Brilliant men.Both of them.They hated eachother of course but note how Buckley keeps using words like "feline" to insinuate about Vidal.This is curious because of the two he is by far the most camp.Needless to say,no one today can touch them and if anyone could our media would not let them on the air anyway.As Vidal liked to say:"That would give the game away"
I'm happy to agree with the majority of your statement, with the slight exception in regard to the first paragraph, as Hitchens didn't find out until he was past forty years of age that he was in fact part Jewish.
His use of the word feline was more contextual to his relationship with Vidal's statement than it was a proclamation of his character. Just a subtle observation of mine. -.-
@@Burtifly Untrue. The program was called _The Firing Line_ for a reason. It had to be the very point of it to have Buckley probe very deep into the convictions of his guests. Chomsky did not destroy him; not remotely.
He was born in the 1920s and he was from a wealthy family. This used to actually be the standard American accent, hence if you watch films from the 1930s-1950s, you'll see people talked that way. That said...Vidal was absolutely exaggerating his accent on purpose in these debates. While he was eloquent and had a refined way of speaking, He never sounded this "posh" and pretentious in anything outside these debates with Buckley. I think they both wanted to sound as snide as possible because they hated each other.
It's all good. You're obviously an intelligent guy. I just think you should think for yourself rather than copying the thoughts of others. Take the risk of thinking for yourself. Much more happiness, truth, beauty and wisdom will come to you that way. ;)
I think their lawsuits and countersuits in the years and decades that followed this series of debates were petty and childish. It's a shame they didn't meet up for other debates over the years, even as they detested each other, for the good of public discourse and entertainment value. But whatever, they're both dead. (As is Said, Hitchens, and Cockburn. Chomsky is the last man standing.)
"The sublime self assurance of the hopelessly uninformed" I believe your fourth or fifth ad-hominem attack. "It surely isn't people like me holding open the gates of our cities.That would be you,wouldn't it?" No, you've stated clearly you advocate surrender, withdrawal and isolationism.
3. It's also worth noting you didn't even attempt to counter the factual-assertions I made in any of my previous postings. 4. Your post was generally incredibly fatuous and inane; even if what you say is true, that doesn't mean I was any less right/correct.
"Pots and kettles.Are you sure you know what "ad-hominem" means?Doesn't sound like it." I stand by my original assertion you haven't the faintest idea of what ad-hominem is. "As for Afghanistan and all the other thirdworld shitholes,I suggest we accept our limitations.Not all things are possible." The classic libertarian/isolationist mentality- because we can't do everything, we should do nothing, we should just abandon our human solidarity and in a cowardly manner ignore their plight.
"Why would I ask if you're influenced by Hitchens when it's obvious to anyone whose read him, myself included, that you're just mimicking him?" You're starting to flail, because you're simply (and ironically) just regurgitating the same point over and over, but in slightly different language.
"Take Hitch's hand from out your arse and argue in your own words." Ignoring the ad-hominem vulgarity, had you the enquiring mind, you could've asked and I'd have disclosed to being heavily influenced by Hitchens. I think I can assert quite confidently that that doesn't convict me of anything insanitary, or unsavoury.
1. Actually, I'm generally left-leaning, but have no party affiliation. which is the reason I support(ed) the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, the Iraqi corresponding party of the Socialist International, and it's struggle to freedom. 2. You're so "sorry" for the plight of Afghan women you're willing (1) to do nothing to help them (2) in a cowardly manner? And you think I'M the cold-hearted one? 3. I never claimed you were on the left, I labelled you a pseudo-leftist, a fraud, fake and phoney.
1. You'd have much credibility if you refrained entirely for explicitly ad-hominem attack(s) 2. You use the usual tact of (1) assuming positions I don't necessarily take, and (2) using said positions to construct a straw-man argument. 3.I think you'll find that BOTH left and right governments were in power across the global in 2008 when the banking collapse hit. 4. I'm flattered you would elevate me to such lofty heights, but the financial collapse isn't my fault in the slightest.
Why would I ask if you're influenced by Hitchens when it's obvious to anyone whose read him, myself included, that you're just mimicking him? Imitation may be the sincerest form of flattery but you do a great disservice to yourself by plagiarising his words. If you did this in public, in front of a learned audience familiar with his work, you'd be laughed offstage.
"We know that your tendency is to be feline, but just relax for a moment"
@iggy3339: Bad Buckley analogy. Cats are naturally relaxed.
"Contrarian" is just a euphemism for "troll".
OMG. I love listening to these two attack each other. :)
“Howwww to dealll with Vidalll.....”
These two are something else. From what I've seen of these two debating Gore Vidal has held more correct views.
That. Was. Awesome.
Vidal killed it!
they sure did know how to get attention - loves them both ! !
S Poulin Two master verbal jousters, and primo- pyrannas(sic).
Brilliant men.Both of them.They hated eachother of course but note how Buckley keeps using words like "feline" to insinuate about Vidal.This is curious because of the two he is by far the most camp.Needless to say,no one today can touch them and if anyone could our media would not let them on the air anyway.As Vidal liked to say:"That would give the game away"
jhassett2 See David Frye doing Buckley.
The top of Buckley's head seems to be missing, like the top has been cut off and a toupee covers the gaping hole. Weird.
@Studentofgosset: The top of Buckley's head seems to be missing? "In more than one sense!"
