IMO Buckley continuously fell back on wordplay, digression and semantics to defend (or escape) his stance. He actually backpeddles so hard that he resorts to calling Chomsky out for "start(ing) your line of discussion at a moment that is historically useful for you". I do believe the whole point of a debate is to present your argument and to back it with facts which support that point. If the facts don't match your argument... well...

Its not as if he was able to refute Chomsky's history. His half hearted attempt to one up Chomsky in that line of discussion ended with Buckley backed into a corner with nowhere to. Instead he resorted to attacking Chomsky for having a well researched argument.

Damn those unfortunate facts.


........



Buckley: "there are people who do believe that america... inherited the responsibility for trying to abort international holocaust..."





Who did we inherit this responsibility from, and what crystal ball are we using to determine what will be a supposed "international holocaust"?

Support the troops! Jail the hired mercenaries! Take their salaries and give it to the wounded vets so they can get the care they deserve.

My vote goes to some sort of debris, not necessarily a meteor (but could be) burning up in the atmosphere as it falls to earth.

I respect what you're saying, but if everyone followed this mindset, nothing would change. Sometimes disobeying unjust laws is the only way to get the ball of change rolling when those who make the laws are either out of touch with reality, or continue to live above the laws they create.

"One may well ask: How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others? The answer is found in the fact that there are two types of laws: There are just and there are unjust laws. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with Saint Augustine that An unjust law is no law at all."
-Dr King


In reply to this comment by deedub81:
It's not okay to break a law that you don't agree with. I don't feel sorry for anyone who knowingly breaks the law and has to serve time as a result.

I don't think it's okay to celebrate criminals. If you don't like a law, there are better ways to protest than to ignore them.

amen gorillaman and Fedquip!!!

"One may well ask: How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others? The answer is found in the fact that there are two types of laws: There are just and there are unjust laws. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with Saint Augustine that An unjust law is no law at all."

-Dr. Martin Luther King Jr

Wait... Honkeytonk73 is right!!!

Dont sleep on Scientology either.

I love how people want to classify athiests like they classify their own religious beliefs. First they set up a perceived notion of what they think athiests should be, then they rip them to shreds for not living up to the arbitrary expectation. Quantum, i see a pattern in your posts: You're personal opinion is right, everyone who disagrees is wrong.


Athiests today? Critical thinking mystifies those who would rather let others do the thinking.

Lol @ "liberal hypocrisy"...

hypocrisy doesnt have a political party... it just is.

I know its hard to believe that some people actually care about the nation as a whole (outside of typical knee jerk patriotism), as opposed to solely supporting their political base, but its true. Have fun viewing the world through such narrow ideals.

America! F**K YEAH!!!!

Well perhaps it isnt directly related to the "strength" of the minority groups. Its related to the entire student body as a whole.

I'd like to know why the colleges are wasting so much time enforcing these questionable rules when they could be focusing on the individual incidents where the use of free speech crosses the conventional lines that we all adhere to in the real world (eg. hate speech, inciting a riot, etc). How are we preparing young people to deal with these situations if we're enforcing these uber PC rules that arbitrarily pick and choose what constitutes "acceptable" speech.

Colleges are preepmtively creating issues that should otherwise be dealt with by the students themselves.