William F. Buckley

[OnTheRocks]

I see, so if you agree with someone on one issue, you have to agree with them on all issues?  Hmmm.....that explains the knee jerk, exceptionless devotion to Bush so prevalent among the far right.  Thanks for the tip.

 

Buckley may be right on the merits, he might be wrong.  He can't, however, be dismissed without an inquiry in to the merits of his argument simply by ignoring him as a raving, partisan left wing lunatic except by raving, partisan right wing lunatics.

612621[/snapback]

 

 

my point is that it is interesting that partisan left wing lunatics rant about how goofy and nutty guys like Buckley and Pat Buchanan are, but when they state anything that goes against what Bush says, all of a sudden they aren't so looney.

[Mickey]

my point is that it is interesting that partisan left wing lunatics rant about how goofy and nutty guys like Buckley and Pat Buchanan are, but when they state anything that goes against what Bush says, all of a sudden they aren't so looney.

612650[/snapback]

I've never felt that way about Buckley but even if the left does think of them that way, they are still useful in trying to get past the delegitimizing of a viewpoint based, not on the merits, but on the source and hopefully get to a discussion on the issues with someone from the right. They view them as credible or at least can't dismiss them outright as liberal lunatics. Who would be better to try and get them to look at the idea without bringing in their own bias pre-empting an honest look? Howard Dean said some similar things 3 years ago, what would have been the reaction if I posted those long ago statements by him which have proved so remarkably accurate? I'm thinking it would have been along the lines of or . So I gave Buckley a try.

[stuckincincy]

Noted liberal Sheehanesque whack job, William F. Buckley says:

 

"One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed."

 

And further, that the challenge for the President is to:

 

"...persuade himself that he can submit to a historical reality without forswearing basic commitments in foreign policy."

 

And lastly,

 

"...different plans have to be made. And the kernel here is the acknowledgment of defeat."

 

I guess he can't see through the media conspiracy to portray the Iraq war as a disaster when in truth it is a smashing success.  Chalk up another defeatist.

 

Link fixed

611253[/snapback]

Would you please grace us with your path to righteousness and save us from certain doom?

[Mickey]

Would you please grace us with your path to righteousness and save us from certain doom?

612970[/snapback]

Reminds me of the 300 pound guy who smoked cigarettes for 42 years despite the constant pleading of his doctor to lose some weight and kick the habit. His doc went to see him at the hospital after his inevitable heart attack. The fat guy says "okay, genius, now what?".

 

Whether or not I do or do not have a brilliant plan that will succeed despite the mistakes of the last three years doesn't effect whether or not mistakes were in fact made or whether our policies have indeed failed.

 

There is a whole new thread on "what to do in Iraq" where I and many others posted suggestions for discussion. If you really want to know, check them out.

[stuckincincy]

Reminds me of the 300 pound guy who smoked cigarettes for 42 years despite the constant pleading of his doctor to lose some weight and kick the habit.  His doc went to see him at the hospital after his inevitable heart attack.  The fat guy says "okay, genius, now what?".

 

Whether or not I do or do not have a brilliant plan that will succeed despite the mistakes of the last three years doesn't effect whether or not mistakes were in fact made or whether our policies have indeed failed. 

 

There is a whole new thread on "what to do in Iraq" where I and many others posted suggestions for discussion.  If you really want to know, check them out.

613053[/snapback]

 

I'm 185 lb. and have smoked for 31 years. Thank me for paying those taxes.

 

A question: What to you think about the NK situation left to Bush, when the Clinton Adm. left office?

[Mickey]

I'm 185 lb. and have smoked for 31 years. Thank me for paying those taxes.

 

A question: What to you think about the NK situation left to Bush, when the Clinton Adm. left office?

613075[/snapback]

What was the situation left to Bush by Clinton or even to Clinton by Bush I?

[Max Fischer]

Does that include the people banned or put on involuntary hiatus for such disagreements?  Does that include the people from whom I get PM's who never post here or used to but stopped because of that kind of thing?

 

I realize that you, AD and KRC have never, ever been wrong, so I won't suggest even the possibility.  I do get that kind of response from you three along with wacka, RK and the like but I somehow I don't see that as an indicator of my partisanship.

 

Not that I don't enjoy indulging your need to discuss me but is there any chance you have an opinion on Buckley's column we can discuss?

611846[/snapback]

 

This is another example of why this forum does not work and precisely why very few people come to this board. It is not a discussion, it's talk radio and personal attacks. Cognitive dissonance rules.

 

There could have been a lively discussion about Buckley's comments and whether or not they have an impact on the current political debate. Last time I check, WFB was still a pretty big deal iin conservative circles and he's no doubt harshly criticizing "his' president.

