His sole meeting with Buckley was "of no particular significance as far as he was concerned". How graceful and good mannered of Chomsky! What in the world was the purpose of that comment - other than to serve as a testament of a monumental (and pathological) megalomania. Look closely and you'll see signs of this in almost every Chomsky discourse.
I suppose that being at least a little gracious when speaking of the death of an idealistic rival was simply beyond Chomsky's incredible intellect...just a sad display of demagogery, at the most inappropriate moment. Very low class.
@marklemon75 Agreed. I don't appreciate it when people are disrespectful to the dead. Buckely was no Hitler or Stalin. Chomsky--though I admire his intellect--just comes across as a condescending prick the more I hear him speak his mind on personal matters.
MICHAEL PARENTI, NOAM CHOMSKY, HOWARD ZINN, NAOMI KLEIN, CHRISTIAN PARENTI, GORE VIDAL, ARUNDHATI ROY, ROBERT FISK, VANDANA SHIVA, JASON BURKE, MARC BARRY, GREG PALAST, DAVID RAY GRIFFIN, ALEXANDER COCHBURN, GARY WEBB, BERTRAND RUSSELL, JOHN DEWEY, RALPH NADER, DENNIS KUCINICH, MICHAEL MOORE, GEORGE CARLIN, CORNEL WEST, JOHN PERKINS, ANTONY SUTTON, TARIQ ALI, EDWIN BLACK, SAMUEL EPSTEIN, AMY GOODMAN, JOHN STOCKWELL, MICHAEL RUPPERT, EDWARD SAID, WARD CHURCHILL, DANIEL ELLSBERG etc NOT ron paul
@EndWesternTyranny Liberal public school teachers, liberal college professors, liberal students, liberal campus, liberal city, surrounded by liberal politics...Yes, I'm very indoctrinated aren't I?
@Faboba Being a professor at MIT doesn't make you a scientist. He doesn't conduct any scientific research. He just spews his pathetic opinion on everything and gives over-the-pants squeezejobs to all the janitors there.
@MrTreantHugger Being a linguist usually makes you a scientist though, doesn't it? I take the point that he 'doesn't perform experiments' but he's a theoretical linguist. I assume you'd be willing to say theoretical physicists count as scientists. As for Chomsky giving 'squeezejobs' - you're apparently better informed on that than I am - but he demolished Skinnerian behaviourism with a single book review, his reputation amongst linguists and psychologists is pretty secure.
@MrTreantHugger for every claim Chomsky makes he has a facts to back it up. If your suggesting the facts Chomsky provides are either irrelevant or simply false is a different matter entirely. Indoctrination isn't really the right word to use, his goal isn't to make people subscribe to a certain ideology, but to look at factual evidence and make the best analysis possible. Obviously every human-being is fallible, but Chomsky's theories are widely considered to be quite impartial.
Buckley may have been quite moderate compared to the barrage of detestable nationalist neo-conservatives, but he was still one abhorrent and racist elitist, if there ever existed such a one. Your rest is our peace.
you just have to watch the GOP primary debates to see what conservatism has become - no central principle (unless anti Obama is an ideology), ugly, extreme, disruptive, provincial, irrational, religious, jingoistic, cruel, ignorant, bigoted, hypocritical, anti intellectual ... just watch the debates and name one of those clowns as a presidential. Ron Paul is ok but old and cranky and Romney is just plain dishonest and desperate to be taken seriously ... the rest are just clowns - GOP is dead
Why does anyone care what Noam Chomsky has to say about politics? He is a linguistics professor. He has no formal training in any political science or international relations. He is just another guy with another opinion. I give as much thought to what a goat has to say.
@nsshero He's written scores of books on these topics, and it is almost universally praised by other academics who do have "formal training".
It's obvious the guy knows his shit and he doesn't need an expensive piece of paper to prove it. The fact that someone would think this just shows what is wrong with the culture surrounding higher learning.
@nsshero There was more to it than that. Like I said, his work has been vetted by other academics and is a part of the curriculum in countless Universities.
I explained why he is important within the framework of your own argument, what more do you really want? I understand these guys aren't right 100% of the time but dismissing his work entirely just demonstrates that you probably don't really care much about the topic. Read his stuff, you might just like it.
@bundle05 Have you ever read what he said about Cambodia? He is basically quoted as saying even though Pol Pot killed 1/3 of his population, the other 2/3 of the population were provided with respectable social achievements.
@nsshero What a moronic thing to say. You may or may not agree with Chomsky, but to dismiss a man who is clearly of great intellectual stature simply because his main occupation is not political is asinine. Would you close your ears to Socrates on any given topic because he did not have a degree in that topic? Do politicians need degrees in political science to enter politics? An intelligent, articulate, and very well read man is an intelligent, articulate and very well read man.
@ptolemyauletesXII Kind of like how Chomsky could have said some nice words about William F. Buckley when he passed. But he did not. He criticized a guy just because he was conservative.
@nsshero Chomsky has been a commentator on political and domestic affairs for decades. Does he have less right or authority to speak than Pat Robertson? He is in the church, and shouldn't interfere with government at all. What about Ann Coulter? Or Glenn Beck? Or John Stewart? Or the majority of political commentators? Do they have the proper credentials? What gives a person the right to speak about such things is knowing and studying such things.
@tomthefunky Very true MIT does get much of it's funding through DOD contracts, but he doesn't explicitly hate the military as much as it's erroneous classification of being 'national defense' when little is used for such and most is used for imperialistic objectives. Miss classifications are a no-no in his world, makes sense to me and I still think he's naive to think he'll influence jar heads by presenting facts.
@H1TMANactual Chomsky would, if he could be bothered, explain to you exactly what socialism and anarchism are. Socialism isn't a Soviet gulag, and anarchy isn't throwing stones and breaking windows.
@beeroosterm "Can somebody please tell me who (sic) Chomsky considers a worthy adversary?......" Well he's old, that I'll grant you. But his mind is sharper than most, and his memory for detail is extraordinary. Tired? - hardly. Bored? - maybe.
To put it plainly in words for Chomsky to understand and say Buckley was not witty....YOUR AN IDIOT!!! You may not like the man but I have seen interviews with both and both have, and should have huge ego's....But I must say that Chomsky has the edge on liking to hear himself talk......I admire the man but factually I will go with Buckley everytime!!
I vote democrat and believe a lot of what Chomsky says and writes, however, Chomsky doesn't understand that there needs to be bad things to protect good things, foreign policy of USA and Israel. Each action is bad, killing on each side, but dictatorship killing of Islam is encrochment while killing by USA, Israel is protection.
