I love how Chomsky asks: "May I complete a sentence?" but then seriosuly, watch how every time Buckley says more than a few words, Chomsky interrupts him. I mean come on, at least be do yourself that which you ask of others...
The only way conservatives, even of Buckley's stature, maintain the semblance of equity in any arena of discourse is though the power of manipulation of the conversation. Just look at how quiet and respectful Chomsky is. Bill O'Rielly shines through multiple times in WFB's contortions and expedient artifices. So long as he pushes forward the offense and never concedes or reflects, he is "right".
@mattb521 that's quite a loose comparison between Buckley and O'Reilly. Atleast Buckley is trying to impose somewhat feasible defenses of U.S. intervention, O'Reilly is just pure patriotic drivel.
Buckley is a pretentious buffoon. Like a cheap American facsimile of supercilious English toff. If you write down his mutterings they make no sense whatsoever.
I truly support the power of YouTube to broadcast the archives of one of the worlds only real SOCIALIST intellects while annihilating a pompous, weasel conservative.
It's willfully ignorant people like Buckley who are in power because that is part of what they desire. Those without an ulterior agenda would rather live peacefully and with tolerance. What a damn shame.
@neobudda1 No doubt. WFB is flat out wrong re the history of post WWII W.Europe. NC is attempting to show the parallels with US policy in Vietnm, Greece, Italy, Guatmla, DR, Cba. US/Keenan policy is containment of a country's populace(workers/peasants) and their governing structure. Ideally, the US will be in control of their military and politicians in some way. All pushing our agenda. This isn't pretty, but it is the way things work. Read "How The World Works". NC's lectures in print form.
I see the majority of the posts here are anti-Buckley. But be honest, wouldn't you rather his be the voice of contemporary American conservatism? This video has us talking instead of raging, which is what is on t.v. today.
This doesn't seem like a debate ... Buckley is poking and tries to get his point without even analyzing thoroughly , and when Chomsky starts he interrupts with another ignorant question and so on and so on .... I think it's because he is incompetent to see further than his nose or at least to look outside of the picture that american media and international politics influenced him at that time...There is no debate here. Only a host that is trying to make egoistic point without listening
@joeh7773 No he doesn't. Chomsky uses facts to support his arguments and demolish his opponent's. Then Buckley cracks a lame and, as Chomsky points out, irrelevant joke to deflect the pressure on him. He proceeds to tell Chomsky than he is choosing his starting points to suit his own argument, but provides not a singly example to support this ridiculous accusation. How pathetic.
Buckley was SO ARROGANT. He loses the argument simply by opening his mouth. Chomsky's passion and logic destroys Buckley's arrogance and purposeful attempts to trip Chomsky up. At 4:30 Chomsky BLOWS Buckley away; makes him look foolish.
Moreover, DH's "books" (cough... pamphlets...cough...) have been consistently demolished as senseless rubbish. DH hates academia, let alone the most important intellectual this country has ever produced (the most quoted author in history, 1 of the 10 most important thinkers in history, and arguably the most brilliant mind alive, according to the NYT) because he (DH) is an uneducated, vulgar, slug that couldn't find a place in academia to mop the floor NC has been the head of @ MIT for 40 years!
Chomsky "wins" arguments by making up facts of his own. Buckley's logic runs over him. In this clip, Buckley scores on the issue of security being equally important as material aid, and on the issue of the inability to transform another country into a satellite without a military occupying force. So what Chomsky does at this point is make up phony facts to disprove Buckley's logic. Like that South Vietnam was the aggressor in the Vietnam war. Or that the Dominican Republic is a U.S. satellite.
It's also interesting to look back on this from a vantage point that shows how wrong Noam Chomsky was, how it was far more brutal behind the Iron Curtain than we knew.
Chomsky focuses on semantics while Buckley tries to look at things more broadly.. When it comes to arguments, a person who plays with semantic wins but to convince the general public, the content must contain some common sense which Chomsky lacks..
@tte8995 -- I think you've underestimated the effectiveness of Chomsky's disingenuousness. Chomsky's attempts to sow semantic discord (e.g., referring to even requested intervention as "imposed") show how weak his arguments are, but they are effective with the intellectually shallow. ...and there are many intellectually shallow people who don't have the mental firepower to see through it. (Mixed metaphor thrown in for your pleasure at no additional charge! :-)
@CaponeAl36 Chomsky's modus operandi has always been the same. You have to read the Anti-Chomsky Reader by Collier, Horowitz, et al. He counters arguments with "facts", not logic. The only problem is that his facts are fantasy. So you see here Chomsky attacking Buckley's very clear argument that material aid is worthless if there is no security for the aid recipients with the contention that he refers to a "dream world" and then pumps out "facts" he made up to fit into his radical theories.
@maidenman69 Horowitz was a STALINIST, before he became the FASCIST, NEO-ZIONIST, extreme right wing neocon he is now. Not much of a change, considering that Stalin was a Fascist who coined the term useful idiots to describe people like Horowitz. Horowitz is an inferior mind, an Israeli lobby mouth piece, that is paid to disseminate misinformation, to baffle ignorant slobs like yourself, and the only reason he detests Chomsky is because NC never even bother with DH's nonsense.
@maidenman69 Furthermore, DH can't even survive the lite scrutiny of someone like Bill Maher , on a casual interview, where his "bunker mentality" is blown to smithereens, and you come try to peddle his "FACTS" as if they actually have any historical merit or backing? You, Sir, are a complete idiot! You never read Chomsky. You obviously do not know Horowitz, his pathetic fetish with serious scholars, and his obvious jealousy of respected scholars. A sad, little...little man.
