[kartaron]

Originally Posted by busdriver01

I don't recall anyone saying william buckley must be losing his mind.

He made it up, I dont remember it either.

The article was a great read though. Refreshing to read something with that much intellectual honesty.

[NoFreeSpeech]

I call work, he was clearly never a liberal and he doesn't seem to grasp the basics of the liberal ideals.

Just a random conservative bashing liberalism.

Also, what's with conservatives always coming up with the lamest, kindergarten-esque names for things they don't like?

referring to myself for years as "a brain-dead liberal," and to NPR as "National Palestinian Radio."

YEAH LOL NATIONAL PALESTINIAN RADIO WOOOOOO

It's just embarrassing.

[DaRuckus337]

He isn't saying that he has 'become' a conservative, he's simply saying that he is no longer a staunch liberal. In other words, he has decided to start thinking for himself, and will no longer mindlessly take part in the foolish causes and reactionary rhetoric of partisan life. He's discussing an epiphany that has led him down a path towards independent thought rather than partisan thought, and those of you who continue to feel the need to label him as a traitor, an old paranoid fool, or a conservative in disguise are completely missing the point.

[MicroFhoneFiend]

Originally Posted by Jin-Roh

Wow. Your binary thinking is so rigid here that you don't even know who you're insulting.

Did you even read who Mamet was criticizing?

My binary thinking? Try reading the thread again so you can see what post I was responding to and therefore what context my comment was in.

Let me try and break it down for you:

1- OP is supposed to show that Liberal has epiphany and changes political stripes.
2- First response, from a Liberal, says, in essence, "he only changed because he's obviously old and senile"
3- Second response, from a Conservative, implied that far from being old and senile and thus discredited- "intelligence comes from experience".

I simply pointed out in a round about way that 3 weeks ago the same people were making the exact OPPOSITE argument.

It's a polemic I identified and laughed at, that's all.

[MicroFhoneFiend]

Originally Posted by busdriver01

I don't recall anyone saying william buckley must be losing his mind.

Yeah, but you're a joke:

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2...l-buckley.html

Saturday, February 25, 2006
Prepare the noose for Bill Buckley, the Cowardly Traitor

An important and long-overlooked point about the depravity, corruption and truly un-American impulses which define so many Bush followers is revealed by a comparison of these two statements:

Howard Dean, December 5, 2005


Saying the "idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong," Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean predicted today that the Democratic Party will come together on a proposal to withdraw National Guard and Reserve troops immediately, and all US forces within two years. . . .

"I've seen this before in my life. This is the same situation we had in Vietnam. Everybody then kept saying, 'just another year, just stay the course, we'll have a victory.' Well, we didn't have a victory, and this policy cost the lives of an additional 25,000 troops because we were too stubborn to recognize what was happening."

William F. Buckley, Jr. in The National Review, yesterday


One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed. . . .

Our mission has failed because Iraqi animosities have proved uncontainable by an invading army of 130,000 Americans. . . . .

[Bush] will certainly face the current development as military leaders are expected to do: They are called upon to acknowledge a tactical setback, but to insist on the survival of strategic policies. Yes, but within their own counsels, different plans have to be made. And the kernel here is the acknowledgment of defeat. . . .

These statements, made within a little over two months of each other, are almost identical. If anything, Buckley's statements are a much more emphatic declaration of defeat.

When Dean stated two months ago that we were not winning in Iraq and could not win, Bush followers trotted out their common but literally deranged rhetoric of accusing anyone who opposes the war in Iraq (or Bush terrorism policies) of being a coward, of committing treason, and being a traitor to their country. Indeed, since 2002, Bush followers have been regularly accusing their political opponents who oppose that war of subversion and treason, even as a majority Americans have come to oppose the war in Iraq.

In light of Buckley’s comments, let’s review some of the reaction among Bush followers to Dean’s identical comments about Iraq just two short months ago:

[busdriver01]

^^^Did I miss the part where conservatives claim Buckley has lost his mind? This is a blog incase you missed that.

[MicroFhoneFiend]

Click on the link and read the whole thing, son.

In anycase, you can see a backlash against Buckley because he basically did what Mamet did.

It's hilarious how libs/conservatives label each if they "change sides".

[busdriver01]

/sigh

[kartaron]

Originally Posted by MicroFhoneFiend

Click on the link and read the whole thing, son.

In anycase, you can see a backlash against Buckley because he basically did what Mamet did.

It's hilarious how libs/conservatives label each if they "change sides".

The only thing hilarious here is your ilegible argument. The blog meanders senselessly until it culminates in a frothing ire over the fact that Buckley wasnt slandered and demeaned due to his comments. The functional opposite of your earlier attempt at a point.

[Revolution]

The real problem with this thread is that people fail to distinguish between "political liberal," and "social liberal." I have no doubt that Mamet retains his socially liberal positions e.g., gay rights, whatever. But he has, somewhat, altered his politically liberal positions, such as whether "big government," as represented, for example, by LB Johnson's "great society," war on poverty, etc. He now seems to favor smaller government. In essence, he has come closer not to being a conservative, but a libertarian.