Both sides have idiots...

[foxpaws]

The left certainly isn't immune to stupidity... We have doozies - and Blagojevich is going to be one of them...
Ill. Gov. arrested in Obama successor probe
By MIKE ROBINSON, Associated Press Writer
CHICAGO – Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich was arrested on Tuesday on charges that he brazenly conspired to sell or trade the U.S. Senate seat left vacant by President-elect Barack Obama to the highest bidder.

Blagojevich also was charged with illegally threatening to withhold state assistance to Tribune Co., the owner of the Chicago Tribune, in the sale of Wrigley Field, according to a federal criminal complaint. In return for state assistance, Blagojevich allegedly wanted members of the paper's editorial board who had been critical of him fired.

A 76-page FBI affidavit said the 51-year-old Democratic governor was intercepted on court-authorized wiretaps over the last month conspiring to sell or trade the vacant Senate seat for personal benefits for himself and his wife, Patti.

Otherwise, Blagojevich considered appointing himself. The affidavit said that as late as Nov. 3, he told his deputy governor that if "they're not going to offer me anything of value I might as well take it."

"I'm going to keep this Senate option for me a real possibility, you know, and therefore I can drive a hard bargain," Blagojevich allegedly said later that day, according to the affidavit, which also quoted him as saying in a remark punctuated by profanity that the seat was "a valuable thing — you just don't give it away for nothing."

The affidavit said Blagojevich also discussed getting a substantial salary for himself at a nonprofit foundation or an organization affiliated with labor unions.

It said Blagojevich also talked about getting his wife placed on corporate boards where she might get $150,000 a year in director's fees.

He also allegedly discussed getting campaign funds for himself or possibly a post in the president's cabinet or an ambassadorship once he left the governor's office. He noted becoming a U.S. senator might remake his image for a possible presidential run in 2016, according to the affidavit. And he allegedly said a Senate seat would also provide him with corporate contacts if he needed a job and present an opportunity for his wife to work as a lobbyist.

There's more - the man is an idiot - I hope they throw him away for a long, long time...

 

[Machspeed]

I'd venture to say that the left has far more.....idiots, that is. But then, their voting base, a good number of the people that elect them, are seriously lacking in intelligence.

 

[04SCTLS]

I'd venture to say that the left has far more.....idiots, that is. But then, their voting base, a good number of the people that elect them, are seriously lacking in intelligence.

Any facts to back up your opinion.
This article posits that the opposite is true
Republicans base their views on faith in their principles
and beliefs.
whereas Democrats put more faith in intellect and thus attract more educated voters.


Proof Dems Smarter Than Republicans
By Bill Bishop

http://www.slate.com/id/2206512/

Places that went for Obama are richer and smarter than places that went for McCain.

By Bill Bishop and Robert CushingUpdated Thursday, Dec. 11, 2008, at 8:04 PM ET

Last month's election was historic and may even have been transformative, as many commentators said. But in one important respect, it changed nothing. The divide between Republicans and Democrats in America continues to grow.
And it isn't just about politics. The division is also between rich and poor, between those with college educations and those without. On average, Republican communities have lower incomes and less education than Democratic communities. And those differences are growing as people migrate.

Just more than 600 counties (of more than 3,100 nationally) voted Republican more heavily in this year's presidential contest than in 2004. The average per capita yearly income in those counties was about $18,800, according to county income tallies issued each year by the Internal Revenue Service. (Income in this article is determined by the amount of adjusted gross taxable income listed on individual tax returns from 2004-07. Per capita income equals gross income divided by the number of personal exemptions.) By contrast, those living in the 500-plus counties that voted more heavily Democratic this year than in 2004 had average personal incomes of $28,000—nearly 50 percent higher than the communities trending Republican. The most Democratic counties (those where Barack Obama won by more than 20 percentage points) had average per capita incomes of $28,207. Those counties where John McCain won by similar margins had average personal incomes of just $21,308.
placeAd2(commercialNode,'midarticleflex',false,'')

