That's how many New Yorkers talked that were born back in the day - the accent is somewhat similar to an English accent. My grandparents talk that way - even though some of their friends have the nasally long island accent and others have the New York/New Jersey accent.
Likewise! I appreciate your willingness to engage in thoughtful discussion on such personal issues. And your acknowledgment of the Catholic Church's contributions to Christendom is gracious and appreciated. I have met several Mormons who, while standing their ground doctrinally, have engaged me in polite discourse, and I appreciate that, too. Many missionaries take a dismissive approach to controversy, but, in my experience, Mormon missionaries have been willing to engage in dialogue.
When I was younger I spoke with Mr Buckley. He spoke 5 languages. I speak 10 and he was a riot. He also has a command of English that few in the United States can begin to touch. It is simply that this man is immensely cerebral above the average person and it requires intellect to really understand the gist of what he elaborates about.
There's no inherent hypocrisy in keeping cigarettes legal. We just need to let the children understand the dangers of smoking. But it's a free country and if I want to smoke, that's my right. If I want to drink, I'm allowed to do so. In fact, we should extend this mentality to illegal "evil" drugs as well. Use does not equal abuse. That must be understood. Societies that explain to their progeny that there are certain circumstances under which consumption is OK have lower abuse rates than others
thanks so much for that info, i ve always been fascinated by buckleys manner of speaking. I dont agree with everything he supports though I greatly admire his intelligence and astute polemic expertise, cheers
In my estimation, William F. Buckley was the last great nationally known Conservative. Perhaps we'll see his equal some day. At present we'll have to settle for some good Conservatives. Anyone can insert their own list...
Thomas Sowell, although he's more eco-cultural than conservative. If you go policy by policy, Shapiro is the closest to Buckley, outside that he does not carry the same intelectual candor.
@@RealBonnieBlue Shapiro is far from a hack. A hack follows the party line without divergence. He’s one of the few people on the right to criticize Donald trump when he when criticism was necessary. Sean hannity now he’s a hack
I read your argument (if you can call it that) as a critique of my entire opinion of Buckley based on an eight word emotive response I had written. Since my brief comment was insubstantial, for some reason you assumed I had no substantial critique of the man, which is presumptuous, among other things. I've actually been exposed to much of his writing and broadcasts; and if you'd like to enter into an email correspondence to discuss his substantive flaws as a commentator, I'd be happy to oblige.
I was being sarcastic. I said what I said because there are people who do feel that way about individuals. I am a college student, and I have heard from others who feel that way. That is why I took you as being serious.
does anyone remember the opening commercial parody about buying marijuana. A guy in a suit walking through the park is approached by a guy selling weed. I would love to see that skit again
yeap, i have been to his Wikipedia article too. Received Pronunciation with a touch of upper class English accent & lingo. It was indeed popular in the past, nevertheless it is still in use by BBC. English isn't my mother language and I quite pursue this accent as a standard. People have a hard time trying to guess where is my accent from. Buckley's speech makes him often sound snob but that's not inherent to Midatlantic accent, although there are aristocratic roots in both accent and person.
I didn't say I need to drink alcohol, nor that I needed to feel better (Straw Men again). I said, in response to you, that the pleasure afforded by alcohol in moderation is not sinful (as opposed to over-indulgence which involves drunkenness). However, Scripture itself indicates that moderate consumption of wine (for example) can be beneficial, as St. Paul counseled St. Timothy (I Tim. 4:23).
That was WFB's verbal jousting. He didn'y say it in so many words, but it was deffinately a slap in Jackson's face. A well-deserved one at that. And no, I'm not comparing him to syphilus myself.;)
I don't think he was born in Mexico, but he lived there as a child and then again as a university student. Apparently he was also raised by Spanish speaking nannies, so Spanish was indeed is first language.
You think he compared Jesse Jackson to syphilus? He's making the point that what is legal is not necessarily good. There are plenty of things that are legal that are 'not honorable.' He first used the very serious example of syphilus and then followed up with a playful and witty example about voting for Jesse Jackson.