@blackmichael75 Most Jews in Israel are atheists. The Arabs still believe in Allah and that his message of killing the Ifidal, nonbeliever in Allah, is divine. Israel has to be a dickhead because there are not enough atheist in Palistinians. They have Hamas, crazy people so Israel has to act crazy too. They can't be nice. Be nice and get your head blown off. I know. I once lived between a KKK memeber and a black family. The black family tried to be nice but the KKK guy would have none
Buckley was a true conservative and certainly not a neocon. If only the Republican Party would not have annexed the big government pro-war agenda of the Democratic Party that started the invade now, ask questions later policies we have been suffering from for 50 years, we would have some real options in the elections.
I will exclude Bush and Obama since this video was posted in March of 2008 but Nixon interfered into the economy FAR more than Reagan, it isn't even close. But everything else is about true Noam said.
buckley was brilliant chomsky is smart too but we all know why chomsky hated buckley anyone who watched the firing line interview understands perfectly what I am alluding to
@TheTruthgeneral You mean the interview where Buckley talked over Chomsky and Chomsky had to constantly correct him? The one where he claimed he must like a nation beacuse they hate the U.S.A.?
South Africa killed 1500 000 people? When and where? By South Africa is he speaking about the Union, Republic or the Colonies and Boer Republics? By kill does he mean the SADF killed them? Does anyone have an idea why he says this and on what factual basis? It seem like a very large number to me unless he is counting all war dead in SWA and Angola on both sides and by proxy and even then , where is the proof?
Yeah, whether Buckley was,the fact is there are conservatives who honestly believe they're on the right side not because they benefit from it monetarily or politically but cause they're just ignorant, you can't have MANUFACTURING CONSENT and expect a majority of progressive thinkers.
@JPVeigaaaa (it's good to be a gentleman.) whether it is good to be patriotic depends on whether your country is one worth being proud of. obviously not all countries are worth being proud of. a further simple logical step tells you that therefore it's not automatically a great thing to be called 'a true patriot'.
@JPVeigaaaa that's a matter of opinion. i don't know my own. but in any case 'patriotic' shouldn't be used as a way of signifying that someone is a good person, which is how it seemed from your first comment, just as 'nationalists' or 'florida-lovers' aren't necessarily good things to be. i guess i just find it odd how 'true gentleman' and 'true patriotic' come together in the same sentence like they go hand in hand.
you gentiles are Pathetic Always take some jew and make him god or Messiah just like the jesus and kerl marx and know this noam chomsky did you ever wondering why is this all your biggst gods and messiah and your intellectuals from right and left are jewish and you wonder how we the jews call are self the chosen people dont diss this
comment in 100 yreas from know your kids will things that holly histroy just like your Fathers Though't even the arebs belive in a jewish idea of god
1:03..."he was considered, NOT BY ME, but he was considered to be witty, articulate, knowledgeable and so on...and much respected...again, not by me....."...raw intellectual and moral honesty...funny too...
@noloxss Wow, so intellectual and honest to say that you don't think someone is witty, articulate and knowledgeable. I wish more people could be wise! How did he do that? How does he come up with those incredibly insightful thoughts.
Its like - there were people who considered him in some way... but Chomsky didn't. Man, how does he come up with stuff?
You were right to point that out too. Its not like you are some fanatical moron who will bleat approval at pretty much anything he does!
@countertreason The intellectual honesty that I refer to is not based on the substance per se of the statement, but in the context that it was expressed....the fact that Buckley just passed away didn't affect Chomsky's assessment of the man's political persona. Thats honesty I belive...
@noloxss I don't think that takes courage. That only takes insensitivity to those who loved him who might be watching. The only reason why people speak in soft tones about the dead is because they are missed.
@randalusa You're pretty dumb. Chomsky isn't comparing Republicans to Democrats, he's giving an example of how neoconservatives (like Reagan) differ from traditional conservatives.
@randalusa I'll suck your dick if you point me to a interview, book, lecture or any other statement made by Chomsky where he claims that democratic foreign policy differs from Reagan's or other republican presidents.
@CrustVegan Your crass offer notwithstanding, Chomsky makes an implication that Reagan was more violent than his prized communist friends who call themselves Democrats. Moreover, he ridiculously claims that the government of South Africa killed more than a million innocent people, along with repeating the equally ridiculous assertion that Israel killed thousands of innocents in Lebanon. These liberals really should shut up long enough to hear facts rather than trusting NPR for reality.
@randalusa It takes a pretty clueless individual to claim think that one can make a relevant counterpoint by assigning party names to wars. Anyone who is actually serious about analyzing policy, like Chomsky, does so based on ideology, not some trivia check on what party had the president in office during war. It takes an even greater idiot to lump party names together with ideals. Not every Democrat is a "liberal," and not every Republican is a "conservative." Your list is meaningless.
@randalusa There has been no invasion of Libya. Intervention and invasion are not synonymous. The Democrats have presided over state-sanctioned military conflict throughout American history. No question. The fundemental issue people have with Reagan is that his administration's actions on foreign policy were largely based upon covert operations and the deception of the American people. Read up on Iran-Contra affair, and the principles that grounded the 'Reagan Doctrine'. Enlightening stuff.
"..he was considered -not by me- but he was considered to be a witty, articulate, knowledgeable and so on, and much respected - again not by me." - Chomsky making sure his message kept preserved in this ignorant world.!
Is it any wonder children today can't pull their pants up or work without having to feel the need to text on their cell phones? Thank you, Noam Chomsky. I guess, in the end, you really helped show how evil one generation was by acting as one of the instrumental figures responsible for leading another generation astray. Stand up and take a bow! We applaud you! Yes, in the end you just might have managed to paint a face on a single cricket! Great job!!
Did I just hear correctly ? "South Africa killed 1 500 000 people" ? WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP from this self-serving attention-seeker Chomsky. Yes there was apartheid, but that statistic is way way beyond the pale.
@Napoleon40000 Have you done any research on the topic yourself? It seems so, poor black people aren't important in numbers to Americans, so its just a rough estimate.
@bboschboi I lived in South Africa for many years, in fact during the worst years and I can tell you as an OPPONENT of apartheid that that statistic is bullshit. the apartheid regime directly killed in the region of 10 000 people in their prisons and anti-riot actions over a period of 45 years; about another 10 000 died in black-on-black violence (sometimes encouraged by the government). Chomsky is a brilliant light in linguistics but an idiot in political analysis.
1) The total deaths from those border wars did not approach anywhere near 1 500 000.