Places divided by income are also separated by education. In landslide Democratic counties, 32.7 percent of the adult population had a bachelor's degree or better. In Republican counties where McCain won by 20 points or better, 20.4 percent of adults had finished college or graduate school.
More than 30 years ago, pollster Everett Carll Ladd Jr. wrote about the "inversion of the New Deal Order." Ladd was one of the first to notice that white workers without a college degree were voting Republican in larger numbers and that educated white workers were turning Democratic.
The debate over whether working-class white voters have abandoned the Democratic Party rages on. (See this recent paper on the "shifting and diverging white working class in U.S. presidential elections.") In the meantime, the results from this year's election show that there is certainly a geographic division in America based on class and status. Democrats won in the richest and most educated communities in the country.
As people migrate, these divisions (political, educational, and economic) among American communities are increasing. Again using IRS records, we tracked the average income of people who moved between counties since the 2004 election. Those who trekked across state lines from 2003-07 and settled in counties that grew more Republican this year had average incomes of $18,300. The people who moved into counties that became more Democratic in 2008 averaged $28,100 in yearly income. So those who moved to blue counties had incomes more than 50 percent higher than those migrating to the reddest of counties.
And in the "flip" counties, the contrast is even starker. In all of the United States, there were only 44 counties that voted for John Kerry in 2004 but for John McCain in 2008. The average annual per capita income of the people who moved into these counties between the two elections was $16,500. That's 34 percent less than those who migrated into the 331 counties that went for George Bush in '04 but Obama in '08.
People with fewer money-making skills are moving into counties that are voting increasingly Republican. Those with higher incomes (and more education) are moving into counties that are voting more Democratic. The more lopsided the local political victory, the greater the differences in income and education.
This phenomenon held true in cities and rural communities alike. In those urban centers that voted overwhelmingly for John McCain, 23.6 percent of the adult population had at least a bachelor's degree. In urban counties that voted in a landslide for Obama, 33.3 percent had at least a college degree. In rural counties that voted in a landslide for McCain, 15.2 percent of adults had a college degree or better. In rural Obama landslide counties, it was 19.2 percent.
We don't pretend to understand the full meaning of how this country is dividing. We can see, however, that America is becoming more polarized not only politically but also educationally and economically—and that a country Balkanized by skills and by income has more troubles than one that is simply divided by votes.

 

[Joeychgo]

I will agree that Both sides have idiots... plenty of them. But I dont think either side has more then the other, nor do I think it can be really quantified. Blagojevich is clearly one, but his predessor, Ryan, a Republican, is currently in prison. So party affiliation doesnt make much of a difference.

 

[shagdrum]

Any facts to back up your opinion.
This article posits that the opposite is true
Republicans base their views on faith in their principles
and beliefs.
whereas Democrats put more faith in intellect and thus attract more educated voters.

More educated does not mean smarter, and definately does not mean wiser. It only means more well read.
You are very naive if you believe that Democrats don't put their faith in their principles and beliefs as much (if not more so) then Republican's. It is just that their principles and beliefs are different.

And to say that "democrats put more faith in intellect and thus attract more educated voters" is simply spin and speculations asserted as fact.

In fact, that is what most of that article is; spin and speculation along with a few cherry picked facts (that really only have a tangential connection at best) to give it an air of authority. It is, at best, a specious argument.

I would say that democrats put more faith in intellectualism (not actual intellect), and, due to group think and indocrination in schools, attract more educated voters. I could very easily find some facts to support my view if I wanted to as well, but they would be cherry picked and the argument would be based on speculation and more of a specious argument then anything else.

In fact, here is an interesting article (and poll) about how Republicans report much better mental health then democrats and independents.

You might wanna read this article (also from slate) about how these studies can be rigged to make conservatives look stupid. Hint: it has to do with the assumptions you make and what you choose to look for, not to mention presenting the info in a misleading way. Eliminating rational thought and focusing on mostly reflexive responses tends to help as well.

Frankly, this article is elitist, arrogant and offensive to it's core. To try and argue that one side is smarter then the other is absurd, elitist ego stroking and vindictive insulting and marginalization all wrapped up in a seemingly scientific bow. It proves nothing about any of the ideological differences and simply gives liberals a justification to condesend and marginalize conservatives instead of actually debating them. It only hurts any chance for an honest debate.

I have actually personally known some arrogant dicks who would not consider any political, social or economic idea that wasn't radically left because they actually viewed the left (and, by extention, themselves) as smarter, and therefore always right. Not suprisingly all of them were hardcore, agressive athiests, big time elitists and some of the most arrogant, self-absorbed people I have met. In fact one of these @$$holes was so perverse as to actually claim he could make a rational argument for the slaughter of Christians and that it was immoral for Churches to exist at all.

