Who was in the wrong here?

Who was in the wrong here?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=nYymnxoQnf8
vanityfair.com/news/2001/09/mcveigh200109
twitter.com/AnonBabble

this is really outdated. Buckley was also an idiot according to Chomsky

Chomsky is an idiot according to me

Vidal is such a faggot

This. I don't care who Chomsky thinks is an idiot.

>believing anything Chomsky says

Dude did some good work in linguistics 50 years ago. Flash in the pan turned reddit superhero.

Buckley just wanted to debate the issues and politics, Vidal was there to aim below the belt and get personal, which led to Buckley losing his cool because the faggot kept baiting him instead of sticking to the issues.

Nah he's cool. He changed a lot of the fundamental ways I look at politics. Still far right though.

Pretty much.

Mao and Pot were good though. They put arrogant pompus stuck up faggy bourgeois college professors in their place on the farms. We could use that in america.

t. cleetus

>writes a book about how homosexuality is completely natural and normal
>it ends with the fag raping and murdering his friend

What did Gore Vidal mean by this?

Pretty ironic considering what a big deal he made of his opposition to Lenin & Stalin regime, which supposedly proved his deep allegiance to the humanistic version of socialism and not just blind Marxist partisanship.

t. pajama boy

I don't even know who these 2 guys are

t. embryo

I'm 36

36 months?

Apparently one is a worthless fag and other is an accomplished writer Gore Vidal.

Don't forget a professional larper with his pretend British accent.

youtube.com/watch?v=nYymnxoQnf8
buckley did nothing wrong

One of the best pieces of journalism you'll read
>Gore Vidal's remarkable defense of Timothy McVeigh and the OKC bombing in 2001
vanityfair.com/news/2001/09/mcveigh200109

Shocking this was printed by Graydon Carter.

I always find criticisms like this incredibly stupid. If you've ever read any of Chomsky's books he never once endorsed any of those people. His points are about American hypocrisy towards how we view crimes of enemies versus our own serious breaches of international law.

The whole "support of the Khmer Rouge" meme was started when he just pointed out that the author of a book on Khmer Rouge atrocities had combined the numbers for Cambodian casualties from American bombings in the late 1960s (1.2 million) and those killed under Pol Pot's regime (around 800,000 by estimates at that time, which intelligence reports and studies by IndoChina experts confirmed) to get 2 million deaths. The author then conceded he made a simple error, then later reneged when the media, as it does, turned the story into Chomsky denying Khmer Rouge atrocities when he and Edward Herman had already written about them and said the worst expectations of the regime may very well be true. Chomsky's also written a lot about terrorist campaigns carried out in Cuba by the CIA and Cuban exiles and used that to poke at how things like poisoning crops and bombing factories fit our operative definitions of "terrorism" but aren't considered as such because we do them. It wasn't supposed to be offered as a defense of Castro or saying that Cuba's economy was weak because of terrorism, people just tend to think any criticism of the U.S's actions against a country is biased in favor of the country's government if you don't give a history of the actions of the government. Plus he even wrote about hunger in the '80s "approaching what it was in Cuba even" or something to that effect. He never supported any authoritarian regime if you've actually read what he writes

>I asked about his last hours. He had been searching for a movie on television and all he could find was Fargo, for which he was in no mood.

lol /ourguy/ confirmed

Yes.

Vidal was too much of a smug dick, but Buckley was a bit too uptight, though almost completely correct. I loved Caligula however, so even that undeserved smug face gets points for being pretty cool when I don't have to look at or listen to him. Good pair.