When was that?

I was in East Timor Action Coalition. It was a nice thing to do for the world.

He may have been a pompous ass, but at least he had the courtesy to debate liberal intellectuals in a fairly courteous manner. Compared to the televised debates you get from most leading conservatives these days, who'd be more likely to scream, cut off your mic and call their opponent a liberal as if it were a slur, I think he's a dramatic improvement.

Of course I would hardly call most conservative commentators these days intellectuals, but there is a reason he died severely disappointed and disillusioned with what conservatism has been turned into. And that is enough evidence that he is a far better example of a conservative than you want to give him credit for. Sean Hannity he is not.

It's a lot better than the last six years of absolute power which is "Freedom for some, except THEM, and CHRIST, and TAX CUTS FOR US, except THEM, and AMERICA."

That is sort of hard to explain if you knew republicans before G.W. Bush. They are garbage now. Complete shit. I hate them.

Senator, your distaste for any sort of nationalism or morality based on God or culture disgusts me. Move to Belgium.

Baleen, your distaste for economics and rightful personal ownership disgusts me. Move to Zimbabwe.

It would be nice if your party actually represented anything you were talking about. You fail. Move to some other website.

Oh Billy, why don't you understand that nationalism and religion was created by the ruling class to help justify why one group of humans should slaughter another group. Move to 19th Century England.

I think it's time Mr. Buttsex (Larry Craig intern?) is shown the door.

I've always suspected that nationalism (especially romantic nationalism) got its big start during the French Revolution's various excesses. Who knows, though.

I actually always kind of respected Buckley despite this sort of bull shit because it's pretty clear that, despite his ridiculous mannerisms and "AMERICA HELL YEAH" slant, he IS an idealist who really DOES want to do good for the rest of the world. For instance, it's never been the Objectivists you had to watch out for--most of them are irredeemable assholes, but they're so idealistic that they're never going to start trouble. It's the people who these mindsets enable--the opportunistic assholes of capitalism--who you've got to watch out for.

Er, meant that to be a comment on its own.

And modern liberalism boils down to some guy saying "SELF INTEREST! 'NAM!"

Granted, Chomsky hardly counts as the high circle of liberalism, but you get the point. All I'm seeing is some smarmy git saying "Hurp de durp, yay for us" and another saying "Durp de doo, communism isn't THAT bad". Can't we just agree that both of them should be shot and leave it at that?

To everyone except EvilHomer: nationalism and a sense of "we" is what keeps us striving in unison to accomplish the most grandiose of achievements, and the glue that keeps us united and gives us a sense of community. Don't be full of shit. It's as if you really believe the UN and the EU are gonna work out perfectly, because people feel like they really belong in servitude to a government that's created from the top down and dictates multiculture instead of the other way around (with the united peoples dictating the government from the ground up), and doesn't allow them any sort of cultural identity.

'Murica, brothers. Make fun of me for it, I don't care. I love this country, and my allegiance will belong to it until the day I die.

International politics stopped being a zero-sum game after World War II. I don't care what arbitrary cultural block you fit yourself in; we cannot survive as a species unless we work together. Our existence should not be a third-grade recess race between shirts and skins.

The EU and UN are just one higher level of government than we have now. Despising the UN for taking away your "culture" is like despising the Federal government for taking away your state's "culture" or despising your state for taking away your county's "culture" and etc. I really don't understand why people can only strive for something when it's backed by their nation. Why is striving for the good of all mankind unacceptable but striving for the good of the people living in a geographic area defined long before you were born acceptable?

Hippo- what exactly do you mean by "international politics stopped being a zero-sum game after World War II." In what sense? What are we using to quantify the "sum", and why have things changed after WW2?

Senator- two points. First, I agree with you in spirit. Yes, the world COULD do with a "higher" level of government, a world-state that governs and polices nation-states, and if your nation's culture or national identity happens to get it's ass kicked by the International Ruling Body, then tough luck. I really don't understand why people can only strive for something when it's backed by their nation, either! Imperialism is a great system, and the sooner we get to the point where all the nations of the earth must stop their whining and bow before a single victorious ruling body, the better.

But that isn't the UN, and it can't be the UN, because the UN isn't equipped to act as a "government". For one thing, the UN lacks a way to properly enforce it's policies and agendas: The US Federal Government has real power over the States, because it can force the States to comply with what it says. Conversely, the Holy Roman Emperor had little to no real power over the Empire, as all the member kingdoms, principalities, and city-states were too autonomous to control. Second, the UN is hardly a "fair" model from which to build a world government- far too much power is concentrated in the hands of the Security Council's Big Five. This is great for those of us who happen to have won WW2, but not so great for the rest of the world- the UN might seem like a wonderful thing for idealists, but can you really justify arbitrarily giving so much power to five of the most warmongering nations the world has ever known?

Why is striving for the good of all mankind unacceptable but striving for the good of the people living in a geographic area defined long before you were born acceptable? You're asking the wrong question. We're all striving for the good of mankind. Some think that better world would be brought about by a single military-political power to keep the peace and squash dissent. Others think it would be brought about by permanent international revolution, by keeping all nations sovereign and free from foreign interference, or by simply doing away with society altogether and returning to isolated agrarian anarcho-tribalism. The trick is in figuring out, first, whose welfare the individual should care about and why, second, what exactly is "good" for those whose welfare we should be concerned with, and third, how to best go about bringing this goodness to the poor sods who lack it.

Evilhomer--the creation of the modern industrialized nation (this happened way before WW2, but it particularly crystalized during and after), the jumpstart of globalization (we have WW2 to thank in large part for the infastructure and transportation technology that made it possible), and the nuke.

After WW2, the world underwent radical change. Countries found out that their existence could hinge on what people a thousand miles away were doing.

If North Korea serves as a hospice for companies that emit green house gas, everyone loses. The greenhouse effect, pollution, overpopulation, nuclear annihilation--these are problems of the 21st century created by the industrialized world. And these are not problems one country can solve (not even 'Murica). They require difficult solutions that call for EVERYONE to get on the same program, because if even just ONE douchebag pulls a Cartman and says "Screw you guys, I'm going home", then it's possible we're all fucked.

It would make me feel good if part of that disillusionment was the private realization that he was a major factor in helping to turn the conservative movement into what it is today. Tell me you don't see hints of what is to come in his bombastic, vaguely misleading rhetoric (Fox News) and his justifications for projecting American power overseas (neocons). They are his retarded flipper-baby children.