04SCTLS, I would hope, for your sake, that you are not so pathetic and petty a person as to buy into (or feel the need to buy into) this self-serving, elitist crap; that liberals are smarter then conservatives...

 

[fossten]

As usual, lame Democratic talking points thread PWNED by Shagdrum's relentless use of logic and facts.

This sort of talk reminds me of one of my favorite quotes from Army of Darkness:

Good...bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

Next.

 

[04SCTLS]

"I have actually personally known some arrogant dicks who would not consider any political, social or economic idea that wasn't radically left because they actually viewed the left (and, by extention, themselves) as smarter, and therefore always right. Not suprisingly all of them were hardcore, agressive athiests, big time elitists and some of the most arrogant, self-absorbed people I have met. In fact one of these @$$holes was so perverse as to actually claim he could make a rational argument for the slaughter of Christians and that it was immoral for Churches to exist at all.

04SCTLS, I would hope, for your sake, that you are not so pathetic and petty a person as to buy into (or feel the need to buy into) this self-serving, elitist crap; that liberals are smarter then conservatives..."

Just keeping the debate lively here shag.

"Smarter" is a subjective term and an opinion, but richer is pretty cut and dried when refering to money.
A person can be rich moneterily but poor in spirit,family and relationships.
So let's just say that this article concludes that most democrats are more educated and wealthier financially than most conservatives.

If faith is belief beyond reason as I believe you have stated in other posts (correct me if I'm mistaken) then that describes a lot of conservatives accurately.
Support for the colorful but worldly ignorant Sarah Palin for VP and POTUS in 2012 (who couldn't name one newspaper and replied "all of them" when asked what periodicals and newspapers she read) by otherwise intelligent people is an excellent example.
Were 66% of those polled wrong about her as not ready to be VP?
And please don't say she was a media victim.
Her post election turkey pardoning pr fiasco was better than an SNL skit come to life. I couldn't stop laughing watching it.
If she wasn't a charismatic conservative of faith you guys would be tearing her apart as a pinhead.
This faith is probably at the core of greater conservative contentment in this life as after all a better afterlife awaits
and things will be perfect for them when they've passed on.
What they will do in the afterlife, and why is something no religion can answer.

You don't say how successful the arrogant elitists you refer to actually are.
How financially and otherwise successful are they?
Perhaps their arrogant elitism is justified.
I once told a conservative debating adversary that his opinion didn't count until he actually accomplished something real in life.
He, not actually having accomplished anything of consequence and still living at home at age 35, didn't take to kindly to my contention.
Your calling me petty and pathetic after stating you know people who think Christians are lazy minded silly grinning, candle vigiling, anti intellecuals, and want to feed them to the lions is guilt by association and "intellectually dishonest" (a favorite criticism you use often in your retorts) and a "strawman" argument (another favorite of yours)
I am part of the business elite in this country and
make no apologies for my success.

 

[04SCTLS]

"Good...bad...I'm the guy with the gun. Next."

How arrogant and elitist of you.

Who cares about what's right and wrong if you have a gun
or 10.

Might is right!

 

[fossten]

"Good...bad...I'm the guy with the gun. Next."

How arrogant and elitist of you.

Who cares about what's right and wrong if you have a gun
or 10.

Might is right!

Taking this a little personally, aren't you? Go read EXACTLY what I said. You misquoted me, distorted what I said, and put words in my mouth, all in one post. Congrats.

 

[04SCTLS]

Taking this a little personally, aren't you? Go read EXACTLY what I said. You misquoted me, distorted what I said, and put words in my mouth, all in one post. Congrats.

I'm pretty thick skinned.
I was just having some fun
being irreverent here in response to your cheeky quote.
Should have added some emoticons.

 

[fossten]

I'm pretty thick skinned.
I was just having some fun
being irreverent here in response to your cheeky quote.
Should have added some emoticons.

Yeah those usually help.

Fair enough.

Besides, I don't have 10 guns.

Yet.

 

[fossten]

I'd venture to say that the left has far more.....idiots, that is. But then, their voting base, a good number of the people that elect them, are seriously lacking in intelligence.

Any facts to back up your opinion.
This article posits that the opposite is true
Republicans base their views on faith in their principles
and beliefs.
whereas Democrats put more faith in intellect and thus attract more educated voters.