Having said that, I would encourage you to look closely at history prior to the Nineteenth Century. For example, read the Apostolic Fathers, such as Sts. Ignatius of Antioch and Clement of Rome. None of the Early Christians believed or taught any doctrines that distinguish Mormonism. Moreover, the Early Fathers were Catholic, professing and teaching Catholic doctrine. With the centuries, as the Church combated heresies, the doctrine developed--i.e., became more precisely defined.
My friend, I hate to tell you this, but getting rid of an income tax that subsidizes war, getting rid of welfare, and backing the economy with something of real value IS a free market!
BTW: "...besides getting drunk off it" is a Straw Man: I myself said earlier that abuse of alcohol is different from its proper use. One need not become inebriated to drink alcohol. The Catholic Church acknowledges the sinfulness of drunkenness (as does Scripture itself). I was not advocating drunkenness--nor defending it. Physical pleasure is not intrinsically evil, either. The pleasure of alcohol in moderation is permissible (as attested by Scripture itself).
I'm not defending the use of cannabis. (The subject of smoking is really a Red Herring in the discussion of the moral propriety of alcoholic beverages.) However, I disagree with your assertion that one cannot smoke tobacco with thanksgiving. One of the greatest Christian apologists of the 20th Century, G. K. Chesterton, was fond of drawing a cross in the air with his match as he lit his cigar. C. S. Lewis was quite fond of his pipe. It begs the question to say one cannot be thankful for such.
The gold standard provides an excellent external balance of trade, but a poor internal one. Money supply is difficult to control. Indeed, during the Great Depression, countries with a firm gold standard suffered worse than countries without it. Ron Paul is a doctor, not an economist. He doesn't have the mathematics required to make solid economic cases. Most economists do not believe in an unrestricted free market.
Actually, his parents spoke Spanish as well as French, and wanted him to speak the three languages (including English, obviously) so when they lived in Mexico, they would speak to him in all three languanges, but he first learned Spanish because he sould speak in Spanish most of the time. And yeah, i think he was born in Texas or New York.
Have a listen to some of FDR's old speaches. A certain portion of the population of America has a similar accent, and it is not necessarily an affectation. Still that doesn't mean you have to like the man.
You were arguing before I replied to you! "Alcohol is not good. I'de say one of the most destructive objects created. It's best to just not do it." That's an argument! I simply disputed your argument. That in itself is not a sin, as the Apostles engaged in such arguments themselves. If arguments were sinful per se, evangelism and defense of the Faith would be practically impossible. It doesn't become sinful when one can't refute one's opponent's retorts!
It probably would save more lives if we punished "fat people".. and bakeries/restaurants that serve them.. (NO MORE ALL YOU CAN EAT!) Then punishing druggies and drug sellers.. BUT we as americans, would HATE if the government enforced that one :P
@brian8793 Alcohol in moderation (again, the crux of the matter) can be healthful. I'm no expert on physiology, but I understand moderate alcohol consumption lowers hypertension and otherwise benefits one's heart. Where smoking is concerned: I believe the matter is a bit more complicated. I don't doubt that it is generally addictive and, hence, at least potentially a health hazard. And for many, alcohol is, too. (IncidentalIy, I offer my condolences to you on your Grandfather's passing.)
I was not ambivalent per your feelings regarding alcohol. However, feelings do not define reality; rather our feelings are subordinate to reality (see Jer. 17:9). Thanks!
@satv365 I believe that most things, whether drugs or fast food should be left up to the judgment of an individual, however, something like crack has no positive manifestations in our society. Crack is more poison than drug, and legalizing it would be equatable to legalizing suicide or the consumption of sodium hydroxide. It could be argued that cocaine should be legalized, but crack is a derivative of cocaine with more household chemicals than plant-based narcotics contained in it.
@brian8793 The abuse of alcohol is not good. It does not follow that alcohol is intrinsically evil. "Abusus non tollit usum," runs the Latin adage; i.e., (paraphrastically), The abuse of a thing does not negate its proper use.