2) There were numerous armies and factions involved (including South Africa, Cuba, Soviet advisers, Rhodesian army, FNLA, MPLA, ZIPRA, ZANLA etc.). So all parties can be blamed in various proportions.
You are wrong again. Its often quoted by scholars and specialists on this topic to this day it has not be proven to be inaccurate. don't confuse your opinion with facts. go read it then you will have a clue of what you are talking about.
The report indicated that Pretoria's strategy killed the inhabitants of neighboring countries in three ways.
The first was directly by war or terrorism, the victims being military personnel or civilians. The second was through a combination of malnutrition, disease, and the destruction of rural health networks. Those killed by this method were usually infants and young children. The third consisted of famine-related deaths as a result of the lack of food with general insecurity
The report concluded that by the end of 1988, 1.5 million had been killed in these three ways. Over half of the fatalities were infants or children under five. The report estimated that almost half of the populations of Angola and Mozambique had been driven from their homes at least once, usually with the loss of possessions. It calculated that at the time of the writing, 1.5 million were refugees abroad and 6.1 million were displaced internally.
South Africa was strongly supported by the United States and Britain, in its attacks on the neighboring countries, Angola and Mozambique. In the 1980s. according to the U.N. Economic Commission for Africa there were about a million and a half people killed in Angola and Mozambique from South African attacks. and left about 60 billion dollars in damage.
Chomsky is a great intellectual. However, he is not, never was, and never will be a great political mind. His ventures into political philosophy are just another example of academics feeling that, simply because they are knoweldeagble in one field, they know everything. It's like a Southern Lit professor lecturing on the meaning of Ronald Reagan's campaign speeches.
It is funny to hear Comrade Chomsky whining about war and "empire" when the communists were responsible for no less than 10 time more death & despair with their *actual* conquest for empire.
@eviscero So whats your point. Does the crimes of one person lessen the crimes of another. Unless you would prefer us to only talk about the crimes of the US after we spend 10x as much time talking about the crimes of the communist. I dont think body count actually matters. the point is criticism of other countries does next to nothing to change them but the citizens of a nation can alter a great deal but challenging there government. Americans need to be critical of america.
@thesparitan We ought to dispel the idea, perpetuated by people like Chomsky (and others), that inconveniencing some Left-wing terrorist or despot. or liberating people targetted by such a goon and his personal gang of thugs. is somehow to be considered a "war crime".
Wow... his comments on Buckley, a man I disagreed with on 99% of issues, come across as arrogant, small-minded, mean, spiteful, and disgusting. What an asshole to say 'not by me' after every comment. Chomsky is a fuckin asshole... no matter how 'intelligent' he is regarded.
@GhostSoldier77777 You should see the actual video that Chomsky mentions. And see for yourself how insufficient Buckley's knowledge of history is and how rudely he interrupted Chomsky every 10 seconds. It is a disgustingly irritating video.
Chomsky has the patience to listen even when he's rudely interrupted in mid-sentence a few times. But he got fed up with being interrupted in the middle of his answer to Buckley's question that he started counter-interrupting.
@fastballonly "how insufficient Buckley's knowledge of history is "
LOL! Good thing there are ignorant people in the world who are gullible enough to beleive this otherwise you would be even more lonely than you already are.
@fastballonly I disagree. Chomsky may not be a "fucking asshole" for his view on and rivalry with Buckley, that was based on their personal differences and does not concern me; however, Chomsky in general is, in my opinion that which was said about him, in that he is a snob and in that he gets involved in political issues in which he is completely uneducated. Chomsky's foreign policy views for instance, are baseless and for him to take a stand on the issues he chooses is presumptuous in itself
@MasterEled There was no rivalry between Chomsky and Buckley. Buckley was completely outmatched by Chomsky in terms of historical and political knowledge, and most importantly manners.
Also, one needs no qualification to discuss matters of politics. Chomsky's views on world politics and US foreign affairs are simply based on facts accessible to all.
Chomsky is primarily a scientist who specializes in linguistics.
He has a rational mind that can easily apply to other fields.
@fastballonly "Scientist" can technically be applied to anyone who does anything because any study can be called a "science," however, Chomsky is just a linguist for all intents and purposes. They did have some apparent dislike for each other according to how Chomsky spoke in this video. One does not "need qualification" to discuss anything, but it does make one more credible, especially when a field is so vast, expansive and multi-faceted as politics. There are no universal facts in politics
@fntime What nasty anger are you talking about? First of all, the liberal atheist liars in the media have given anger a bad rap. You think in the face of social atrocities taking place that good fathers should just sit around being nice? Get real. Be that or not, however, comparing the seemingly sedated calm of Buckley to the sedated calm of Chomsky, calling the latter more rational, is pure fantasy. They could both put you to sleep.
@GhostSoldier77777 personally i respect chomsky for not sugar coating his thoughts on Buckley as many would in due of his death. he doesnt let buckleys death cloud his personal judgement and gives his honest opinion, you cant really ask for more of a man than that whether your left or right leaning
@TheHappydead You can ask a lot more than "honest opinion." You can ask for, and expect, knowledge. If you have not read Plato, well, now's the time!
I don't know which is funnier. that you think Affirmative Action is "fair", or that you think the Republican party has suddenly embraced it.
"Most of their talking points are stuff they've heard from current politicians or political commentary "
And you can say the exact same thing about the Left Wing's propagandist equivalents, like Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Bill Maher, Michael Moore, Oliver Stone . . .
"Chomsky is considered to be the greatest living academic on the planet and one of the 10 most cited writers in all the humanities" . . . by a bunch of mindless sheep, zealots and totalitarian-fetishists.
*political and economic ideas/philosophy.
forgottenbooks 1 day ago
Could someone explain to me Chomsky's political and economic? Labels nowadays are not only confusing but positively misleading.
I like Buckley for his language.
forgottenbooks 1 day ago
Chomsky speaks with palms up with a giving gesture - as if to say: "Take this offering of wisdom - from the lord your god". Boundless ego....
lourak 4 days ago
His sole meeting with Buckley was "of no particular significance as far as he was concerned". How graceful and good mannered of Chomsky! What in the world was the purpose of that comment - other than to serve as a testament of a monumental (and pathological) megalomania. Look closely and you'll see signs of this in almost every Chomsky discourse.
lourak 4 days ago
I'm at 2:20. What was the question again?