"Stupidity cannot be cured with money, or through education, or by legislation. Stupidity is not a sin, the victim can't help being stupid. But stupidity is the only universal capital crime; the sentence is death, there is no appeal, and execution is carried out automatically and without pity."

-- Robert A. Heinlein
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm1KOBMg1Y8&eurl=http://brighthall.aol.com/2008/11/20/obama-voters-are-stupid-zogby-says/&feature=player_embedded

 

[MediumD]

I will agree that Both sides have idiots... plenty of them. But I dont think either side has more then the other, nor do I think it can be really quantified.

Rarely on a political forum is a more clear fact posted than this...

 

[shagdrum]

"Smarter" is a subjective term and an opinion, but richer is pretty cut and dried when refering to money.
A person can be rich moneterily but poor in spirit,family and relationships.
So let's just say that this article concludes that most democrats are more educated and wealthier financially than most conservatives.

How about we be honest about the article instead, eh? The article said smarter along being "better educated" and wealthier. the specifically said in the subtitle; "Places that went for Obama are richer and smarter than places that went for McCain.".

They were clearly equivocating when they said that in the subtitle, given the rest of the article which focused on being "better educated".

So how about we agree on the truth instead; that the article you posted is dishonest, decietful, elitist BS. I can get behind that.

If faith is belief beyond reason as I believe you have stated in other posts (correct me if I'm mistaken) then that describes a lot of conservatives accurately.

In some aspects in does, but it also describes liberals in certian aspects just as much. To ignore that fact is to be dishonest.

Support for the colorful but worldly ignorant Sarah Palin for VP and POTUS in 2012 (who couldn't name one newspaper and replied "all of them" when asked what periodicals and newspapers she read) by otherwise intelligent people is an excellent example.

Yes, because there is no way that it could have been wise to support Palin. Anyone who supported her had to be acting like a fool and not thinking in that instance. Right?

How about you avoid the loaded statements, and stick to examples that can be agreed on to prove your point; unless you want to take the time to prove your example before proving your point.

Were 66% of those polled wrong about her as not ready to be VP?

Yes. You really wanna open this can of worms?

And please don't say she was a media victim.

So we have to just accept your view, but have to ignore any contradictory claim, even when it is provable and valid?

If she wasn't a charismatic conservative of faith you guys would be tearing her apart as a pinhead.

Not based on those two factors alone. But those do give an indication into her worldview and thus her politics...

This faith is probably at the core of greater conservative contentment in this life as after all a better afterlife awaits
and things will be perfect for them when they've passed on.

Probably, though I think you oversimplify it quite a bit.

You don't say how successful the arrogant elitists you refer to actually are.
How financially and otherwise successful are they?
Perhaps their arrogant elitism is justified.

He has already cheated on his wife (with whom he has two kids) with a friend of mine whom he carried on a long term. That wife who he cheated on was his second wife. He was cheating on his first was with her.

He is in debt up to his eyeballs and is working on his graduate degree at a college in the area. He does own a house and two older cars, but his income right now does not match his increase in debts.

And there is never a justification for elitism.

Your calling me petty and pathetic after stating you know people who think Christians are lazy minded silly grinning, candle vigiling, anti intellecuals, and want to feed them to the lions is guilt by association and "intellectually dishonest" (a favorite criticism you use often in your retorts) and a "strawman" argument (another favorite of yours)

You should read what I wrote and not mischaracterize it to attack me. Here is what I said:

I would hope, for your sake, that you are not so pathetic and petty a person as to buy into (or feel the need to buy into) this self-serving, elitist crap​

I was never calling you petty or pathetic. I was saying I hope you are not a petty and pathetic elitist.

I am part of the business elite in this country and
make no apologies for my success.

Nor should you. But being a part of the elite does not make you an elitist. Elitism is an attitude that arrogantly assumes superiority based solely on membership in a particular group or community. It is a state of mind and a worldview (usually involving the world revolving around you ).

You start pulling that arrogant crap and I will call you on it.

 

[foxpaws]

So, certainly 'elitism' isn't correct in many cases (however I would like our elite pilots manning the space shuttle please, they are rather large investments).