 

A debate could have begun on several topics: is Buckley right?, are his comments an indication of "traditional conservatism" losing patience with GWB?, is WFB simply out of touch with the Right?, is his brand of conservatism no longer relevant?, does this signal a problem for GWB and possibly the future of the Republican Party?

 

Any of these topics (and more) could have led to a good discussion. Instead, except for perhaps one response, the poster is personally attacked and dismissed. Why? Are people incapable of thoughtful discussion? Do things that question your stance frighten you? You can't make a reasonable counter-argument?

 

Why bother posting if this is just a mutal affirmation club that avoids thoughtful debate? This is more like a state-fun political board in China than something Jefferson would every recongize.

[KRC]

This is another example of why this forum does not work and precisely why very few people come to this board. It is not a discussion, it's talk radio and personal attacks.  Cognitive dissonance rules. 

 

There could have been a lively discussion about Buckley's comments and whether or not they have an impact on the current political debate.  Last time I check, WFB was still a pretty big deal iin conservative circles and he's no doubt harshly criticizing "his' president.

 

A debate could have begun on several topics:  is Buckley right?, are his comments an indication of "traditional conservatism" losing patience with GWB?, is WFB simply out of touch with the Right?, is his brand of conservatism no longer relevant?, does this signal a problem for GWB and possibly the future of the Republican Party? 

 

Any of these topics (and more) could have led to a good discussion.  Instead, except for perhaps one response, the poster is personally attacked and dismissed.  Why?  Are people incapable of thoughtful discussion?  Do things that question your stance frighten you?  You can't make a reasonable counter-argument?

 

Why bother posting if this is just a mutal affirmation club that avoids thoughtful debate?  This is more like a state-fun political board in China than something Jefferson would every recongize.

613559[/snapback]

 

 

Says the guy who posted nothing of substance regarding Buckley's comments and just attacked the posters.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Any of these topics (and more) could have led to a good discussion.  Instead, except for perhaps one response, the poster is personally attacked and dismissed.  Why?  Are people incapable of thoughtful discussion?  Do things that question your stance frighten you?  You can't make a reasonable counter-argument?

613559[/snapback]

 

Question our stance on what? Make a reasonable counter-argument to what? "Hey, look...William F. Buckley said something!"?

[Mickey]

Question our stance on what?  Make a reasonable counter-argument to what?  "Hey, look...William F. Buckley said something!"? 

613575[/snapback]

You could mock just about every article, column, story, etc that has ever been posted here, "look, GWB said something", "look, Chalabi said something".

 

He didn't just "say something". He made an arguement that we have failed to obtain our objectives because the amount of troops, 130,000, were unable to control sectarian violence and further, that until we realize that, the situation isn't going to get any better.

 

It is not exactly unusual for the opinions of columnists to be posted for discussion around here, to stimulate debate. I, sarcastically, emphasized his conservative credentials trying to make the point that his opinion can't be deligitimized or dismissed off-hand as partisan, Sheehanesque babble as would certainly been the case if I posted identical opinions from other sources.

 

Maybe that makes me unique around here, using sarcasm and all.

[Mickey]

This is another example of why this forum does not work and precisely why very few people come to this board. It is not a discussion, it's talk radio and personal attacks.  Cognitive dissonance rules. 

 

There could have been a lively discussion about Buckley's comments and whether or not they have an impact on the current political debate.  Last time I check, WFB was still a pretty big deal iin conservative circles and he's no doubt harshly criticizing "his' president.

 

A debate could have begun on several topics:  is Buckley right?, are his comments an indication of "traditional conservatism" losing patience with GWB?, is WFB simply out of touch with the Right?, is his brand of conservatism no longer relevant?, does this signal a problem for GWB and possibly the future of the Republican Party? 

 

Any of these topics (and more) could have led to a good discussion.  Instead, except for perhaps one response, the poster is personally attacked and dismissed.  Why?  Are people incapable of thoughtful discussion?  Do things that question your stance frighten you?  You can't make a reasonable counter-argument?

 

Why bother posting if this is just a mutal affirmation club that avoids thoughtful debate?  This is more like a state-fun political board in China than something Jefferson would every recongize.

613559[/snapback]

That is the tactic around here, attack credibility rather than positions. I used to rail against it but after awhile, it became too tiresome to just sit there and take it. I try not to start a thread that way but once someone starts in on it, I no longer shy away from giving it right back. I don't really like joining the mudfight but what can you do? Carrying a knife to a gun fight just isn't going to work. So, you adapt.

[Scraps]

Question our stance on what?  Make a reasonable counter-argument to what?  "Hey, look...William F. Buckley said something!"? 