Allrightteam 2 weeks ago
I hope Buckley was cremated and our planet didn't have to consume his rotted evil.
oxygen69able 2 weeks ago
All I see is a sweater and floating pair of glasses, mumbling away.
ledawg1138 2 weeks ago
I suppose that being at least a little gracious when speaking of the death of an idealistic rival was simply beyond Chomsky's incredible intellect...just a sad display of demagogery, at the most inappropriate moment. Very low class.
marklemon75 3 weeks ago
@marklemon75 Agreed. I don't appreciate it when people are disrespectful to the dead. Buckely was no Hitler or Stalin. Chomsky--though I admire his intellect--just comes across as a condescending prick the more I hear him speak his mind on personal matters.
ErikPaulsonFan 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
MICHAEL PARENTI, NOAM CHOMSKY, HOWARD ZINN, NAOMI KLEIN, CHRISTIAN PARENTI, GORE VIDAL, ARUNDHATI ROY, ROBERT FISK, VANDANA SHIVA, JASON BURKE, MARC BARRY, GREG PALAST, DAVID RAY GRIFFIN, ALEXANDER COCHBURN, GARY WEBB, BERTRAND RUSSELL, JOHN DEWEY, RALPH NADER, DENNIS KUCINICH, MICHAEL MOORE, GEORGE CARLIN, CORNEL WEST, JOHN PERKINS, ANTONY SUTTON, TARIQ ALI, EDWIN BLACK, SAMUEL EPSTEIN, AMY GOODMAN, JOHN STOCKWELL, MICHAEL RUPPERT, EDWARD SAID, WARD CHURCHILL, DANIEL ELLSBERG etc NOT ron paul
EndWesternTyranny 4 weeks ago
His a professor so he's really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really important.
KRKahn87 1 month ago
@KRKahn87 you're indoctrinated
EndWesternTyranny 4 weeks ago
@EndWesternTyranny Liberal public school teachers, liberal college professors, liberal students, liberal campus, liberal city, surrounded by liberal politics...Yes, I'm very indoctrinated aren't I?
KRKahn87 4 weeks ago
@KRKahn87 do you have nothing better to do than go on youtube videos of chomsky to sarcastically complain?
EndWesternTyranny 4 weeks ago
@EndWesternTyranny I'll copy/paste "you're indoctrinated" to three people that disagree with me instead. Rofl.
KRKahn87 4 weeks ago
@KRKahn87 "rofl?" i'm not up to date with preteen-girl lingo...
EndWesternTyranny 4 weeks ago
@EndWesternTyranny You seem upset.
KRKahn87 4 weeks ago
@EndWesternTyranny Here, I'll let you have the last word. You have all day to be clever though, so don't waste it ^_^
KRKahn87 4 weeks ago
@KRKahn87 "liberal politics?" keep telling yourself that....
EndWesternTyranny 4 weeks ago
Chomsky was/is a douchebage and unworthy of any significant consideration.
hubbell627 1 month ago
@hubbell627 then why are you visiting his videos? nobody gives a damn about your opinions, if you don't have a point to contend then why bother.
truthslap 1 month ago
@hubbell627 you're indoctrinated
EndWesternTyranny 4 weeks ago
Has Chomsky ever held a job int he real world? He's just another tenured asshole.
MrTreantHugger 2 months ago
@MrTreantHugger Ahh, science obviously isn't a part of your "real world", that's explanatory...
NonDeUn 2 months ago
@NonDeUn Science? Chomsky lacks the intellectual honesty to be a scientist.
MrTreantHugger 2 months ago
@MrTreantHugger And yet is gainfully employed as one, in one of the leading scientific universities in the world. How puzzling.
Faboba 2 months ago
@Faboba Being a professor at MIT doesn't make you a scientist. He doesn't conduct any scientific research. He just spews his pathetic opinion on everything and gives over-the-pants squeezejobs to all the janitors there.
MrTreantHugger 2 months ago
@MrTreantHugger Being a linguist usually makes you a scientist though, doesn't it? I take the point that he 'doesn't perform experiments' but he's a theoretical linguist. I assume you'd be willing to say theoretical physicists count as scientists. As for Chomsky giving 'squeezejobs' - you're apparently better informed on that than I am - but he demolished Skinnerian behaviourism with a single book review, his reputation amongst linguists and psychologists is pretty secure.
Faboba 2 months ago 6
@Faboba Very well articulated.
fastballonly 1 month ago
@MrTreantHugger you're indoctrinated
EndWesternTyranny 4 weeks ago
@EndWesternTyranny How so? Chomsky is the one who indoctrinates pseudo-intellectuals all the time.
MrTreantHugger 4 weeks ago
@MrTreantHugger he indoctrinates people with his clerical information/facts? he isn't making any of this up. it is all real
EndWesternTyranny 3 weeks ago
@EndWesternTyranny He's making it up but he is manipulating it.
MrTreantHugger 3 weeks ago
@MrTreantHugger if it helps you sleep at night, keep telling yourself that, right-winger...
EndWesternTyranny 3 weeks ago
@MrTreantHugger for every claim Chomsky makes he has a facts to back it up. If your suggesting the facts Chomsky provides are either irrelevant or simply false is a different matter entirely. Indoctrination isn't really the right word to use, his goal isn't to make people subscribe to a certain ideology, but to look at factual evidence and make the best analysis possible. Obviously every human-being is fallible, but Chomsky's theories are widely considered to be quite impartial.
fLcGambit 2 weeks ago
@MrTreantHugger Haha, are you serious? I won't even qualify this question with a proper response because i'm guessing it is a joke!
ollyg85 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
157 conservatives can't handle the truth
junskey 2 months ago
Buckley may have been quite moderate compared to the barrage of detestable nationalist neo-conservatives, but he was still one abhorrent and racist elitist, if there ever existed such a one. Your rest is our peace.
jgonzalezsolorio 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
That rambling nonsense has no connection to reality.
echosyst 2 months ago
you just have to watch the GOP primary debates to see what conservatism has become - no central principle (unless anti Obama is an ideology), ugly, extreme, disruptive, provincial, irrational, religious, jingoistic, cruel, ignorant, bigoted, hypocritical, anti intellectual ... just watch the debates and name one of those clowns as a presidential. Ron Paul is ok but old and cranky and Romney is just plain dishonest and desperate to be taken seriously ... the rest are just clowns - GOP is dead
vohshkab 2 months ago
Condescending. Dismissive. Odious person.
EdVidz 2 months ago
@EdVidz don't be so hard on your self ...
vohshkab 2 months ago
Why does anyone care what Noam Chomsky has to say about politics? He is a linguistics professor. He has no formal training in any political science or international relations. He is just another guy with another opinion. I give as much thought to what a goat has to say.
nsshero 2 months ago
@nsshero He's written scores of books on these topics, and it is almost universally praised by other academics who do have "formal training".