As placid as he may look he is a furious debater who provokes and proves points no matter what digressions the deed takes. otherwise he would prefer logical assertions to sarcastic analogies as rhetoric ammo. it's well known what always fed him: military, secret service and lobby agenda setting. One ought to be cynical to go these ways. Although I quite enjoy Buckley's velvet english accent, aside the lack of sense in his speech sometimes, his confident behavior makes him sound very convincing.
hahahah i love buckley, he just destroyed jesse jackson and its clear he wasnt even paying attention because if he understood he prob would have reacted to buckley! genius
first off no, second, thats the last time i comment on one of these political videos they always make everyone sound like jerks even though we're all probably very nice people.
"...and he who rejects you rejects Me; and he who rejects Me rejects Him Who sent Me" (Lk. 10:16). The Apostles entrusted Christ's teachings to other men, who in turn entrusted it to others (cf. II Tim. 2:2). Later, some of these teachings we written and, much later, compiled into the Bible. But the Bible itself attests that the Church that Christ founded--which goes back to the First Century--is the "pillar and ground of Truth" (I Tim. 3:15; cf. Eph. 3:10-11).
@brian8793 The difficulty is that your "Church" is approximately 19 centuries too recent to qualify; however, I appreciate your extending the invitation. You're quite welcome to investigate the Church that began with Christ Himself, against which the gates of Hell have still not prevailed (as He promised). See Mt. 16:17-19. It is still the Universal Church ("katholikos" is Greek for "universal").
@brian8793 Who knows? God knows! "Thou dost cause the grass to grow for the cattle, and plants for man to cultivate, that he may bring forth food from the earth, and wine to gladden the heart of man..." (Ps. 104:14-15).
making no one correct. And do you think that someone with the authority to make a value inculcation is somehow not showing his own opinion? To dismiss William F. Buckley for having only a set of "opinions" is tantamount to dismissing anyone who has a set of opinion he chooses to advance. Thanks on the Metallica compliment/
@MasterEled All 'drugs' are poison, and all poisons are 'drugs' - it's the dosage that matters (and to a lesser extent, the route of administration). For instance, alcohol is poison - it would not be recommendable to inject oneself with pure alcohol but when one consumes it orally in greatly-diluted form then it's a much different issue. Same with Vitamin A - high quantites of it can be lethal but in small quantities it is vital. Likewise, cocaine - research the coca leaf.
@acphenom I think you are the one who needs to research this, cocaine and crack are not the same thing, the cocaine is a constant but in practise, in theory, and in general the two are dissimilar in every way other than the constancy of "cocaine" being contained within them. A fork can be used to stab and kill someone but that is not a reason to hand out free, unregistered guns to everyone in the United States. The ends do not justify the means and it is absurd to compare crack to Vitamin-A.
Wow, I didn't realize that Jesse Jackson has always been a joke. I figured at some point he might have been reputable, guess not. Smoke weed! Do it! Do it! Peer pressure goddamnit!
I agree wholeheartedly (little joke). The trouble is precisely that since the 16th Century, beginning at least with Martin Luther and his fellows, every Tom, Dick and Harry (and Brian) picks up the Bible and presumes to interpret it himself, while professing to trust the Holy Spirit for guidance. Ironically, the Bible itself warns against such a dangerously presumptuous approach (cf. II Pt. 1:20-21, 3:15-17, e.g.). Christ told His Apostles, He who hears you hears Me...
Further, the Apostle prophesied that some who will "depart from the Faith..will enjoin abstinence from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth" (I Tim. 4:1-3). I have already shown wine to be among those goods which God Himself has intended to gladden the heart of man. You argued that that is anachronistic--somehow inapplicable to the present. In so doing, you have exceeded the Biblical purview.
Both Jackson and Sharpton are charlatans, but we can stand Sharpton more in the long run, because he's is playful, and with a sidling nod & wink "he knows that we know". Sharpton has evolved to meet a particular public consumption for the ridiculous, almost consciously. Whereas Jackson, perhaps not so consciously (but equally ridiculously), still thinks he's the incarnation of MLK. There is an element of sincerity in both of them, but in the end they're just a couple of role playing hams.