@lapwiz Apparently people who read Chomsky think ad hominem is acceptable argument. You can defend his lies, compiled neatly in places like Paul Bogdanor's pdf of Chomsky's top 200 lies, which anyone can just google and check the footnotes for themselves. Or you can just name-call. As for me reading Chomsky, I assure you that I have. I am a Salvadoran living in Guatemala. I became interested in Chomsky after he became interested in telling lies about my people's history.
@maidenman69 So you all you read are demolished lies. PhD. Students have defended thesis on these slimy liars and their shameless Israel paid for vulgar propaganda campaigns to justify the perpetuation of their THIEVERY of PALESTINIAN LANDS and to continue to run the APARTHEID STATE OF ISRAEL. So, on which paramilitary death squad were you brainwashed into killing people in El Salvador, you right wing fascist piece of shit?
@maidenman69 What lies did NC "spread" about El Salvadorian history, you Stalinist maricon.
Where are your quotes, and facts? Two pathetic Israel paid mouth pieces that make a living out of spreading smoke screens on the internet not worthy of any respect or response because any educated person can see that it's nothing but vulgar propaganda aimed at idiots like you? Prove your claims, because Horowitz is famous for being a shameless Stalinist turn neocon LIAR!
Respond to this video...WFB was a pompous, presumptuous, pretentious, arrogant, silly little man. NC just demolished his "historical" nonsense. "You pick the time, the subject matter....may I complete a sentence, little man? The Viatnamese "north and south", say what?). It is embarrassing to watch WFB collapsing into a defensive slug then crawl into a childish corner. "But we didn't conquer France"! It all just goes down hill from there for silly Willy Buck.
Chomsky's creating "sharp differences" by using his specialty as a Linguist to try to back Buckley into a corner. Buckley rejects that by continuing to assume the interconnectedness of all things.
My jaw hit the floor when Buckley suggested the US never occupied the Dominican Republic. That's an extremely basic refutation of a historic FACT. Like Chomsky says, "Ask a Dominican."
So what you will about Buckley. We would benefit if contemporary conservatives conducted themselves like he did. He's much brighter, more eloquent, and open minded than the lunatics today.
LoL, He was a patronizing pseudo intellectual. He is the precursor to Bill O Reilly. Attempting to control the debate by interruptions, sound bites and false confidence.
It was a more eloquent time, but the same absolute tools were in the same corporate controlled positions. Just because the internet can show you a lot of the connections of our day does not change the fact that the same has been consistent throughout the history of the world.
@Theobrothers "Just because the internet can show you a lot of the connections of our day does not change the fact that the same has been consistent throughout the history of the world." I'm sorry but I'm not following you here. Can you explain further?
@AtomsAndTheVoid Buckley was open to the idea that Dresden bombing was terroristic. The error Buckley made is accusing Chomsky of being "evasive" when he got his Dominican Republic facts wrong. The error Chomsky makes is not crediting anti-communists in Greece as "their own" people as he does with the French, although Communist infiltration functioned differently than German aggression.
Confusion and error are two things that characterize some of our overseas adventures in the Cold War.
@evenstrength The reason Chomsky doesn't credit the Greek anti-communists as "their own" people is because after WW2 the majority of Greek society belonged to communist, anarchist or affiliated groups without any "external force" (i.e. military, Chomsky mentions this) forcing them. Greek communism/anarchism grew naturally of the the Greek resistance movement, which was by far the most extensive and successful resistance during the war, and went on to administer a large part of Greek society.
@evenstrength Indeed.. his willingness to even grant the plausibility of some of Chomsky's premises places him far to the left of today's conservative pundits.
I'm only somewhat familiar with the old version of Chomsky. So when I first watch this video, I was wondering, Chomsky can be considered quite condescending with his remarks and body language, the other guy is much more presentable, both his tone and body language.
I've watched this video numerous times and Chomsky does not cease to put me in absolute awe. His intelligence is amazing! He's like an encyclopedia, it's ridiculous. I actually feel sorry for Buckley in a way haha
That's it! When I first saw "Ladykillers" in 2004 I knew who Tom Hanks based his character off of but I just could not put the name on it. It's William F. Buckley! Tom Hanks used the same voice and speech patterns as Buckley for his character. The character basically talks like this so he can sound smart and disguise how full of shit he is, likely Buckley does.
I love the way Noam spends at least 90 seconds in agreement but opposed to the use of the word 'soldier' many accept national service and 'soldier' is simply worker.
A problem as homesexuality was still illegal and WF was seriously quizical in terms of research.
@OneLove5436 it means "to make a satellite" ....they are talking about how larger powers would basically colonize smaller powers by setting up regimes that were friendly. basically, these regimes would be tied to the larger power and do whatever the larger power wanted. they were in a sense "orbiting" the larger power.
@OneLove5436 it means "to make a satellite" ....they are talking about how larger powers would basically colonize smaller powers by setting up regimes that were friendly. basically, these regimes would be tied to the larger power and do whatever the larger power wanted. they were in a sense "orbiting" the larger power.
Buckley has an extremely high level of delusion going on. He is visibly unable to confront the possibility that he is wrong. He resorts to smug facial expressions and snarky comments when refuted, seemingly trying to convince the audience through sheer tyranny of will
@grands1am At least we get this high level of discussion, and at least he lets Chomsky talk more often than like a Hannity or an O'Reilly let their opponents speak, and at least he gets a heavyweight opponent like Chomsky to debate him unlike modern day conservatives.
He barely lets him finish a point until Chomsky mentions it. After that, Buckley is visibly uncomfortable and only biting his lip so as to not look condescending (too late)
@HurricaneTBag Too true, but look what happens when you let your opponent speak. It's tragic! Shout them down, lest your eyes begin to dart and you are forced into non sequitur.
