and my condolensces to his family and friends.
I enjoyed listening to Bill Buckley, even if I didn't agree with him.
He will be missed. Though I would disagree with him on many issues, I always enjoyed hearing the rationale behind his views. Much more refreshing than listening to some faux "conservatives" who define their views as "patriotic" and "American" while denigrating people who disagree with them. Buckley had some refreshingly Libertarian views on some subjects that self-proclaimed conservatives would hate.
Yeah, he was a great first baseman for the Dodgers.
He is often referred to as the father of Conservatism...and he was brilliant! We didn't agree on everything but we did agree on most issues. And he certainly changed my mind many times. The man's logic was impeccable. He also had the most extensive vocabulary of anyone that I've seen. When he died, 10% of the English language may have died with him.
In recent years it was sad to hear him talk about his life. He was pretty much just waiting to die.
Buckley was smart, logical, and very persuasive. He was a part of my life for about the last 45 years, when my parents started subscribing to the regional newspaper that carried his columns. Like I said, I often found fault with his positions over the years, but I greatly appreciated his willingness to lay out the details of his reasoning and the motivations that underlaid his positions. Nowadays, the "conservative" movement seems to be dominated by didactic, knee-jerk idiots who wouldn't be fit to polish Buckley's shoes.
Disclaimer: The Democratic/"Progressive" side of US politics is dominated by hacks that are not that far removed from the self-proclaimed "conservatives" that Buckley derided. Do you want Pepsi or Coke? Would you like to read Time or Newsweek? Our 2-party system is a stinking joke.
Funny because you and I seem to agree on most political issues, and AFAIK Buckley and I agreed far more than not.
Well, I came out of a very poor family of French-Canadian immigrants that ended up in Maine because work was available during the Depression. Being Catholic, my family ended up with large families (that did not fit well with the non-agrarian tradition vs the heavily agrarian tradition that they came from back in Canada) and it was a definite liability when a father took on mill-work and tried to sustain an entire family on hourly wages. I tried to help out as much as I could by fishing, hunting, gathering berries, etc, and my dad and I spent weeks of evenings every spring picking pecks of fiddleheads (immature ostrich ferns) so that we would have a reliable source of vegetables over the winter. We'd pick them and sit together with my mother cleaning them every night, and the next day she'd blanch them and pack 'em in bags and stack them in our chest freezer. We ate fiddleheads several times a week all winter long - they kept us going.
I'm a conservative by my upbringing. The neocons who claim to be conservatives are radicals who want to confer the rights of citizens onto companies and businesses who have no standing in constitutional law. They are corrupt and they are thieves.
How does this relate to our political views? I am a German, Swedish, Finnish, English, native American X Catholic who grew up in S California.
oh yes, a little Swiss I think... as a child Grandpa spoke suissedeutch.
I don't know, Ivan, but you and I and Astronuc seemed to have converged on some common ground on energy, politics, and foreign relations without planning a bit of it.
Very ironic - he was also my boss's hero and my boss is to the right of Rush Limbaugh! To see him also being the hero of people so far left makes him a real enigma to me.
I've been telling you from day one that I'm a conservative. The problem is that neocons are not conservatives. The entire face of conservatism changed with this notion and WFB would be the first to agree. He despised the Bush admin and I'm quite sure that he thought even less of Rush.
A true conservative would never support someone like Bush. And contempt for a criminal does not equate to liberalism or the "far left".
I was watching a clip of him and Noam Chomsky on google a while back, but Noam seemed to be more to the point while Buckley came off as arrogant and not wanting to listen to Noam. All in all, it was fun to watch though.
It's very difficult to get this concept across to some people. I am far more conservative than most Republicans on issues like foreign affairs, economics, etc. The neo-cons are not conservative - they are radicals that are out to loot our treasury and push the agendas of their corporate handlers. We could use some real conservatives in high public office. Certainly a real conservative would not have started an unnecessary war based on lies and made-up intelligence, and stretched our military capabilities to the breaking point. Any president of either party would be wise to include a conservative of Buckley's ilk in their top tier of advisers.
Buckley arrogant? Never! :rofl:
Some people are not interested in the facts, which is why we got Bush.
An http://cumulus.hillsdale.edu:8080/buckley/Standard/index.html" and Firing Line. Buckley was very friendly with Rush and characterized Rush-bashing and attacks on O'Reilly as a 'polemical device'.
To whom did Buckley turn when asked to help arrange a tribute in Washington's RFK stadium to honor Ronald Reagan? T'was Rush... of course. http://cumulus.hillsdale.edu:8080/b...f_1153700157_buckley/ReaganLittleMemories.pdf
Well, dunno about that, but Rush helped bring us Bush, and Buckley despised Bush and neocons. Of course Rush has finally realized that he supported a liar and idiot.
From The News Hour tonight.
You know, I would rather be governed by the first 2,000 people in the Boston telephone directory than by the 2,000 people on the faculty of Harvard University.
This statement is somewhat paradoxical given that Buckley is credited with bringing intellectualism to conservatism. But he truly believed that there is greater wisdom in the average voter than in the average politician, so perhaps he viewed the faculty at Harvard as a political body rather than an academic one.
That entire video puts Buckley's "intelligence" into question. He's proven wrong several times and does nothing other than continue to interrupt Chomsky.
He also gets his facts clearly confused, as in the "Nazi Communist insurgency" in Greece -- his dates are clearly way off -- and his facts are also more than confused in Vietnam (Chomsky's points are pretty much modern scholarship now).
Near the end of the video he makes a totally pointless point about Czechoslovakia being neutral, merely to try and sound intelligent to throwout another "big word" out there that he knows.
There's also a video between Buckley and Vidal where Buckley looses it and calls Gore Vidal a "queer" and threatens to hit him if Vidal calls Buckley a Nazi one more time.
This is odd, considering that Buckley was calling for the REMOVAL of certain people from society, namely, those who had the audacity to question the Vietnam war, and he even published an article in the NY Times suggesting that communities have the right to remove people from society at their whim.
If you watch the COMPLETE interview with Chomsky, Buckley also threatens to hit Chomsky. He may have threatened Howard Zinn as well.
Buckley was all rhetoric and no substance, and repeatedly threatened people who defeated him in debate.
How much have you watched and read his work? How many hours?
Ridiculous. There have been far more intelligent contributors to Conservatism than Buckley, such as Burke himself.
I also think some other intelligent Conservatives might be the founding fathers of the United States. They actually started making conservative arguments for things, such as Federalists, and often referred to as conservatives in PoliSci tests.
This is about modern conservatism - the last half of the 20th century. You are off by about two centuries.
Given that you have absolutely no concept of the context here, you might try learning a little about the man first.
Separate names with a comma.