I do believe that at one point, the Republicans, or conservatives, were considered the 'elitists' in this country. The Democrats for a long, long time (and probably still do to some extent) represented the working man - the union guy - the poor (lets not get into the 'shill' aspect right now). The Republicans were viewed as representing the upper class, the wealthy, the 'ivy league' man.

When do you think this changed? I would think that as recently as Reagan the republicans were the party of the privileged class. They represented the Buckleys (very elitist) of the world. Do you think they have changed from just 20 years ago? Are they really the party of Joe the Plumber? Or have the Republicans also seen the 'light' and realize they too have to appeal to a broader base.

Both parties have elitists in them, obviously, but are the Republicans 'toning down' their elitist tendencies to gather a larger voting base? It worked with the Democrats - the party of FDR was pretty elitist, but they knew how to hide it.

Has it taken the Republicans over 80 years to finally catch on? I think so. The party of even 20 years ago would have never embraced the 'working guy' and now they open their arms to him. Sarah Palin, and to some extent Bush43 are perfect examples of this. They would have never risen in the party of Nixon and Reagan - but, now the party sees the need to relate to a wider group of people. They represent almost the 'anti-republican' of the Rockefeller days.

I do believe in this last election it was a case of too little too late for the Republicans though.

 

[cammerfe]

Buckleys---elite, or perhaps even Brahmin, truly, but NOT elitist.
KS

 

[foxpaws]

Buckley always struck me as an elitist. He favored segregation and denial of voting rights on elitist grounds - blacks are not educated enough to vote smartly - more than racist grounds - they are too dumb to vote smartly. He also was a member of the Skull and Bones Society - and that is about as elitist as it comes.

 

[Calabrio]

Buckley always struck me as an elitist. He favored segregation and denial of voting rights on elitist grounds - blacks are not educated enough to vote smartly - more than racist grounds - they are too dumb to vote smartly. He also was a member of the Skull and Bones Society - and that is about as elitist as it comes.

It should be noted, you're making this comment based on something written over fifty years ago in 1957. But I'm fairly confident you're misrepresenting the quote. I don't believe he ever said he supported segregation, his often referenced statement was really just one against mob rule and civility.

I've not heard of one person who knew him or understood his writings to ever call him a racist. When he died, I saw some horribly ugly things written about him in liberal publications though. But, there's no hate like liberal hate, is there.

 

[foxpaws]

It should be noted, you're making this comment based on something written over fifty years ago in 1957. But I'm fairly confident you're misrepresenting the quote. I don't believe he ever said he supported segregation, his often referenced statement was really just one against mob rule and civility.

“Why the South Must Prevail” -William F. Buckley Jr. (yes, from before we were born Cal.... )

"The central question that emerges . . . is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not prevail numerically? The sobering answer is Yes — the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race. It is not easy, and it is unpleasant, to adduce statistics evidencing the cultural superiority of White over Negro: but it is a fact that obtrudes, one that cannot be hidden by ever-so-busy egalitarians and anthropologists."

But, why I thought he was an elitist - was this from in Up From Liberalism - “the problem of the South is not how to get the vote for the Negro, but how to train the Negro — and a great many whites — to cast a thoughtful vote.” In a footnote, he thought that the blacks would vote to abolish segregated schools. He thought that the white men should deny the vote to the 'marginal' black who could tip the balance.

I've not heard of one person who knew him or understood his writings to ever call him a racist. When he died, I saw some horribly ugly things written about him in liberal publications though. But, there's no hate like liberal hate, is there.

The Up From Liberalism quote is a statement of an elitist - because he includes 'a great many whites' in the 'how to train them to cast a thoughtful vote' equation. To think that some 'reason', in Buckley's case - education, makes you more qualified to vote is an elitist ideal. If you don't have the right education - you aren't good enough to vote. Although he was a segregationist - I don't know if he just was really against blacks. He was very much for the ideal of the proper, higher education is the 'best' way to judge a man. I think he saw a black man who graduated from Yale basically no differently than he saw a white man who graduated from Yale - they were both 'superior' because of their education. That is why I have always questioned the 'racist' tag for Buckley - I don't think he really was. You notice I thought he based his ideas in elitist qualifiers, and not racist motives (post #17)

Plus, he had zero taste in music...“The Beatles are not merely awful. They are so unbelievably horrible, so appallingly unmusical, so dogmatically insensitive to the magic of the art, that they qualify as crowned heads of antimusic.” I always attributed that particular quote as a reaction to John Lennon's assertion that the Beatles were more popular than Jesus - nothing got to Buckley faster than dogging religion...