Never have I seen a better, real world example of the "tiger by the tail" idiom.
Doesn't matter if you're Conservative or Liberal, in this debate Noam Chomsky had the better points. Doesn't mean that Conservatives are dumb or anything but in this instance, Buckley didn't quite match up.
When my parents were children they could turn on the TV to see William F Buckley debate Noam Chomsky.
When I turn on my TV it is Jon Stewart (a comedian who is well-informed) debating Chris Wallace (a news anchor who occasionally makes his father's legacy proud by having an independent thought not officially sanctioned by Murdoch Inc.,)
Wait, you think this was a debate? Noam stomped Bill O Buckley into the ground. Bill Buckley is no different from Bill O Reilly, the difference is merely the generation, and consequentially the generationally accepted delivery of their ignorance.
@NoFuturePete I'm afraid I can't do that, but if any modern intellectual has a grasp on the facts, it's Hitch. Get Hitch 22. It's in there and it's a fine read.
@NoFuturePete According to Hitchens , Chomsky believed that the Soviet Union basically had the moral high ground when compared to the U.S. during the Cold War. I think that's an absurd opinion for someone to have. Obviously we have our crimes to answer for, however that pales in comparison to the USSR.
@evenstrength The crimes committed by the United States certainly don't "pale in comparison" to those of the USSR. Over a million people were slaughtered in Vietnam. In Guatemala, the CIA orchestrated a military coup of the democratically elected leader, Jacobo Arbenz, in favor of the Castillo junta--which was later toppled, until eventually one military dictatorship was replaced by another. USA openly supported the Montt gov during the '80s, through a conflict in which 200,000 Guatamelans died.
@evenstrength It serves no purpose to compare the two nations either--all it does is trivialize the crimes committed on either side. There was no "rational" fear of communism in the United States. Nothing about the Cold War was rational from either party, and because of the insane idiocy that was the Cold War, the world nearly ended. Like, literally ended.
Chomsky is no champion of the Soviet Union. In another interview he refers to the collapse of the Soviet Union as a "victory for socialism."
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
its easy to pick a man's argument apart when you constantly and arrogantly interrupt him and nitpick about tangential, peripheral ideas instead of letting him finish his main point.
Chomsky is completely soft on the Soviet Union.....cold war adventures were based on an understandable, but irrational, fear of communism (which I think is a extremely irrational idea in itself). This is one of the best debates I've ever seen. I don't think there is a clear victor. So much eloquent than tv debates today.
If you cut out all the crap, what William F Buckley. is simply saying to, Noam Chomsky is that it doesn't matter if the system is controlled by White Yellow or Olive (as it was with the last of the Mediterranean peoples Empires...Roman, Greek, Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Persian, Canaanites, Carthaginian etc...). Because THERE will always be fucking shit that needs to be done in order to safeguard the very principals of those whose peoples Empire roots holds too. For THIS is a FACT of LIFE!!
Thats a very nuansed debate unlike any pundit debate on tv today. Conservatives spent so much time and money uneducating people, and robbing them of their critical thinking abilitiy that today you get a guy like Limbaugh dominating the political discourse without any substance, depth, or even facts on his arguments
God I miss this kind of debate and all the back and forth. I remember when such encounters were not that uncommon even if you had to see them on PBS. (nothing against PBS I love it) But such debate is rarely seen. Seems the Fox News dominance in the culture has dumbed down the viewer to the point there is little market for such intellectualism. Buckley truly met his match with Chomsky.
THIS IS A MUST READ. How Roger Ailes Built the Fox News Fear Factory. Rolling Stone
@passerby25 What? Which debate were you watching?? Because in this one, Buckley's the one who's always trying to talk over Chomsky. He barely let the man speak!
Buckley is SOOOOOO nervous. If he hovers on one topic for more than 8 seconds, Chomsky crushes him with encyclopedic historical knowledge. Like a squid, Buckley just tries to squirt ink in the water in order to make a hasty escape from predation. It's hysterical.
@KC101X I guess people see what they want to see but I think we can objectively conclude that chomsky was in possession of more facts and was better able to defend his position. But I am interesting in what exactly you thought won the debate from buckley?
Buckely is irritating in his debate, he picks one from the Chomsky argument and stirs the whole heat of discussion into some other historical/political event.
Why do you say "impose", he said impose as in backed up by the American. Maybe he should learn more about linguistics so he could stop asking trivial questions like a child that can't get a sense of what word is intended to be.
Wow, William F. Buckley wiped the floor with Noam Chomsky. Comparing the US-Guatemala relationship to the Soviet Union's domination of Eastern Europe is sheer nonsense. I will say this for Chomsky though, he is much more classy and articulate than the liberals of today. You can't even compare Maddow, Schultz, Olbermann etc to him. The same can be said for Buckley on the conservative side.
Anyone with even a superficial knowledge of the cold war knows that what it was truly about was not so much the security dilemma typified in the international arms races still prevalent today but rather the two dominant imperial powers of the day carving up the map and shaping global affairs as western hegemony has always done.
the polarized comments on this video are really amazing to read. must every debate have to have the winner holding up the victim's heart above his head and pissing on the loser at the same time?
I love how accurate Noam Chomsky is, but I also love how much of an ignorant, aggressive, pompous, asshole William F. Buckley is. This is a great debate.