@VanDoodah Christianity never claimed that men were angels--quite the contrary, the christian believe that only Christ can save us from the virulent effect of our own wickedness. I've read the Bible--all of it. It's a big book & there's a lot of stuff in it--good & bad,but the core of it says that God values all of us equally & it is this equality which is the core of christian tolerance. And, by the way, the Crusades was a legitimate reaction to centuries of islamic imperialism.
@WhenLilacsLast All Obama has on his side is excellent coaching by experts in public relations and mass communications, acting lessons and a mastery of behavioral psychology
The Sacrament of Matrimony was instituted by Christ Himself--and as such has been safeguarded and promoted by the Catholic Church since its inception 2000 years ago. You omit any reference to St. Paul---to whom Christ Himself appeared and spoke---who said, "It is well for a man not to touch a woman...To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry..." (I Cor. 7:1, 8-9a).
@brian8793 No one is coerced to be celibate in the Catholic Church. A man assumes the permanent diaconate or priesthood, or a woman becomes a nun, autonomously. This, incidentally, is a matter of ecclesiastical discipline---not of doctrine. Moreover, Christ Himself said that some are given the charism to be eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of God (cf. Mt. 19:10-12, Is. 56:3-5). Joseph Smith certainly erred grievously to say something so antithetical to the teaching of Christ as that!
"...everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving" (I Tim. 4:4). Christ's first miracle was to turn water into wine, which "manifested His glory" (Jn. 2:1-11). See also Deut. 14:23-26; Ps. 104:15; Prov. 31:6-7. It's a pity that your supposed prophet contradicted Divine Revelation as attested by both Old and New Testaments.
@NotoriousPimp24 Is that what he went to school fer, that college boy? See, I thought it was civil rights law and economics. If you remove the rhetoric and self-satisfaction with which Buckley delivers his points, all you have him doing is playing on prejudice. Also, kinda blows my mind that a party base which holds such vitriol for 'the snob' can worship such an archetypically snobbish human being as Buckley.
One may as well say that God doesn't make babies---they're made in bedrooms! God created grapes, including their fermentative properties. Many other created goods possess such fermentative properties as well. You might be interested to delineate Aristotle's distinctions among various causes: viz.: material; formal; efficient; and final.
@brian8793 Now you're proposing non sequiturs. To remind you: The Bible itself attests that alcohol can be consumed legitimately and temperately. Conversely, there is no legitimate, temperate purpose for any of the drugs to which you refer. (This is the essence of the non sequitur.) It is ironic that you accuse me of construing Divine Law as conditional, considering your assertion that what God has permitted historically (as attested in both Testaments) He no longer permits.
"Anybody who denies that is ignorrant." Excuse me sir, but I hardly find you to be an authority on knowledge, judging from that comment (let alone the fact that you believe in supernaturalism).
@VanDoodah The Bible supports racism? Do you mean the Christian Bible as a complete document? if i were you, i would concentrate on actually acquiring a comprehensive knowledge of scriptural Christianity (as opposed to a "Pop knowledge") and less time inveighing against it.
@zetetic0void And what would be the benefit of promoting the use of these substances? Pleasure? There we have it. It then is reduced to a matter of who is more likely to achieve that state of pleasure. The manipulative capitalist who wants his labor, or the worker who wants his drug stupor. It boils down to power. End of story. People are not necessarily equal. Oh well.
I only have one problem with that: it would eliminate all inquiry and debate among people without the education, background, or "authority" as you call it. I even disagree with Buckley himself on this issue (an issue he seems to catch himself in a contradiction every now and then.) At moments he will insist to inquire on other people's authority and a subject, assuming he is one himself. Also, who has the authority in a moral dilemma? Unless you believe in God all moral-ism is relative making
It may be the individuals right to smoke, but it costs the country countless dollars in health care and other expenses arrising from Smoking related illnesses.