It's obvious the guy knows his shit and he doesn't need an expensive piece of paper to prove it. The fact that someone would think this just shows what is wrong with the culture surrounding higher learning.
bundle05 2 months ago
@bundle05 So because he has written books on it, he instantly knows what he is talking about? He is just another guy with another opinion.
nsshero 2 months ago
@nsshero There was more to it than that. Like I said, his work has been vetted by other academics and is a part of the curriculum in countless Universities.
I explained why he is important within the framework of your own argument, what more do you really want? I understand these guys aren't right 100% of the time but dismissing his work entirely just demonstrates that you probably don't really care much about the topic. Read his stuff, you might just like it.
bundle05 2 months ago
@bundle05 Have you ever read what he said about Cambodia? He is basically quoted as saying even though Pol Pot killed 1/3 of his population, the other 2/3 of the population were provided with respectable social achievements.
nsshero 2 months ago
@nsshero What a moronic thing to say. You may or may not agree with Chomsky, but to dismiss a man who is clearly of great intellectual stature simply because his main occupation is not political is asinine. Would you close your ears to Socrates on any given topic because he did not have a degree in that topic? Do politicians need degrees in political science to enter politics? An intelligent, articulate, and very well read man is an intelligent, articulate and very well read man.
ptolemyauletesXII 2 months ago 5
@ptolemyauletesXII Kind of like how Chomsky could have said some nice words about William F. Buckley when he passed. But he did not. He criticized a guy just because he was conservative.
alabaster30 1 week ago
@nsshero Chomsky has been a commentator on political and domestic affairs for decades. Does he have less right or authority to speak than Pat Robertson? He is in the church, and shouldn't interfere with government at all. What about Ann Coulter? Or Glenn Beck? Or John Stewart? Or the majority of political commentators? Do they have the proper credentials? What gives a person the right to speak about such things is knowing and studying such things.
ptolemyauletesXII 2 months ago
Chomsky hates the U.S military but works at M.I.T. The same M.I.T. which recieves much of it's funding through defence contracts.
tomthefunky 2 months ago
@tomthefunky Very true MIT does get much of it's funding through DOD contracts, but he doesn't explicitly hate the military as much as it's erroneous classification of being 'national defense' when little is used for such and most is used for imperialistic objectives. Miss classifications are a no-no in his world, makes sense to me and I still think he's naive to think he'll influence jar heads by presenting facts.
baihbalm 2 months ago
not by me
CabalBoone 2 months ago
Chomsky is a socialist anarchist and all, but his historical knowledge is immense and he is a pleasure to listen to :)
H1TMANactual 2 months ago 2
@H1TMANactual Chomsky would, if he could be bothered, explain to you exactly what socialism and anarchism are. Socialism isn't a Soviet gulag, and anarchy isn't throwing stones and breaking windows.
vjwebster 2 months ago
@vjwebster No need. I have experienced both first hand. He hasn't.
H1TMANactual 2 months ago
@H1TMANactual You call that an argument?
vjwebster 2 months ago
@vjwebster It's a statement.
H1TMANactual 2 months ago
@H1TMANactual A meanlingless one, unless you define your terms - which was the point of my original letter.
vjwebster 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@vjwebster Define terms? Go look them up if you don't know what they mean.
H1TMANactual 2 months ago
Can somebody please tell me who Chomsky considers a worthy adversary? He seems bored, old, and tired. Thank you.
beeroosterm 3 months ago
@beeroosterm "Can somebody please tell me who (sic) Chomsky considers a worthy adversary?......" Well he's old, that I'll grant you. But his mind is sharper than most, and his memory for detail is extraordinary. Tired? - hardly. Bored? - maybe.
vjwebster 2 months ago
To put it plainly in words for Chomsky to understand and say Buckley was not witty....YOUR AN IDIOT!!! You may not like the man but I have seen interviews with both and both have, and should have huge ego's....But I must say that Chomsky has the edge on liking to hear himself talk......I admire the man but factually I will go with Buckley everytime!!
915buck 3 months ago
@915buck Buckley is a tool.
PoshyCornelius 3 months ago
Chomsky is a feministic, naive idealist.
MrHaircut1 3 months ago
@MrHaircut1 naive???? your ignorant for even muttering those words, hes is the most widely cited intellect in the world u little goof..
csley66 2 months ago
@csley66 Only in his field of linguistics.
H1TMANactual 2 months ago
I vote democrat and believe a lot of what Chomsky says and writes, however, Chomsky doesn't understand that there needs to be bad things to protect good things, foreign policy of USA and Israel. Each action is bad, killing on each side, but dictatorship killing of Islam is encrochment while killing by USA, Israel is protection.
JayGatsbyOdysseus 3 months ago
@JayGatsbyOdysseus The people on the other side would say exactly the same thing.
blackmichael75 2 months ago
@blackmichael75 Most Jews in Israel are atheists. The Arabs still believe in Allah and that his message of killing the Ifidal, nonbeliever in Allah, is divine. Israel has to be a dickhead because there are not enough atheist in Palistinians. They have Hamas, crazy people so Israel has to act crazy too. They can't be nice. Be nice and get your head blown off. I know. I once lived between a KKK memeber and a black family. The black family tried to be nice but the KKK guy would have none
JayGatsbyOdysseus 2 months ago
@JayGatsbyOdysseus What rubbish. The Israelis are the ones who started it by stealing their land.
blackmichael75 2 months ago
i like this, intellectual honesty, he doesnt considering him an amazing man just because he died.
Mewzickchannel 3 months ago
Buckley was a true conservative and certainly not a neocon. If only the Republican Party would not have annexed the big government pro-war agenda of the Democratic Party that started the invade now, ask questions later policies we have been suffering from for 50 years, we would have some real options in the elections.
DCUPtoejuice 3 months ago
not by me
deffensh 3 months ago
Ha! Firing line was classy compared to what we have today. Americans are such white trash!
SUpersaiyajinjerkbag 3 months ago
No, Ghost. Chomsky is an ENORMOUS fucking asshole.
mrjprimus 3 months ago
Hmmm....he barely mentioned William F. Buckley.
bagzie 4 months ago
Petty man.
Onieracraft 4 months ago
@Onieracraft Why is he? He said exactly the same thing when Buckley was alive, why should his opinion change now he's dead?
MattMystrieo 4 months ago
I will exclude Bush and Obama since this video was posted in March of 2008 but Nixon interfered into the economy FAR more than Reagan, it isn't even close. But everything else is about true Noam said.
rmccay88 4 months ago
buckley was brilliant chomsky is smart too but we all know why chomsky hated buckley anyone who watched the firing line interview understands perfectly what I am alluding to
TheTruthgeneral 4 months ago
@TheTruthgeneral You mean the interview where Buckley talked over Chomsky and Chomsky had to constantly correct him? The one where he claimed he must like a nation beacuse they hate the U.S.A.?