@leapingfury Accurate? When the Venona was uncovered so was Chomsky's fantasy about the Soviet Union being equally interventionist as the US. Buckley was intuitively correct especially about the Soviets
@leapingfury The problem is, you're correct. But you're correct only insofar as Buckley's sitting across from Chomsky—I would hazard a guess that there's not a single popular politician, 'pundit', or personality who could, at the moment, hold his own (against either NC/WFB) as Buckley attempts here. Were Buckley still alive today, he would still argue, inferior to Chomsky as he may be, in a far more accurate and intellectually honest, consistent, and generally respectable fashion than his peers.
Chomsky in his criticisms of American imperialism gives the impression of downplaying communist totalitarianism. As someone who has been brought up in a country whose leaders had deep sympathies for communist and socialist ideologies I dislike this about Chomsky.
@jackjillsean I dont think so, if you read and listen to chomsky he often tells people why he criticize america more, he is no less kind to the communist and he is not and never has been a communist.
I don't dislike Buckley because of the interruptions but because neo conservative theories sound good on paper only . Also a lot of what Chomsky says is expo post facto and commentary only.
The problem today is there are so many channels to watch and only a small few people are willing to watch someone like Bill O'reilly and the others. Also Marxists will not go on shows where they are truly challenged like O'Reilly or Hannity and so a good debate of values and history doesn't take place very often.
@Chrisbedguy what you're comparing Buckley to bill'oreilly and sean hannity, look i dont like the guy much but he at least has respect for his guests. that's the funniest thing i've heard today also bill o'reilly has huge ratings.
Buckley is obviously not seeking truth; he is merely defending America and American actions. It's a critical flaw. One must open his mind to new ideas rather than blindly cling to old beliefs.
Buckley is obviously not seeking truth; he is merely defending America and American. It's a critical flaw. One must open his mind to new ideas rather than blindly cling to old beliefs.
Try to count how many times Buckey interrupts Chomsky in the middle of his sentence and tries to derail his argument. Just because Buckey sounds like a faux aristocrat doesn't mean his way of debating is sophisticated. In terms of substance, t's very close to Bill O'Reilly's level.
I am continually mystified as to why Chomsky continues to be such an intellectual hero in the world of politics and policy theory. I can only guess two reasons for his continued popularity. 1. He is a college professor, and in the mind of many a PhD in anything somehow equates to expertise in everything. 2. He consistently takes the “correct” POV about America. Specifically, that America is bad and everything we do around the world is bad and motivated by pure evil.
I agree with Tang Buckley mannerisms are very disgusting! He is in love with himself! Reflective of the current times and how sound arguments are not given a true platform attempting to dilute the point!
Buckley has no place to be discussing history with Chomsky. He's outmatched. This should merely be an interview, where Buckley asks a question and then shuts up to listen.
@h1yaaaguy YeahlI'm sure the Vietnamese boat people fleeing the North Vietnamese through pirate and shark infested water were convinced of Chomsky's brilliance....
It is interesting to watch the deluded Buckley in action because he was portrayed as an intelligent and critical thinker. Not only does B. interrupt every argument, he shows his ignorance of history. The understanding I got from this interview-like thing is where Chomsky may have got an impetus to write Manufacturing Consent, and how much the media disrespects the intelligence of their viewers. How can arrogant snobbery trump intelligence? But the history of the media argues it has.
chomsky is extremely intelligent. He has a loose affiliation with marxist ideas but overall I respect his solid anti imperialist arguments. Buckly is lost in this debate. he sees everything through a warped idea that the us is a liberating good for the world
I've heard of the legend of Noam Chomsky and this is the first time I've seen him in action. He is certainly an incredibly intelligent (patient!) guy!
I'd never heard of William F. Buckley before and this is the first time I've seen him. What a dickhead!
@Billybobble1 Pah ha ha ha! Spoken like a true Brit. I have come to the conclusion that Buckley is left reeling in this debate and can be seen chugging fumes at 5:58 in this video, with his refugee quip made to soothe his throbbing nobend, red and pulsing at the end of his overfed and chubby shaft. The bony structure of Chomsky presents the modesty and rationale of his intellectual working class upbringing.
As much of a dickhead as Buckley was, I actually feel his intentions were good.
Despite Buckley's irritating attempts at confusing the discussion, Chomsky could at least get a few key points across for the benefit of the viewer. That was some 40 years ago.
Thanks for the upload!!
Nelladagar 2 days ago
buckley is so irritating
arta612 2 weeks ago
Fucking buckley is more interested in interrupting every chance he get rather than listening.
jwcooper52 3 weeks ago in playlist Favorite videos 3
@jwcooper52 yeah cause he'll look bad if he lets Chomsky destroy all of his points haha
fLcGambit 2 weeks ago
I love how Chomsky asks: "May I complete a sentence?" but then seriosuly, watch how every time Buckley says more than a few words, Chomsky interrupts him. I mean come on, at least be do yourself that which you ask of others...
marklemon75 3 weeks ago
The only way conservatives, even of Buckley's stature, maintain the semblance of equity in any arena of discourse is though the power of manipulation of the conversation. Just look at how quiet and respectful Chomsky is. Bill O'Rielly shines through multiple times in WFB's contortions and expedient artifices. So long as he pushes forward the offense and never concedes or reflects, he is "right".
mattb521 4 weeks ago
@mattb521 that's quite a loose comparison between Buckley and O'Reilly. Atleast Buckley is trying to impose somewhat feasible defenses of U.S. intervention, O'Reilly is just pure patriotic drivel.
fLcGambit 2 weeks ago
can someone explain to me what chomsky is saying at 1:30
Evan2718281828 1 month ago
Buckley is a pretentious buffoon. Like a cheap American facsimile of supercilious English toff. If you write down his mutterings they make no sense whatsoever.
economist737 1 month ago 6
In 1969 Chomsky still had a brain (although he was often wrong). Today he is a pathetic old man, trying to defend collectivism.
jscottupton 1 month ago
Chomsky counters with facts and Buckley calls him evasive??? Talk about projection!
