William F. Buckley dies at 82

[Gard]

http://news.aol.com/story/_a/william...27114009990038

Not that I always agreed with him (usually I didn't), but I always RESPECTED him, as he didn't just spout the same repetitive "conservative" drivel. He was thoughtful, and took the time to explain and defend his very reasonable positions instead of slinging poo.

He will be missed by me as a reader of political commentary.

[Dr. Cheese]

He was a brilliant man who changed American history. That said, I feel the man was a racist at heart because he sided with segregationists in 1954, and supported denying the vote to African Americans. He later changed, but I tend to believe that one's first instinct shows what is really in one's core.

[Illbay]

Originally Posted by Gard

http://news.aol.com/story/_a/william...27114009990038

Not that I always agreed with him (usually I didn't), but I always RESPECTED him, as he didn't just spout the same repetitive "conservative" drivel. He was thoughtful, and took the time to explain and defend his very reasonable positions instead of slinging poo.

He will be missed by me as a reader of political commentary.

Well, I agreed with him MOST of the time, but your comment is appropriate nevertheless.

"God and Man at Yale." Now the Man's gone to be with God, but Yale's still here.

There's a moral there somewhere; I just don't know what it is.

[Brad Barker]

when i read his columns (around 2002-2003-ish), i hardly ever agreed with him, but he certainly had a command of the language. they were always good for a new word or two. i didn't realize he was so old, though.

[Pilgrim]

We are the better for having had him. Whether one agreed with him or not, to have a thoughtful discussion is better than spouting mindless ideology...which seems to be the default these days.

[Gard]

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

We are the better for having had him. Whether one agreed with him or not, to have a thoughtful discussion is better than spouting mindless ideology...which seems to be the default these days.

Precisely my feelings on it, he was a thoughtful, if sometimes (IMO) misguided man. The present crop of political commentators are just common taters in comparison, on all sides of the discussion.

I will truly miss his words.

[Jeremy Crockett]

Originally Posted by Dr. Cheese

...He later changed, but I tend to believe that one's first instinct shows what is really in one's core.

So, people really can't change.

[Dr. Cheese]

Originally Posted by OctoberMooN

So, people really can't change.

It's possible, but I also believe Buckley, being the smart man he was, realized that overt support of racism would no longer fly after the Civil Rights movement, so he moved in a more subtle direction, but no, I don't think his basic opinion of Black people changed.

[Diggler]

Originally Posted by Dr. Cheese

It's possible, but I also believe Buckley, being the smart man he was, realized that overt support of racism would no longer fly after the Civil Rights movement, so he moved in a more subtle direction, but no, I don't think his basic opinion of Black people changed.

Is it safe to assume that this belief applies equally to Senator Robert Byrd, along with most of the Democratic congressmen that were in office during the times of the Civil Rights movement and filibustered it at every turn?

[Illbay]

Originally Posted by Diggler

Is it safe to assume that this belief applies equally to Senator Robert Byrd, along with most of the Democratic congressmen that were in office during the times of the Civil Rights movement and filibustered it at every turn?

I think he should change it to read "Republicans can't change."

BTW, I just started reading Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism". Fascinating stuff.

Mussolini'd definitely be a Dem if he were in American politics today.

[FL Knifemaker]

sniff sniff, I smell politics

[Atoz]

Originally Posted by Diggler

Is it safe to assume that this belief applies equally to Senator Robert Byrd, along with most of the Democratic congressmen that were in office during the times of the Civil Rights movement and filibustered it at every turn?

George Wallace springs to mind here.

[Gard]

Guys, please, stop.

This was supposed to be about the loss of a good commentator, someone that we could all admire at least somewhat.

This P!$$ing contest that is beginning is exactly what Buckley DIDN'T do, and why I admired him.

Please do this elsewhere, ok?

[Atoz]

Originally Posted by Gard

Guys, please, stop.

This was supposed to be about the loss of a good commentator, someone that we could all admire at least somewhat.

This P!$$ing contest that is beginning is exactly what Buckley DIDN'T do, and why I admired him.

Please do this elsewhere, ok?

I agree. The intent of my last post was not intended to be a polarizing comment. I was trying to point out that Mr. Wallace ended up with a fairly good reputation among Southern Blacks despite his early pro-segregationist stance. Just wanted to clear that up.

William F. Buckley was a great man whose writings have positively influenced my life, and he will be missed.

[Dr. Cheese]

Originally Posted by Diggler

Is it safe to assume that this belief applies equally to Senator Robert Byrd, along with most of the Democratic congressmen that were in office during the times of the Civil Rights movement and filibustered it at every turn?

You're right. He may never have changed, but I felt his policies were beneficial, so if he wanted to hate folks like me in his spare time so be it.

It's not like I lose sleep over whether or not a given white person likes people like me.

[Dr. Cheese]

Originally Posted by Gard

Guys, please, stop.

This was supposed to be about the loss of a good commentator, someone that we could all admire at least somewhat.

This P!$$ing contest that is beginning is exactly what Buckley DIDN'T do, and why I admired him.

Please do this elsewhere, ok?

I stated my respect of Buckley and his intellect in my first two posts. I feel his racial attitudes were significant also, so I mentioned them too. I stated a historical fact, I am definitely not trying to start a pissing contest.

[Gard]

Originally Posted by Dr. Cheese

I stated my respect of Buckley and his intellect in my first two posts. I feel his racial attitudes were significant also, so I mentioned them too. I stated a historical fact, I am definitely not trying to start a pissing contest.

I didn't single anyone out.

However, this was intended not to be a place to point out the negatives of the man, but instead to acknowledge the loss of a great mind. If you don't like him, or something about him, start a different thread to talk about it. As I stated in the first post, I didn't agree with him most of the time, but I didn't state my points of difference out, and you didn't need to either, did you?

Thanks.

[Dr. Cheese]

Originally Posted by Gard

I didn't single anyone out.

However, this was intended not to be a place to point out the negatives of the man, but instead to acknowledge the loss of a great mind. If you don't like him, or something about him, start a different thread to talk about it. As I stated in the first post, I didn't agree with him most of the time, but I didn't state my points of difference out, and you didn't need to either, did you?

Thanks.

What is the difference between you saying you didn't agree with him most of the time, and me pointing out one area of disagreement?

[hbarcat]

Originally Posted by Dr. Cheese

What is the difference between you saying you didn't agree with him most of the time, and me pointing out one area of disagreement?

Specificity.

[Gard]

Originally Posted by Dr. Cheese

What is the difference between you saying you didn't agree with him most of the time, and me pointing out one area of disagreement?

Don't feed the trolls.

Simple, if you point out something specific, then someone can disagree with your point. If you just use a generic "I didn't agree with everything he said/wrote", then no one has anything to latch their claws into and start wildly flinging poo and urine.