Eaglesfaninca 4 months ago 22
CHOMSKY IS JUST BITTER THAT HE GOT RIPPED A NEW ONE BY BUCKLEY
davebex13 4 months ago
@davebex13 He seems bitter to you?
Eaglesfaninca 4 months ago
South Africa killed 1500 000 people? When and where? By South Africa is he speaking about the Union, Republic or the Colonies and Boer Republics? By kill does he mean the SADF killed them? Does anyone have an idea why he says this and on what factual basis? It seem like a very large number to me unless he is counting all war dead in SWA and Angola on both sides and by proxy and even then , where is the proof?
123123pea 4 months ago
Yeah, whether Buckley was,the fact is there are conservatives who honestly believe they're on the right side not because they benefit from it monetarily or politically but cause they're just ignorant, you can't have MANUFACTURING CONSENT and expect a majority of progressive thinkers.
barriolimbas 5 months ago
Whatever you may criticize on William F. Buckley, there's something no one can deny:
HE WAS A TRUE GENTLEMAN AND A TRUE PATRIOTIC.
JPVeigaaaa 5 months ago
@JPVeigaaaa you say that like it's automatically a good thing... what is wrong with the world.
MissInformati0n 5 months ago
@MissInformati0n
Can you tell me what's wrong with being a gentleman and a patriotic?
Thanks in advance for your upcoming kind and sensible response.
JPVeigaaaa 5 months ago
@JPVeigaaaa (it's good to be a gentleman.) whether it is good to be patriotic depends on whether your country is one worth being proud of. obviously not all countries are worth being proud of. a further simple logical step tells you that therefore it's not automatically a great thing to be called 'a true patriot'.
MissInformati0n 5 months ago
@MissInformati0n
Americans shouldn't be patriotic, I presume? Is that your further logical(!) step, miss?
Have you read Jean-François Revel's "The Anti-American Obsession"?
JPVeigaaaa 5 months ago
@JPVeigaaaa that's a matter of opinion. i don't know my own. but in any case 'patriotic' shouldn't be used as a way of signifying that someone is a good person, which is how it seemed from your first comment, just as 'nationalists' or 'florida-lovers' aren't necessarily good things to be. i guess i just find it odd how 'true gentleman' and 'true patriotic' come together in the same sentence like they go hand in hand.
MissInformati0n 5 months ago
@JPVeigaaaa Patriotism is for the weak.
WishCRUS4D3R 4 months ago
@WishCRUS4D3R
Narcissism is for the weak.
Onieracraft 4 months ago
@Onieracraft Too bad narcissism and patriotism go hand in hand
WishCRUS4D3R 4 months ago
@WishCRUS4D3R
Narcissism doesn't agree to go hand in hand with anything, if it did, it wouldn't be narcissism :)
Onieracraft 4 months ago
@Onieracraft ..I know you were trying to be clever...but no.
WishCRUS4D3R 4 months ago
@WishCRUS4D3R
I was trying to be accurate to definitions, something that apparently escapes you.
Onieracraft 4 months ago
@Onieracraft ..once more time...uugh no
WishCRUS4D3R 4 months ago
@WishCRUS4D3R
One more time: enlighten yourself (You might want to start with Greek Myth).
Onieracraft 4 months ago
Where can I get myself a Chomsky jumper?
Unwin85 5 months ago 3
@Unwin85 probably the same place you buy a Cosby sweater! ha
ArbourParq1 2 months ago
The new conservatives make Buckley look like a refined genius.
greekvvedge 5 months ago
This world needs a lot more Chomskys.
Tigelinus 5 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
you gentiles are Pathetic Always take some jew and make him god or Messiah just like the jesus and kerl marx and know this noam chomsky did you ever wondering why is this all your biggst gods and messiah and your intellectuals from right and left are jewish and you wonder how we the jews call are self the chosen people dont diss this
comment in 100 yreas from know your kids will things that holly histroy just like your Fathers Though't even the arebs belive in a jewish idea of god
ehudnold9 6 months ago
1:03..."he was considered, NOT BY ME, but he was considered to be witty, articulate, knowledgeable and so on...and much respected...again, not by me....."...raw intellectual and moral honesty...funny too...
noloxss 6 months ago
@noloxss Wow, so intellectual and honest to say that you don't think someone is witty, articulate and knowledgeable. I wish more people could be wise! How did he do that? How does he come up with those incredibly insightful thoughts.
Its like - there were people who considered him in some way... but Chomsky didn't. Man, how does he come up with stuff?
You were right to point that out too. Its not like you are some fanatical moron who will bleat approval at pretty much anything he does!
countertreason 6 months ago
@countertreason The intellectual honesty that I refer to is not based on the substance per se of the statement, but in the context that it was expressed....the fact that Buckley just passed away didn't affect Chomsky's assessment of the man's political persona. Thats honesty I belive...
noloxss 5 months ago
@noloxss I don't think that takes courage. That only takes insensitivity to those who loved him who might be watching. The only reason why people speak in soft tones about the dead is because they are missed.
countertreason 5 months ago
Comment removed
noloxss 6 months ago
Comment removed
noloxss 6 months ago
oh reagan killed a million and a half...not the sandista's. I guess that why central america is now made of republics not death squads...
and this chum did was berate, insult and lie about the deceased...
very nice for such a person who has such a loving world view.
If buckley was mao ...this moron wouild be wearing an arm band
glad to see how MIT students are geting such unbiased uneducation
newt0830 6 months ago
" he was considered funny, but not by me...i'm giving the general assessment..
he was considered articulate, again not by me..
by some buckley was considered a fucking asshole and obsctruction...that is more correct, in my assessment..um."
munkdo3 7 months ago
Chomsky is a rather clueless individual, sounding rather like a Hollywood liberal than anybody who cares about being properly informed.
He says: "Reagan supported military violence."
Do these liberals have no measure of history whatsoever?
1. WWI - Democrat
2. WWII - Democrat
3. Korean War - Democrat
4. Vietnam War - Democrat
5. Serbian invasion - Democrat
6. Libyan invasion - Democrat
Speaking of which, anybody notice the complete absence of phony peace-activists recently?
randalusa 7 months ago 2
@randalusa You're pretty dumb. Chomsky isn't comparing Republicans to Democrats, he's giving an example of how neoconservatives (like Reagan) differ from traditional conservatives.