ThisSentenceIsFalse 1 month ago in playlist More videos from Proverbs13i16
I truly support the power of YouTube to broadcast the archives of one of the worlds only real SOCIALIST intellects while annihilating a pompous, weasel conservative.
perilouspower 1 month ago 3
It's willfully ignorant people like Buckley who are in power because that is part of what they desire. Those without an ulterior agenda would rather live peacefully and with tolerance. What a damn shame.
walidb123 1 month ago
its like an adult explaing to a 6 year old
neobudda1 1 month ago 2
@neobudda1 No doubt. WFB is flat out wrong re the history of post WWII W.Europe. NC is attempting to show the parallels with US policy in Vietnm, Greece, Italy, Guatmla, DR, Cba. US/Keenan policy is containment of a country's populace(workers/peasants) and their governing structure. Ideally, the US will be in control of their military and politicians in some way. All pushing our agenda. This isn't pretty, but it is the way things work. Read "How The World Works". NC's lectures in print form.
austntexan 1 month ago
I see the majority of the posts here are anti-Buckley. But be honest, wouldn't you rather his be the voice of contemporary American conservatism? This video has us talking instead of raging, which is what is on t.v. today.
evenstrength 1 month ago
This doesn't seem like a debate ... Buckley is poking and tries to get his point without even analyzing thoroughly , and when Chomsky starts he interrupts with another ignorant question and so on and so on .... I think it's because he is incompetent to see further than his nose or at least to look outside of the picture that american media and international politics influenced him at that time...There is no debate here. Only a host that is trying to make egoistic point without listening
zachariusful 1 month ago
Bill Buckley sums up chomsky's decietful tactic beautifully at 6:57.
joeh7773 1 month ago
@joeh7773 No he doesn't. Chomsky uses facts to support his arguments and demolish his opponent's. Then Buckley cracks a lame and, as Chomsky points out, irrelevant joke to deflect the pressure on him. He proceeds to tell Chomsky than he is choosing his starting points to suit his own argument, but provides not a singly example to support this ridiculous accusation. How pathetic.
tailorswing02 1 day ago
For a historical perspectice, 42 years later, Buckley was right.
MrTreantHugger 2 months ago
I really marvel at the way Chomsky keeps his cool. Mrs. Thatcher would have been a perfect fit for Mr. WIlliam
whatslifespurpose 2 months ago
William F. Buckley behaves like a big time ASSHOLE repeatedly interrupting Chomsky by using irrelevant analogies.
whatslifespurpose 2 months ago
Buckley was SO ARROGANT. He loses the argument simply by opening his mouth. Chomsky's passion and logic destroys Buckley's arrogance and purposeful attempts to trip Chomsky up. At 4:30 Chomsky BLOWS Buckley away; makes him look foolish.
paperbacknovel 2 months ago in playlist More videos from Proverbs13i16
Chomsky>Buckley
dainfernman 2 months ago
Moreover, DH's "books" (cough... pamphlets...cough...) have been consistently demolished as senseless rubbish. DH hates academia, let alone the most important intellectual this country has ever produced (the most quoted author in history, 1 of the 10 most important thinkers in history, and arguably the most brilliant mind alive, according to the NYT) because he (DH) is an uneducated, vulgar, slug that couldn't find a place in academia to mop the floor NC has been the head of @ MIT for 40 years!
lapwiz 2 months ago
Chomsky "wins" arguments by making up facts of his own. Buckley's logic runs over him. In this clip, Buckley scores on the issue of security being equally important as material aid, and on the issue of the inability to transform another country into a satellite without a military occupying force. So what Chomsky does at this point is make up phony facts to disprove Buckley's logic. Like that South Vietnam was the aggressor in the Vietnam war. Or that the Dominican Republic is a U.S. satellite.
maidenman69 2 months ago
It's very telling that Buckley quickly evades the subject every time he's backed into a corner which Chomsky manages to do on several occasions.
BalazarsBrain 2 months ago
Is there a Friedman vs Chomsky? Buckley has great vocabulary but not much substance!
H1TMANactual 2 months ago 2
Buckley loves straw men.
PsyPhiRevolution 3 months ago 3
It's also interesting to look back on this from a vantage point that shows how wrong Noam Chomsky was, how it was far more brutal behind the Iron Curtain than we knew.
CaponeAl36 3 months ago 2
Chomsky focuses on semantics while Buckley tries to look at things more broadly.. When it comes to arguments, a person who plays with semantic wins but to convince the general public, the content must contain some common sense which Chomsky lacks..
tte8995 3 months ago
@tte8995 -- I think you've underestimated the effectiveness of Chomsky's disingenuousness. Chomsky's attempts to sow semantic discord (e.g., referring to even requested intervention as "imposed") show how weak his arguments are, but they are effective with the intellectually shallow. ...and there are many intellectually shallow people who don't have the mental firepower to see through it. (Mixed metaphor thrown in for your pleasure at no additional charge! :-)
CaponeAl36 3 months ago
@CaponeAl36 Chomsky's modus operandi has always been the same. You have to read the Anti-Chomsky Reader by Collier, Horowitz, et al. He counters arguments with "facts", not logic. The only problem is that his facts are fantasy. So you see here Chomsky attacking Buckley's very clear argument that material aid is worthless if there is no security for the aid recipients with the contention that he refers to a "dream world" and then pumps out "facts" he made up to fit into his radical theories.