There is no hate like the blind hate of really good music by an icon of the right - is there Cal?

 

[Calabrio]

There is no hate like the blind hate of really good music by an icon of the right - is there Cal?

Or the left... he wasn't the only guy born in the 1920's who wasn't fond of the Liverpool sound.

Let's move this out of the realm of Buckley, because I can't affirmatively speak for him, and comments lacking a half centuries worth of cultural context can be very misleading.

Do you not agree that an education is something a voter should have. Not a formal education, but an understanding and awareness of how government works and the issue of the day? That's a crucial responsibility associated with any form democracy.

 

[foxpaws]

Do you not agree that an education is something a voter should have. Not a formal education, but an understanding and awareness of how government works and the issue of the day? That's a crucial responsibility associated with any form democracy.

It sounds like a great idea on the surface - but, then you start to wonder - who would decide what the tests are (should the be like a citizenship test - but that actually has more to do with historical content, and very little about current day politics)? Who would administer the test - a whole new government agency? Would the agency truly be independent of the current party in power - and how could we be assured of that? Would you be willing to go down every 2 or 4 years to the 'testing location' and take an hour to take this test (in regards to 'issues of the day')? How much would this cost the government? Would you only give the test in English? How about tests for people who couldn't read or write (maybe that is a test - if you can't read and write English - you can't vote)?

I think we are stuck with a rather imperfect, but, better than anything else out there system. Plus, what if someone does fail? Your mother could fail - would you tell her even though she has voted for presidents since Eisenhower, that suddenly she can't vote because she wasn't 'smart' enough to pass a test? Even though the retirement money she gets from SS and her health benefits from Medicare are controlled by the government, she can no longer have a say in that government's process. That wouldn't be very democratic would it?

Let's move this out of the realm of Buckley, because I can't affirmatively speak for him, and comments lacking a half centuries worth of cultural context can be very misleading.

I do think that as Buckley aged he became more lenient on the subject of segregation. I don't think he ever gave up his elitist stand on higher education though. And I do think it odd that it is rather obvious to you that Buckley easily could have changed his mind about his segregation stand. Even though he stated his ideas very clearly and concisely (he did have a way with words). I also believe many people change their mind over time, and should be allowed that. People do grow and change. But, what I find is odd is that you don't allow this sort of leniency regarding people from the left.

 

[Calabrio]

It sounds like a great idea on the surface - but, then you start to wonder - who would decide what the tests are (should the be like a citizenship test - but that actually has more to do with historical content, and very little about current day politics)?

But I never suggested that there should be a test, merely a social responsibility. That the effort and emphasis of a community shouldn't be on voter turn out, but on an understand civics. We don't simply want more people to show up, we want them to be engaged all along.

I do think that as Buckley aged he became more lenient on the subject of segregation.

Let's be very clear here, he was an admirer of Martin Luther King, jr, he even was in favor of the holiday honoring him. He also vigorously DEBATED George Wallace on the subject and clearly stated that he regretted the National Reviews opposition to the Civil rights act of '64.

Buckley was absolutely not a racist, and even liberals who have studied him recognized that even during the 50s, his opinions on race were very "progressive" given the area and culture he was raised in. By the 1960s none of his opinions even could be misconstrued as you have the statements written in 1957... something he wrote at just the age of 22.

It would be a unfair and unfortunate if every thing I wrote or stated when I was 22 was used to smear me 60 years later.

And I do think it odd that it is rather obvious to you that Buckley easily could have changed his mind about his segregation stand. Even though he stated his ideas very clearly and concisely (he did have a way with words). I also believe many people change their mind over time, and should be allowed that. People do grow and change. But, what I find is odd is that you don't allow this sort of leniency regarding people from the left.

It's very simple.
First, I think your misrepresenting what he wrote in he 22 years old in 1957.
Second, it is abundantly clear that his position evolved from that point because there are obvious and abundant examples to demonstrate that. I'm not just saying maybe or I hope or he could have or how do you know he didn't... it's universally recognized that he did. It's reflected in both his writing, his public statements, and his actions. I provided examples in the previous paragraph. There's no speculation here. I know he changed because I can site examples demonstrating so.