CitrusSucker 7 months ago
@randalusa I'll suck your dick if you point me to a interview, book, lecture or any other statement made by Chomsky where he claims that democratic foreign policy differs from Reagan's or other republican presidents.
CrustVegan 6 months ago
@CrustVegan Your crass offer notwithstanding, Chomsky makes an implication that Reagan was more violent than his prized communist friends who call themselves Democrats. Moreover, he ridiculously claims that the government of South Africa killed more than a million innocent people, along with repeating the equally ridiculous assertion that Israel killed thousands of innocents in Lebanon. These liberals really should shut up long enough to hear facts rather than trusting NPR for reality.
randalusa 6 months ago
@randalusa It takes a pretty clueless individual to claim think that one can make a relevant counterpoint by assigning party names to wars. Anyone who is actually serious about analyzing policy, like Chomsky, does so based on ideology, not some trivia check on what party had the president in office during war. It takes an even greater idiot to lump party names together with ideals. Not every Democrat is a "liberal," and not every Republican is a "conservative." Your list is meaningless.
PrUnEJuIcEtHeThIrD 6 months ago
Comment removed
destorker 5 months ago
@randalusa There has been no invasion of Libya. Intervention and invasion are not synonymous. The Democrats have presided over state-sanctioned military conflict throughout American history. No question. The fundemental issue people have with Reagan is that his administration's actions on foreign policy were largely based upon covert operations and the deception of the American people. Read up on Iran-Contra affair, and the principles that grounded the 'Reagan Doctrine'. Enlightening stuff.
destorker 5 months ago
"..he was considered -not by me- but he was considered to be a witty, articulate, knowledgeable and so on, and much respected - again not by me." - Chomsky making sure his message kept preserved in this ignorant world.!
untilhowlong 7 months ago 2
He was asked a question, and he responded honestly. Or as it's being described by right-wingers here: A DICK MOVE.
Other dick moves:
-making sure your population has access to health care
-regulating banks
-making sure people get treated fairly and humanely in their workplaces
-Caring about the environment.
all dick moves, fa sho.
nickdagger 7 months ago 2
Comment removed
nickdagger 7 months ago
Comment removed
nickdagger 7 months ago
Kind of a dick move to have a one-sided debate against a dead guy.
psyche150yt 7 months ago
@psyche150yt He had a one-sided debate against him when he was alive, lol
GiantSandles 7 months ago
Is it any wonder children today can't pull their pants up or work without having to feel the need to text on their cell phones? Thank you, Noam Chomsky. I guess, in the end, you really helped show how evil one generation was by acting as one of the instrumental figures responsible for leading another generation astray. Stand up and take a bow! We applaud you! Yes, in the end you just might have managed to paint a face on a single cricket! Great job!!
Now, go cut your hair!
MisterNifty 7 months ago
got of the subject into a rant
Defwildwolves 7 months ago
Just wait for Uncle Noam to explain his stance(s) on Cambodia.
henrycate 7 months ago
Did I just hear correctly ? "South Africa killed 1 500 000 people" ? WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP from this self-serving attention-seeker Chomsky. Yes there was apartheid, but that statistic is way way beyond the pale.
Napoleon40000 8 months ago
@Napoleon40000 Have you done any research on the topic yourself? It seems so, poor black people aren't important in numbers to Americans, so its just a rough estimate.
bboschboi 7 months ago
@bboschboi I lived in South Africa for many years, in fact during the worst years and I can tell you as an OPPONENT of apartheid that that statistic is bullshit. the apartheid regime directly killed in the region of 10 000 people in their prisons and anti-riot actions over a period of 45 years; about another 10 000 died in black-on-black violence (sometimes encouraged by the government). Chomsky is a brilliant light in linguistics but an idiot in political analysis.
Napoleon40000 7 months ago
@Napoleon40000
Are you deaf?
Where in this video did Chomsky say that?
nasri1011 7 months ago
@nasri1011 no YOU MUST BE DEAF. Listen at 2:05 !!!
Napoleon40000 7 months ago
@Napoleon40000
"Supported its attacks on neighboring countries that killed a million and a half people"
so why are you talking about estimates of the apartheid regime on its own population?
nasri1011 7 months ago
@nasri1011 that statistic is still total crap:
1) The total deaths from those border wars did not approach anywhere near 1 500 000.
2) There were numerous armies and factions involved (including South Africa, Cuba, Soviet advisers, Rhodesian army, FNLA, MPLA, ZIPRA, ZANLA etc.). So all parties can be blamed in various proportions.
Napoleon40000 7 months ago
@Napoleon40000
"that statistic is still total crap"
:) genius!
You are wrong again. Its often quoted by scholars and specialists on this topic to this day it has not be proven to be inaccurate. don't confuse your opinion with facts. go read it then you will have a clue of what you are talking about.
nasri1011 7 months ago
@Napoleon40000
The report indicated that Pretoria's strategy killed the inhabitants of neighboring countries in three ways.
The first was directly by war or terrorism, the victims being military personnel or civilians. The second was through a combination of malnutrition, disease, and the destruction of rural health networks. Those killed by this method were usually infants and young children. The third consisted of famine-related deaths as a result of the lack of food with general insecurity
nasri1011 7 months ago
@Napoleon40000
The report concluded that by the end of 1988, 1.5 million had been killed in these three ways. Over half of the fatalities were infants or children under five. The report estimated that almost half of the populations of Angola and Mozambique had been driven from their homes at least once, usually with the loss of possessions. It calculated that at the time of the writing, 1.5 million were refugees abroad and 6.1 million were displaced internally.
nasri1011 7 months ago
@Napoleon40000
South Africa was strongly supported by the United States and Britain, in its attacks on the neighboring countries, Angola and Mozambique. In the 1980s. according to the U.N. Economic Commission for Africa there were about a million and a half people killed in Angola and Mozambique from South African attacks. and left about 60 billion dollars in damage.
nasri1011 7 months ago
This is what an old school diss looks like.
Reqrezentin 8 months ago
Chomsky schooled Buckley in that interview.
revo1974 8 months ago
Chomsky is a great intellectual. However, he is not, never was, and never will be a great political mind. His ventures into political philosophy are just another example of academics feeling that, simply because they are knoweldeagble in one field, they know everything. It's like a Southern Lit professor lecturing on the meaning of Ronald Reagan's campaign speeches.
SuicideIsPainlss666 8 months ago
Chomsky looks like Buddy Ryan.
mlglz45 8 months ago
Long haired rock stars and Hollywood movie stars should stick to what they know and stay out of politics.