maidenman69 2 months ago
@maidenman69 Horowitz was a STALINIST, before he became the FASCIST, NEO-ZIONIST, extreme right wing neocon he is now. Not much of a change, considering that Stalin was a Fascist who coined the term useful idiots to describe people like Horowitz. Horowitz is an inferior mind, an Israeli lobby mouth piece, that is paid to disseminate misinformation, to baffle ignorant slobs like yourself, and the only reason he detests Chomsky is because NC never even bother with DH's nonsense.
lapwiz 2 months ago
@maidenman69 Furthermore, DH can't even survive the lite scrutiny of someone like Bill Maher , on a casual interview, where his "bunker mentality" is blown to smithereens, and you come try to peddle his "FACTS" as if they actually have any historical merit or backing? You, Sir, are a complete idiot! You never read Chomsky. You obviously do not know Horowitz, his pathetic fetish with serious scholars, and his obvious jealousy of respected scholars. A sad, little...little man.
lapwiz 2 months ago
@lapwiz Apparently people who read Chomsky think ad hominem is acceptable argument. You can defend his lies, compiled neatly in places like Paul Bogdanor's pdf of Chomsky's top 200 lies, which anyone can just google and check the footnotes for themselves. Or you can just name-call. As for me reading Chomsky, I assure you that I have. I am a Salvadoran living in Guatemala. I became interested in Chomsky after he became interested in telling lies about my people's history.
maidenman69 2 months ago
@maidenman69 So you all you read are demolished lies. PhD. Students have defended thesis on these slimy liars and their shameless Israel paid for vulgar propaganda campaigns to justify the perpetuation of their THIEVERY of PALESTINIAN LANDS and to continue to run the APARTHEID STATE OF ISRAEL. So, on which paramilitary death squad were you brainwashed into killing people in El Salvador, you right wing fascist piece of shit?
lapwiz 2 months ago
@maidenman69 What lies did NC "spread" about El Salvadorian history, you Stalinist maricon.
Where are your quotes, and facts? Two pathetic Israel paid mouth pieces that make a living out of spreading smoke screens on the internet not worthy of any respect or response because any educated person can see that it's nothing but vulgar propaganda aimed at idiots like you? Prove your claims, because Horowitz is famous for being a shameless Stalinist turn neocon LIAR!
lapwiz 2 months ago
Respond to this video...WFB was a pompous, presumptuous, pretentious, arrogant, silly little man. NC just demolished his "historical" nonsense. "You pick the time, the subject matter....may I complete a sentence, little man? The Viatnamese "north and south", say what?). It is embarrassing to watch WFB collapsing into a defensive slug then crawl into a childish corner. "But we didn't conquer France"! It all just goes down hill from there for silly Willy Buck.
lapwiz 2 months ago
I like Buckley and Chomsky but Chomsky fucks Buckley up.
SoldierofFortune07 3 months ago 2
Chomsky's creating "sharp differences" by using his specialty as a Linguist to try to back Buckley into a corner. Buckley rejects that by continuing to assume the interconnectedness of all things.
WickerVideos 3 months ago 2
My jaw hit the floor when Buckley suggested the US never occupied the Dominican Republic. That's an extremely basic refutation of a historic FACT. Like Chomsky says, "Ask a Dominican."
EP4LFC 3 months ago
So what you will about Buckley. We would benefit if contemporary conservatives conducted themselves like he did. He's much brighter, more eloquent, and open minded than the lunatics today.
evenstrength 3 months ago 20
@evenstrength
LoL, He was a patronizing pseudo intellectual. He is the precursor to Bill O Reilly. Attempting to control the debate by interruptions, sound bites and false confidence.
It was a more eloquent time, but the same absolute tools were in the same corporate controlled positions. Just because the internet can show you a lot of the connections of our day does not change the fact that the same has been consistent throughout the history of the world.
Theobrothers 2 months ago
@Theobrothers "Just because the internet can show you a lot of the connections of our day does not change the fact that the same has been consistent throughout the history of the world." I'm sorry but I'm not following you here. Can you explain further?
evenstrength 1 month ago
@evenstrength Where was he open minded? He just jumped to a new topic every time he was cornered.
AtomsAndTheVoid 2 months ago 2
@AtomsAndTheVoid Buckley was open to the idea that Dresden bombing was terroristic. The error Buckley made is accusing Chomsky of being "evasive" when he got his Dominican Republic facts wrong. The error Chomsky makes is not crediting anti-communists in Greece as "their own" people as he does with the French, although Communist infiltration functioned differently than German aggression.
Confusion and error are two things that characterize some of our overseas adventures in the Cold War.
evenstrength 1 month ago
@evenstrength The reason Chomsky doesn't credit the Greek anti-communists as "their own" people is because after WW2 the majority of Greek society belonged to communist, anarchist or affiliated groups without any "external force" (i.e. military, Chomsky mentions this) forcing them. Greek communism/anarchism grew naturally of the the Greek resistance movement, which was by far the most extensive and successful resistance during the war, and went on to administer a large part of Greek society.
Meibukan 1 month ago
@evenstrength Indeed.. his willingness to even grant the plausibility of some of Chomsky's premises places him far to the left of today's conservative pundits.
sirmailbox 10 hours ago
I'm only somewhat familiar with the old version of Chomsky. So when I first watch this video, I was wondering, Chomsky can be considered quite condescending with his remarks and body language, the other guy is much more presentable, both his tone and body language.
wildreams 3 months ago
@wildreams
What? It was Buckley who had condescending body language and tone.
help4343 3 months ago
@help4343 Yes, I thought Buckley was Chomsky!
wildreams 3 months ago
Chomsky is "disinterested" in Buckley's rants
tndowns1122 3 months ago
@tndowns1122 *uninterested
PublicSecrecy 3 months ago
dear god what is wront with buckley
Ibahz 3 months ago
I've watched this video numerous times and Chomsky does not cease to put me in absolute awe. His intelligence is amazing! He's like an encyclopedia, it's ridiculous. I actually feel sorry for Buckley in a way haha
idunnoalexmaybe 3 months ago
That's it! When I first saw "Ladykillers" in 2004 I knew who Tom Hanks based his character off of but I just could not put the name on it. It's William F. Buckley! Tom Hanks used the same voice and speech patterns as Buckley for his character. The character basically talks like this so he can sound smart and disguise how full of shit he is, likely Buckley does.
