Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexuality and homosexuality. Even non-religious people know this.
The homosexual agenda is not good for anyone, including those who consider themselves "gay".
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have successfuly framed themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
I think the style of this discussion is very pleasant. There is still room above but if you compare this to today TV-discussions it seems like ancient history.
Back in the days when CNBC actually had interesting programming.
Donahue was good enough for the MSM. Pozner and Chomsky were good enough for cable. Yet now, Donahue's retired. Pozner's program on Channel 1 in Russia is WAY better than the cable shows here. And Chomsky is now officially in MSM exile.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"You can condemn the attrocities of Ghenghis Khan but you can't do anything about them."
That's because it was 800 years ago, the crimes of the Serbs are occuring right now so we can do something about them! What a stupid analogy. Chomsky ain't shit.
He meant that the French and British declared war on Germany after they invaded Poland but did nothing. The Allies did not enter the war to stop radical German acts (concentration camps etc). They merely defended themselves against German attacks and only fully entered the war in it's last 11 months (June 1944) when it was abundantly clear that Germany would fall to the Russians. So moral condemnation is useless without action. Hitler did as he pleased right under the Allies noses.
welcome to American TV. We deal with supercomplicated issues by having usually 6 pple in split-screen yelling for 3 minutes, followed by 6 minutes of Viagra and detergent commericals. This show is a lot clamer and more reasonable
I'm of two minds about Chomsky. On the one hand, he seems to eviscerate Donahue (Posner is just a cipher here), just as he does nearly everyone he has debates with. But on the other hand, it's easy to eviscerate your opponent when you take that distancing perspective, that ultra-pedantic approach.
I think that his distance from the commonly accepted belief of typical perspective is what gives him a possible air of arrogance or a "pedantic" appearance, but i think that, in reality, he is calm, he simplifies issues, and he explains what he sees to be the true, underlying roots of world events, rather than saying things in a way that we would all EXPECT to hear them.
If he is a genius, don't you think it's difficult to constantly have to battle your types of allegations and criticisms?
Chomsky would sound that way for anyone who belongs to the priesthood of worshiping the state. And that "pedantic" approach sounds like a character attack to vilify more than an informed analysis.
Chomsky opponent: the sky is quite blue today. Chomsky: Actually, the sky isn't blue at all, or at least is so superficially blue, it's not even worth mentioning. It's actually a soft mauve with a vague aqua torquise hue. To say it's blue totally negates the clouds and oncoming dusk.
You might say the sky isn't blue if you are one of the following categories: Starving. Working in a sweatshop. In extreme poverty. Living or fighting in Iraq. Or in Afghanistan. Or in Palestine. Being abused by a corporation. Not having your majority's views represented by your government. About to be attacked by the U.S. Being driven off your land because of "Free trade". Etc. etc. etc. I'd say the sky is "quite blue" for about 10% of the world's population.
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexuality and homosexuality. Even non-religious people know this.
The homosexual agenda is not good for anyone, including those who consider themselves "gay".
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have successfuly framed themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 2 months ago
Sorry, I think Donahue was right on this one.
lovelygirl2141 3 months ago
I think the style of this discussion is very pleasant. There is still room above but if you compare this to today TV-discussions it seems like ancient history.
Rubashow 5 months ago
THE REAL REASON WE FOUGHT HITLER FROM THE 8TH MOST QUOTED PERSON OFF ALL TIME AND THE MUSIC CUTS HIM OFF AHAHAHAA PERFECT
shanyin1234 10 months ago
Back in the days when CNBC actually had interesting programming.
Donahue was good enough for the MSM. Pozner and Chomsky were good enough for cable. Yet now, Donahue's retired. Pozner's program on Channel 1 in Russia is WAY better than the cable shows here. And Chomsky is now officially in MSM exile.
Can it get any weirder....
whereismybailouttv 1 year ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"You can condemn the attrocities of Ghenghis Khan but you can't do anything about them."
That's because it was 800 years ago, the crimes of the Serbs are occuring right now so we can do something about them! What a stupid analogy. Chomsky ain't shit.
RadioFreeWisconsin 2 years ago
He meant that the French and British declared war on Germany after they invaded Poland but did nothing. The Allies did not enter the war to stop radical German acts (concentration camps etc). They merely defended themselves against German attacks and only fully entered the war in it's last 11 months (June 1944) when it was abundantly clear that Germany would fall to the Russians. So moral condemnation is useless without action. Hitler did as he pleased right under the Allies noses.
avidalocan 2 years ago 2
Donahue sure is hysterical
is his usual response to a problem to just start bombing?
KentAllard 2 years ago
How can there only be 5 minutes before the commercial break? That's absurd
icedoutstreetgangsta 3 years ago
welcome to American TV. We deal with supercomplicated issues by having usually 6 pple in split-screen yelling for 3 minutes, followed by 6 minutes of Viagra and detergent commericals. This show is a lot clamer and more reasonable
forestskog 2 years ago 14
this guy is an idiot (the white haired interviewer). get a fuckin clue pal
1987devo 3 years ago 2
poor donahue! lol
SweetDissident 2 years ago
I like Donohue, but the guy does often open his mouth before thinking.
Thanks for posting this great bit of tv history.
Webins 3 years ago 8
totally agree on the second point
boredsun 3 years ago
A commercial break every 5 minutes in America. What a stranglehold corporations have.
johnnycon 3 years ago 6
I'm of two minds about Chomsky. On the one hand, he seems to eviscerate Donahue (Posner is just a cipher here), just as he does nearly everyone he has debates with. But on the other hand, it's easy to eviscerate your opponent when you take that distancing perspective, that ultra-pedantic approach.
SmelOdies 3 years ago
I think that his distance from the commonly accepted belief of typical perspective is what gives him a possible air of arrogance or a "pedantic" appearance, but i think that, in reality, he is calm, he simplifies issues, and he explains what he sees to be the true, underlying roots of world events, rather than saying things in a way that we would all EXPECT to hear them.
If he is a genius, don't you think it's difficult to constantly have to battle your types of allegations and criticisms?
aewester 3 years ago
Chomsky would sound that way for anyone who belongs to the priesthood of worshiping the state. And that "pedantic" approach sounds like a character attack to vilify more than an informed analysis.
8Marx8 3 years ago 3
thanks for the vid, is there a part 3 or does the interview just end like that?
SpeedyOJ 3 years ago
No there's more ... I was only able to rip part of the show
RealAgentOfSHIELD 3 years ago
Chomsky opponent: the sky is quite blue today. Chomsky: Actually, the sky isn't blue at all, or at least is so superficially blue, it's not even worth mentioning. It's actually a soft mauve with a vague aqua torquise hue. To say it's blue totally negates the clouds and oncoming dusk.
SmelOdies 3 years ago
aewester 3 years ago
George Bush: The sky is red today and America needs to defend itself and attack.
SmelOdies (and indoctrinated fools alike): Sure Mr. President, here are our tax dollars. Attack God and bring "democracy" to the sky.
8Marx8 3 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You can do better than that, Che Guevera.
SmelOdies 3 years ago
always good to see new chomsky content available. thank you.
lGnossos 3 years ago