I'm critical of people who defend a candidate PRESUMING they changed out based on political expediency and optimism.

 

[foxpaws]

Do you not agree that an education is something a voter should have. Not a formal education, but an understanding and awareness of how government works and the issue of the day? That's a crucial responsibility associated with any form democracy.

So, how do you this? I know what is going on concerning elections - but, others may not be as interested in the political arena as I am - should they not be allowed to vote?

Let's be very clear here, he was an admirer of Martin Luther King, jr, he even was in favor of the holiday honoring him. He also vigorously DEBATED George Wallace on the subject and clearly stated that he regretted the National Reviews opposition to the Civil rights act of '64.

Well, eventually he became an admirer of MLK... he changed his stance on this little subject as well...

William Buckley, 1965:

“I am convinced that Martin Luther King belongs behind bars along with everyone else who conspires to break the law.”

Buckley was absolutely not a racist, and even liberals who have studied him recognized that even during the 50s, his opinions on race were very "progressive" given the area and culture he was raised in. By the 1960s none of his opinions even could be misconstrued as you have the statements written in 1957... something he wrote at just the age of 22.

So, I never said he was a racist (post #19 - "That is why I have always questioned the 'racist' tag for Buckley - I don't think he really was.")- he is an elitist - but not a racist. However as late as 1965 he was still no 'friend' to the blacks of this country. And I would love to see where anyone thought his opinions about blacks in the 50s were 'progressive'.

Second, it is abundantly clear that his position evolved from that point because there are obvious and abundant examples to demonstrate that.

I never said Buckley didn't change - certainly his written opinion and public persona changed over the years - he 'evolved'. But what I find still strange - is that you don't think that people on the left could change over the years, or evolve. That this is apparently something only available to those on the right.

 

[Calabrio]

So, how do you this? I know what is going on concerning elections - but, others may not be as interested in the political arena as I am - should they not be allowed to vote?

There is no way to know and only you have mentioned anything about tests.

The goal of society shouldn't be focused on increased turn out but on increased understanding and involvement BEFORE the election. The social emphasis is in the wrong place right now.

Morons should be permitted to vote, but the goal of the community shouldn't be to just carry them to the polls on a Tuesday morning. Democracy isn't just about getting warm bodies to show up at the polls.

Well, eventually he became an admirer of MLK... he changed his stance on this little subject as well...

As I stated. And you've even now been forced to acknowledge that his positions did change over time and smearing him as a segregationist was, at best, wrong, or worse, dishonest.

And I would love to see where anyone thought his opinions about blacks in the 50s were 'progressive'.

In the atmosphere he grew up, they were. You keep referring to things he said in the 1950s as though they defined him as a man and an intellectual. He was in his early 20s and went on to write, grow, and influence for another 60 years.

But what I find still strange - is that you don't think that people on the left could change over the years, or evolve. That this is apparently something only available to those on the right.

I really tire of having to repeat myself when discussing these things with you. I just answered this charge in the last post. Everyone is capable of changing their positions over time. It is inevitable, but when that happens, you MUST be able to point to something that demonstrates that change. You can't just "assume" someone has changed because it helps your argument.

This isn't an issue of left or right, stop attempting to frame it as such.

 

[foxpaws]

As I stated. And you've even now been forced to acknowledge that his positions did change over time and smearing him as a segregationist was, at best, wrong, or worse, dishonest.

But he WAS a black segregationist - he didn't remain one - but he WAS one in the late 50s and early 60s. I am not being dishonest - there are lots and lots of references to his backing segregation before the civil rights movement.

Speaking of segregation... In a 1986 New York Times OP/ED piece, Buckley proposed that “Everyone detected with AIDS should be tattooed in the upper forearm, to protect common-needle users, and on the buttocks, to prevent the victimization of other homosexuals.”. Somewhat reminiscent of the Holocaust. Segregation doesn't just end with race, it includes religion, sexual preference, many other things.

I really tire of having to repeat myself when discussing these things with you. I just answered this charge in the last post. Everyone is capable of changing their positions over time. It is inevitable, but when that happens, you MUST be able to point to something that demonstrates that change. You can't just "assume" someone has changed because it helps your argument.

This isn't an issue of left or right, stop attempting to frame it as such.

I just wanted to make sure - that you think people can change - and to indicate that they have changed you just need to point to 'something' to indicate 'change'.