Eaglesfaninca 4 months ago
Noam is brilliant, with full command, and able to recall anything he has ever read or heard. But his macro-interpretation button is broken.
islandmuffin 4 months ago
Buckley is dumb
darkroommonster 4 months ago
The arrogance of the "robotin" is so far beyond the charts, that he can't even see it.
Gmmaverick 4 months ago
I love the way Noam spends at least 90 seconds in agreement but opposed to the use of the word 'soldier' many accept national service and 'soldier' is simply worker.
A problem as homesexuality was still illegal and WF was seriously quizical in terms of research.
sweding101 4 months ago
@ 4:54 and 5:13 he says something, what does it mean? I tried looking up "Satilize" on google but I am not getting the definition.
.
WHAT DOES SATILIZE OR WHATEVER HE SAID MEAN?
OneLove5436 4 months ago
@OneLove5436 it means "to make a satellite" ....they are talking about how larger powers would basically colonize smaller powers by setting up regimes that were friendly. basically, these regimes would be tied to the larger power and do whatever the larger power wanted. they were in a sense "orbiting" the larger power.
lukaskoube 4 months ago
@OneLove5436 it means "to make a satellite" ....they are talking about how larger powers would basically colonize smaller powers by setting up regimes that were friendly. basically, these regimes would be tied to the larger power and do whatever the larger power wanted. they were in a sense "orbiting" the larger power.
lukaskoube 4 months ago
@lukaskoube ... How come I did not find "Satilize" on dictionarydotreferencedotcom. What is the proper spelling?
OneLove5436 4 months ago
@OneLove5436 look up"Satellite state".......they are using it as a verb when it is properly a noun
lukaskoube 4 months ago
chomsky is overrated all you kids should stop sucking his dick
gibson9821 4 months ago
Buckley never lets Chomsky finish any sentence ... bastard
NeroSNT 4 months ago
Buckley has an extremely high level of delusion going on. He is visibly unable to confront the possibility that he is wrong. He resorts to smug facial expressions and snarky comments when refuted, seemingly trying to convince the audience through sheer tyranny of will
grands1am 5 months ago 5
@grands1am At least we get this high level of discussion, and at least he lets Chomsky talk more often than like a Hannity or an O'Reilly let their opponents speak, and at least he gets a heavyweight opponent like Chomsky to debate him unlike modern day conservatives.
HurricaneTBag 4 months ago 7
@HurricaneTBag
He barely lets him finish a point until Chomsky mentions it. After that, Buckley is visibly uncomfortable and only biting his lip so as to not look condescending (too late)
grands1am 4 months ago
@HurricaneTBag Too true, but look what happens when you let your opponent speak. It's tragic! Shout them down, lest your eyes begin to dart and you are forced into non sequitur.
Never have I seen a better, real world example of the "tiger by the tail" idiom.
kidigus 1 month ago
@grands1am hi norm.
statis 4 months ago
@statis
Well done, sir
grands1am 4 months ago
Doesn't matter if you're Conservative or Liberal, in this debate Noam Chomsky had the better points. Doesn't mean that Conservatives are dumb or anything but in this instance, Buckley didn't quite match up.
Evenflowist314 5 months ago 2
Why did this guy think he could debate Chomsky, he is a hack. This is sad.
celine111333 5 months ago
When my parents were children they could turn on the TV to see William F Buckley debate Noam Chomsky.
When I turn on my TV it is Jon Stewart (a comedian who is well-informed) debating Chris Wallace (a news anchor who occasionally makes his father's legacy proud by having an independent thought not officially sanctioned by Murdoch Inc.,)
That makes me sad
Craigipedia 5 months ago 25
@Craigipedia The last great newsman was Ted Koppel';it's all basically like the movie "Network" now....
mrbriscoe2001 5 months ago
@Craigipedia Buckley seems utterly insufferable, I can't imagine turning this guy's voice on so often without slapping the TV.
lemonsawdust 2 months ago 2
Wait, you think this was a debate? Noam stomped Bill O Buckley into the ground. Bill Buckley is no different from Bill O Reilly, the difference is merely the generation, and consequentially the generationally accepted delivery of their ignorance.
Theobrothers 2 months ago
Big bad Noah Levenstein
knowwhatimean92 5 months ago
@NoFuturePete I'm afraid I can't do that, but if any modern intellectual has a grasp on the facts, it's Hitch. Get Hitch 22. It's in there and it's a fine read.
evenstrength 5 months ago
@NoFuturePete According to Hitchens , Chomsky believed that the Soviet Union basically had the moral high ground when compared to the U.S. during the Cold War. I think that's an absurd opinion for someone to have. Obviously we have our crimes to answer for, however that pales in comparison to the USSR.
evenstrength 5 months ago
Comment removed
ChrisnSnoop 4 months ago
Comment removed
ChrisnSnoop 4 months ago
Comment removed
ChrisnSnoop 4 months ago
Comment removed
ChrisnSnoop 4 months ago
Comment removed
ChrisnSnoop 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@evenstrength The crimes committed by the United States certainly don't "pale in comparison" to those of the USSR. Over a million people were slaughtered in Vietnam. In Guatemala, the CIA orchestrated a military coup of the democratically elected leader, Jacobo Arbenz, in favor of the Castillo junta--which was later toppled, until eventually one military dictatorship was replaced by another. USA openly supported the Montt gov during the '80s, through a conflict in which 200,000 Guatamelans died.