613575[/snapback]

 

Maybe make a reasoned response to the article?

[Ghost of BiB]

Maybe make a reasoned response to the article? 

613623[/snapback]

 

When William F. Buckley starts posting. Why should I discuss what a columnist thinks with another poster, when I can discuss what they think.

 

Yeah, I've fallen into the trap, but when you think about it, isn't it kind of dumb?

[Mickey]

When William F. Buckley starts posting. Why should I discuss what a columnist thinks with another poster, when I can discuss what they think.

 

Yeah, I've fallen into the trap, but when you think about it, isn't it kind of dumb?

613834[/snapback]

Again, posting columns, stories, book excerpts, poll results, etc, etc, is not exactly a new thing around here. What it does or can do at least is to stimulate discussion between you and others on the issues raised. See, you post a response along the lines of "I think Buckley is wrong because....." or "I think Buckley is right because..." And them someone, oh say me for example, responds with something along the lines of "Good point bib, but I think such and such..." Of course, another response could be to just ignore it which is fine. The responses I think he is complaining about, and I agree, are of the "you suk" variety.

 

You are among the least likely to go that route so that isn't directed at you. I hate your guts for completely unrelated reasons.

[Ghost of BiB]

Again, posting columns, stories, book excerpts, poll results, etc, etc, is not exactly a new thing around here.  What it does or can do at least is to stimulate discussion between you and others on the issues raised.  See, you post a response along the lines of "I think Buckley is wrong because....." or "I think Buckley is right because..."  And them someone, oh say me for example, responds with something along the lines of "Good point bib, but I think such and such..."  Of course, another response could be to just ignore it which is fine.  The responses I think he is complaining about, and I agree, are of the "you suk" variety. 

 

You are among the least likely to go that route so that isn't directed at you.  I hate your guts for completely unrelated reasons.

613920[/snapback]

 

Who cares? And, like I said, I've gone that route too. There's no rule I can't change my modus and approach. I've shifted more to appreciating peoples own thoughts on their own merits, rather than selectively picking someone elses to make their point for them.

 

And yeah, I WOULD go up against Buckley, or any of them if it were something within my lane. Just because they have a wider forum doesn't make me stupid on the subject. There's also a few female Republican pundits I'd like to nail.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Maybe make a reasoned response to the article? 

613623[/snapback]

 

It wasn't even a reasoned post ON the article to begin with. Again: I don't give a sh-- about Bill Buckley. He's a popuous idiot. If people want to post about Bill Buckley, as Mickey did, I don't care. I do, however, care about Iraq...so if people want to post about Iraq, as Mickey didn't, I'll at least read respectfully, and not say anything if I have nothing to add.

 

But if people want to be whiny little ***** and use puerile bait-and-switch tactics to achieve some sort of glorious martyrdom, as Mickey does and did...well, I'm going to lay into them. It's what they deserve.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

It is not exactly unusual for the opinions of columnists to be posted for discussion around here, to stimulate debate.  I, sarcastically, emphasized his conservative credentials trying to make the point that his opinion can't be deligitimized or dismissed off-hand as partisan, Sheehanesque babble as would certainly been the case if I posted identical opinions from other sources. 

613600[/snapback]

 

Yes, you emphasized his "credentials" in a sarcastic manner...and, in discussing Buckley, failed to actually discuss the topic of Buckley's article yourself. Thus my point, you !@#$ing idiot.

[erynthered]

Hmm, I wonder if scraps and Ed killed each other.

[Max Fischer]

Question our stance on what?  Make a reasonable counter-argument to what?  "Hey, look...William F. Buckley said something!"? 

613575[/snapback]

 

But its the purpose of the board to place an issue on the table and debate it?

 

You don't have to make a counter-argument, but perhaps comment on what WFB said, what/if any impact does it have, what if/any does it say about the American political landscape.

 

If not worthy of ones brain power, then don't touch it. Above all, why disparge someone for putting it up for discussion?

 

It's not unreasonable to believe that when a traditional stalwart of American conservative thinking crticizes a Republican President it could stir a rational debate.

 

For myself, it does open it up to interesting questions about GWB's positoin among the "old guard" conservatives and if even a small fraction of so-called sure-fire Republican votes simply stay home in disgust, it could mean the difference in a handful of key races. The deeply partisan nature of the US today means that "independents" and the enthusiasm of a Party base are even more pronounced in non-presidential year politics.

 

However, it remains to be seen if WFB's comments are indicative of his "factions'" thinking or if he alone in this assessment. I'm not sure, but THAT has to be another relevent question, don't you think?

[SilverNRed]

Hmm, I wonder if scraps and Ed killed each other.

614011[/snapback]