No two people loved to hate each other more than these.
Great snippet. Do oyou have more?
....in your little magazine whose name will not pass my lips. lol
Justin Howard Trump's q cards are smaller.
I take that as an admission of defeat on the point of fact.
I'm happy to agree with the majority of your statement, with the slight exception in regard to the first paragraph, as Hitchens didn't find out until he was past forty years of age that he was in fact part Jewish.
What SNOBS! PAH!
His use of the word feline was more contextual to his relationship with Vidal's statement than it was a proclamation of his character. Just a subtle observation of mine. -.-
I don't entirely agree, though undoubtedly he had streaks of what you mention. He made some good contributions.
Never saw Buckley get his butt kicked before...WOW!!!
8 years late, but if you want to see it again watch him and Chomsky.
@@Burtifly Untrue. The program was called _The Firing Line_ for a reason. It had to be the very point of it to have Buckley probe very deep into the convictions of his guests. Chomsky did not destroy him; not remotely.
Not in this segment, no.
@@SamvedIyer I don't agree. It's a debate and discussion.
What's with Vidal's fake English accent?
He pronounces his words more correctly than the average American so he sounds less American as a result.
What's with Buckley's fake English accent?
He attended a university in England and speaks with a transatlantic accent.
turntapzap It's not effete but the accent of the defunct upper class in America mimicking what they take to be British upper class speech.
He was born in the 1920s and he was from a wealthy family. This used to actually be the standard American accent, hence if you watch films from the 1930s-1950s, you'll see people talked that way. That said...Vidal was absolutely exaggerating his accent on purpose in these debates. While he was eloquent and had a refined way of speaking, He never sounded this "posh" and pretentious in anything outside these debates with Buckley. I think they both wanted to sound as snide as possible because they hated each other.
It's all good. You're obviously an intelligent guy. I just think you should think for yourself rather than copying the thoughts of others. Take the risk of thinking for yourself. Much more happiness, truth, beauty and wisdom will come to you that way. ;)
I think their lawsuits and countersuits in the years and decades that followed this series of debates were petty and childish. It's a shame they didn't meet up for other debates over the years, even as they detested each other, for the good of public discourse and entertainment value. But whatever, they're both dead. (As is Said, Hitchens, and Cockburn. Chomsky is the last man standing.)
Eric It was Rochefoucald who said we detest in others what we hate most in ourselves. In plain terms it takes one to know one.
Neurosis
These shots are framed so horribly. What was going on with cameraperson?
"The sublime self assurance of the hopelessly uninformed"
I believe your fourth or fifth ad-hominem attack.
"It surely isn't people like me holding open the gates of our cities.That would be you,wouldn't it?"
No, you've stated clearly you advocate surrender, withdrawal and isolationism.
Isolationism is scary, war is peace
They're tones are both insufferable but personally I think buckley's is worse
Derek Contrast their jousts with the word salads and canned speeches of 2020's political "leaders".
Nothing compares these days, though Buckley was an idiot.
3. It's also worth noting you didn't even attempt to counter the factual-assertions I made in any of my previous postings.
4. Your post was generally incredibly fatuous and inane; even if what you say is true, that doesn't mean I was any less right/correct.
"Pots and kettles.Are you sure you know what "ad-hominem" means?Doesn't sound like it."
I stand by my original assertion you haven't the faintest idea of what ad-hominem is.
"As for Afghanistan and all the other thirdworld shitholes,I suggest we accept our limitations.Not all things are possible."
The classic libertarian/isolationist mentality- because we can't do everything, we should do nothing, we should just abandon our human solidarity and in a cowardly manner ignore their plight.
"Why would I ask if you're influenced by Hitchens when it's obvious to anyone whose read him, myself included, that you're just mimicking him?"
You're starting to flail, because you're simply (and ironically) just regurgitating the same point over and over, but in slightly different language.
"Take Hitch's hand from out your arse and argue in your own words."
Ignoring the ad-hominem vulgarity, had you the enquiring mind, you could've asked and I'd have disclosed to being heavily influenced by Hitchens. I think I can assert quite confidently that that doesn't convict me of anything insanitary, or unsavoury.
Neurotic
+juan curiel Great comment, well thought out.
1. Actually, I'm generally left-leaning, but have no party affiliation. which is the reason I support(ed) the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, the Iraqi corresponding party of the Socialist International, and it's struggle to freedom.
2. You're so "sorry" for the plight of Afghan women you're willing (1) to do nothing to help them (2) in a cowardly manner? And you think I'M the cold-hearted one?
3. I never claimed you were on the left, I labelled you a pseudo-leftist, a fraud, fake and phoney.
1. You'd have much credibility if you refrained entirely for explicitly ad-hominem attack(s)
2. You use the usual tact of (1) assuming positions I don't necessarily take, and (2) using said positions to construct a straw-man argument.
3.I think you'll find that BOTH left and right governments were in power across the global in 2008 when the banking collapse hit.
4. I'm flattered you would elevate me to such lofty heights, but the financial collapse isn't my fault in the slightest.
Why would I ask if you're influenced by Hitchens when it's obvious to anyone whose read him, myself included, that you're just mimicking him? Imitation may be the sincerest form of flattery but you do a great disservice to yourself by plagiarising his words. If you did this in public, in front of a learned audience familiar with his work, you'd be laughed offstage.