Re: William F. Buckley, Jr. Crosses The Firing Line Into 10-3-39

Minun olisi pitänyt tietää, olisi pitänyt tietää,
olisi pitänyt tietää KUKA SINÄ OLET, David V. Loewe, Jr:
On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 00:47:14 -0000, rich hammett
<bubbarichau@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Minun olisi pitänyt tietää, olisi pitänyt tietää,
olisi pitänyt tietää KUKA SINÄ OLET, David V. Loewe, Jr:
On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 20:09:47 -0000, rich hammett
<bubbarichau@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Minun olisi pitänyt tietää, olisi pitänyt tietää,
olisi pitänyt tietää KUKA SINÄ OLET, David V. Loewe, Jr:
On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 18:41:01 -0000, rich hammett
<bubbarichau@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Minun olisi pitänyt tietää, olisi pitänyt tietää,
olisi pitänyt tietää KUKA SINÄ OLET, David V. Loewe, Jr:
On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:53:19 -0000, rich hammett
<bubbarichau@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Growth and change doesn't make his initial words (or their effect)
just disappear. It DOES make him better than the current generation
of his "heirs."

As long as there are people like rich here on the left, the right will
continue to point out things like Senator Byrd's one time membership
in the Klan.

Payback is a bitch, ain't it?

You're doing this for my very existence? Or is there something
you disagree with in my statement above? Be very specific, if
you find something.

Elsewhere in the discussion, Ralph lamented the fact that
Republicans/conservatives can't seem to let go of Senator Byrd's
one-time membership in the Klan - referring to it as a "Saul-like
conversion."

<Jwx9Er.6M0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

I replied thusly - "That's laughable on its face, Ralph. Right
wingers generally only mention things like Senator Byrd's Klan
connection BECAUSE lefties hardly ever believe in the "Saul-like
conversions" of Republicans. Moreover, Byrd makes some pretty odd
statements every now and then that cast doubt on the completeness *of*
his "conversion."

You people continually throw *** and then act surprised when ***
gets thrown back at you." in
<tnmds3lcn4sbpo7euppoag4an7anhprnqo@xxxxxxx>

For you to pound on Mr. Buckley for his "original words" despite his
subsequent repudiation of them (as documented by Chris Bellomy), only
proves the point I made to Ralph. You lefties refuse to move on, to
get over it, to give credit for "personal growth.' Therefore, why
should those on the right give you people any credit for any of that?

I don't "pound on" Mr. Buckley for those words,

You did.

At least, IMO you did.

Good to see you conceding the point...

Heh. I definitely concede that you think I pounded him.

but they just show
that he was as conservative as the culture would allow, and he was
willing to hurt a few people with his conservatism.

Written by man who supports a philosophy that has ruined the lives of
millions.

If you are connecting this to the next paragraph, then you are
again a liar.

You don't support The Great Society?

What part of The Great Society? I'm not a huge LBJ fan.

But your kind of logic means I could say that you support
raping Iraqi girls and murdering their families, since that
has happened as a direct consequence of our war in Iraq.

"From the wild Irish slums of the 19th century Eastern seaboard, to
the riot-torn suburbs of Los Angeles, there is one unmistakable lesson
in American history; a community that allows a large number of men to
grow up in broken families, dominated by women, never acquiring any
stable relationship to male authority, never acquiring any set of
rational expectations about the future -- that community asks for and
gets chaos. Crime, violence, unrest, disorder -- most particularly the
furious, unrestrained lashing out at the whole social structure --
that is not only to be expected; it is very near to inevitable. And it
is richly deserved."

And I have
several posts in these threads giving him credit for "personal
growth." He did seem to grow in everything in the same direction
but slightly slower than society in general. That certainly doesn't
show him to be a leader in changing society's morals or laws,

You are insane.

You think it does, and it is so obvious that to disagree with it
is to be "insane"? You don't seem to get to exact with what you
mean, but that's what you've said here.

No. I think your premise is flawed.

What premise is flawed? Why do you refuse to say?

but as I've said many times, it shows him to be both more
practical AND more moral than his "heirs."

I liked Mr. Buckley, why else would I have read his novel?

Is that a prerequisite? I have interacted with a number of authors
online (as a reader of alt.books.tom-clancy, rsfc and
rec.arts.sf.written). Some were absolute assholes. A good example is
John Ringo. Despite encountering him (and concluding that he is an
***) online *before* ever having read any of his books, I still
read the initial Posleen War books.

Good to see you conceding the point.

I didn't read Buckley's novel to find out more about McCarthy,
or because I liked his novel-writing style. I read it because
I was interested to read what he had to say. I know nothing
about him personally, so I don't know whether I would have
called him an "***" or not. You are taking it down a
different path than I meant.

rich
--
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/ He always pictured himself a libertarian, which to my
\ way of thinking means ``I want the liberty to grow rich
/ and you can have the liberty to starve''. It's easy to
\ believe that no one should depend on society for help
/ when you yourself happen not to need such help.
.

Loading