MisterNifty 8 months ago
Comment removed
Defwildwolves 7 months ago
So basically Chomsky says he did not respect Buckley or consider him intelligent. Nice.
kaishaku72 8 months ago
@kaishaku72 Chomsky is a shameless hack for the mainstream Left fascists. I would not expect any better from him.
DrCruel 8 months ago
@kaishaku72 Buckley was an idoit
ginad17 8 months ago
It is funny to hear Comrade Chomsky whining about war and "empire" when the communists were responsible for no less than 10 time more death & despair with their *actual* conquest for empire.
eviscero 8 months ago
@eviscero So whats your point. Does the crimes of one person lessen the crimes of another. Unless you would prefer us to only talk about the crimes of the US after we spend 10x as much time talking about the crimes of the communist. I dont think body count actually matters. the point is criticism of other countries does next to nothing to change them but the citizens of a nation can alter a great deal but challenging there government. Americans need to be critical of america.
thesparitan 8 months ago
@thesparitan We ought to dispel the idea, perpetuated by people like Chomsky (and others), that inconveniencing some Left-wing terrorist or despot. or liberating people targetted by such a goon and his personal gang of thugs. is somehow to be considered a "war crime".
DrCruel 8 months ago
@eviscero Chomsky whines as he does because he personally profits by doing so.
DrCruel 8 months ago
Wow... his comments on Buckley, a man I disagreed with on 99% of issues, come across as arrogant, small-minded, mean, spiteful, and disgusting. What an asshole to say 'not by me' after every comment. Chomsky is a fuckin asshole... no matter how 'intelligent' he is regarded.
GhostSoldier77777 8 months ago
@GhostSoldier77777 You should see the actual video that Chomsky mentions. And see for yourself how insufficient Buckley's knowledge of history is and how rudely he interrupted Chomsky every 10 seconds. It is a disgustingly irritating video.
Chomsky is not a "fucking asshole". Buckley was.
fastballonly 8 months ago 29
Both are. Chomsky does not listen to Buckley much, but debates
can turn into fight
Defwildwolves 7 months ago
@Defwildwolves I don't see how you can say that.
Chomsky has the patience to listen even when he's rudely interrupted in mid-sentence a few times. But he got fed up with being interrupted in the middle of his answer to Buckley's question that he started counter-interrupting.
Did you really see that video?
It is the most unpleasant thing to watch.
fastballonly 7 months ago 10
@fastballonly "how insufficient Buckley's knowledge of history is "
LOL! Good thing there are ignorant people in the world who are gullible enough to beleive this otherwise you would be even more lonely than you already are.
thedavidwilson 7 months ago
@thedavidwilson You make no sense. Don't open your mouth to say nothing.
fastballonly 7 months ago 7
@fastballonly I disagree. Chomsky may not be a "fucking asshole" for his view on and rivalry with Buckley, that was based on their personal differences and does not concern me; however, Chomsky in general is, in my opinion that which was said about him, in that he is a snob and in that he gets involved in political issues in which he is completely uneducated. Chomsky's foreign policy views for instance, are baseless and for him to take a stand on the issues he chooses is presumptuous in itself
MasterEled 7 months ago
@MasterEled There was no rivalry between Chomsky and Buckley. Buckley was completely outmatched by Chomsky in terms of historical and political knowledge, and most importantly manners.
Also, one needs no qualification to discuss matters of politics. Chomsky's views on world politics and US foreign affairs are simply based on facts accessible to all.
Chomsky is primarily a scientist who specializes in linguistics.
He has a rational mind that can easily apply to other fields.
fastballonly 7 months ago 12
@fastballonly "Scientist" can technically be applied to anyone who does anything because any study can be called a "science," however, Chomsky is just a linguist for all intents and purposes. They did have some apparent dislike for each other according to how Chomsky spoke in this video. One does not "need qualification" to discuss anything, but it does make one more credible, especially when a field is so vast, expansive and multi-faceted as politics. There are no universal facts in politics
MasterEled 7 months ago
@MasterEled You just don't like Chomsky.
fastballonly 7 months ago 3
@fastballonly True, but that is what an argument is, it is ones reasons why their opinion is close to factual.
MasterEled 7 months ago
@MasterEled I would structure this better but I will try to stay within the comment limit as to not deviate too far from my original rebuttals.
MasterEled 7 months ago
@fastballonly Buckley made a fool of himself. He always considered himself
an intellectual, but he was not a conservative intellectual, he was a 'reactionary'.
Chomsky may not be right, but he has always expressed himself in an
intelligent manner, without all the nasty anger!
fntime 6 months ago
@fntime What nasty anger are you talking about? First of all, the liberal atheist liars in the media have given anger a bad rap. You think in the face of social atrocities taking place that good fathers should just sit around being nice? Get real. Be that or not, however, comparing the seemingly sedated calm of Buckley to the sedated calm of Chomsky, calling the latter more rational, is pure fantasy. They could both put you to sleep.
randalusa 6 months ago
@randalusa When you threaten to punch someone while exchanging
opinions, I call that anger of the worst kind. People are often
unfavorably affected by their emotions. But Buckley was extremely
opinionated and then threatening.
Chomsky was being a gentleman. And he should have taken Buckley
up on the threat. Buckley was very 'swishy' and probably would have
beaten Chomsky with his purse.
By the way, I think 'progressives' are 'cancer' to America, they are
really very stupid!
fntime 6 months ago
@GhostSoldier77777 You are small minded and immature. What do you think foreign policy is like a COD game?
thesparitan 8 months ago
@GhostSoldier77777 personally i respect chomsky for not sugar coating his thoughts on Buckley as many would in due of his death. he doesnt let buckleys death cloud his personal judgement and gives his honest opinion, you cant really ask for more of a man than that whether your left or right leaning
TheHappydead 8 months ago 43
@TheHappydead You can ask a lot more than "honest opinion." You can ask for, and expect, knowledge. If you have not read Plato, well, now's the time!
henrycate 7 months ago
@TheHappydead i couldn't agree more. chomsky is content to be a prick and i respect him for it.
zazfilm 3 months ago
@jamesia13
I don't know which is funnier. that you think Affirmative Action is "fair", or that you think the Republican party has suddenly embraced it.
"Most of their talking points are stuff they've heard from current politicians or political commentary "
And you can say the exact same thing about the Left Wing's propagandist equivalents, like Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Bill Maher, Michael Moore, Oliver Stone . . .
NiceGuyCody 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BBOYMONI
"Chomsky is considered to be the greatest living academic on the planet and one of the 10 most cited writers in all the humanities" . . . by a bunch of mindless sheep, zealots and totalitarian-fetishists.