ChrisnSnoop 4 months ago
@evenstrength It serves no purpose to compare the two nations either--all it does is trivialize the crimes committed on either side. There was no "rational" fear of communism in the United States. Nothing about the Cold War was rational from either party, and because of the insane idiocy that was the Cold War, the world nearly ended. Like, literally ended.
Chomsky is no champion of the Soviet Union. In another interview he refers to the collapse of the Soviet Union as a "victory for socialism."
ChrisnSnoop 4 months ago
@ChrisnSnoop I said "irrational"
evenstrength 3 months ago
Comment removed
ChrisnSnoop 4 months ago
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
Does Buckley remind you of a slightly more likable Bill O'Reilly?
CapitalW24 6 months ago
Chomsky undressed Buckley, butt fucked him, dressed him back up again and said "you're welcome".
MisterBouncyBounce 6 months ago
its easy to pick a man's argument apart when you constantly and arrogantly interrupt him and nitpick about tangential, peripheral ideas instead of letting him finish his main point.
cliffburton333 6 months ago
haha chomsky just owned him
asdaking95 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrNicespaces
hey, i'm an 18 year old [girl] and i feel the same way!
jumpyourbone 6 months ago
Arrogance + Didacticism = William F. Buckley
xxmdogxx1ify 6 months ago
Chomsky is completely soft on the Soviet Union.....cold war adventures were based on an understandable, but irrational, fear of communism (which I think is a extremely irrational idea in itself). This is one of the best debates I've ever seen. I don't think there is a clear victor. So much eloquent than tv debates today.
evenstrength 6 months ago 2
Evasive!? WTF!?
Aassymcass 6 months ago
Chomsky, "When we were trying to liberate.....setup" Freudian slip!
acmna 7 months ago
If you cut out all the crap, what William F Buckley. is simply saying to, Noam Chomsky is that it doesn't matter if the system is controlled by White Yellow or Olive (as it was with the last of the Mediterranean peoples Empires...Roman, Greek, Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Persian, Canaanites, Carthaginian etc...). Because THERE will always be fucking shit that needs to be done in order to safeguard the very principals of those whose peoples Empire roots holds too. For THIS is a FACT of LIFE!!
bloodcell9 7 months ago
'may i COMPLETE a sentence' - OH NOAM. <3
idSuperego 7 months ago 11
Comment removed
idSuperego 7 months ago
Thats a very nuansed debate unlike any pundit debate on tv today. Conservatives spent so much time and money uneducating people, and robbing them of their critical thinking abilitiy that today you get a guy like Limbaugh dominating the political discourse without any substance, depth, or even facts on his arguments
mttorresca 7 months ago
2:28 to 2:53 ........OWNED! :)
anavrin761520 7 months ago
I was sad to see this debate end.
That was more exciting and stimulating than all the Hollywood movies from the last 3 years combined.
RiyazGuerra 7 months ago 4
Comment removed
drunkardvagabond 7 months ago
Vote Comsky.
drunkardvagabond 7 months ago
It's as if Buckley interups Chomsky everytime he can't follow his thinking, just so he can make another useless comparison........let the man speak!!
barcahooligan 7 months ago 3
Though I disagree with Buckley, I think he deserves a lot more respect than most conservatives today.
RisingToGreatness 8 months ago 5
@RisingToGreatness tru dat. none of this Bill O'Reilly - you're not allowed to speak if you disagree with my interpretation of foreign policy crap
deadrock05 7 months ago
God I miss this kind of debate and all the back and forth. I remember when such encounters were not that uncommon even if you had to see them on PBS. (nothing against PBS I love it) But such debate is rarely seen. Seems the Fox News dominance in the culture has dumbed down the viewer to the point there is little market for such intellectualism. Buckley truly met his match with Chomsky.
THIS IS A MUST READ. How Roger Ailes Built the Fox News Fear Factory. Rolling Stone
Mag. Fascinating
johnnyohness 8 months ago
I wish we could do this nowadays... :( I agree moreso with Chomsky, but the way that he keeps trying to talk over Buckley annoys me.
passerby25 8 months ago
@passerby25 What? Which debate were you watching?? Because in this one, Buckley's the one who's always trying to talk over Chomsky. He barely let the man speak!
gerasoras 6 months ago 2
Buckley keeps ducking and dodging, its so unbelievable. lol this is entertainment.
djluck 8 months ago
Buckley is SOOOOOO nervous. If he hovers on one topic for more than 8 seconds, Chomsky crushes him with encyclopedic historical knowledge. Like a squid, Buckley just tries to squirt ink in the water in order to make a hasty escape from predation. It's hysterical.
marburg9 8 months ago 18
@marburg9 Agreed. It seems like Chomsky wanted to debate ideas and history, while Buckley wanted to argue symantics.
mariomoncole103 3 months ago 2
Buckley is so retarded... it's actually a little sad...
kaishaku72 8 months ago
@KC101X I guess people see what they want to see but I think we can objectively conclude that chomsky was in possession of more facts and was better able to defend his position. But I am interesting in what exactly you thought won the debate from buckley?
thesparitan 8 months ago
Chomsky definitely got laid after this set.
dragonfart28 8 months ago 3
I like how chomsky argues with facts and buckley argues with wordplay and interruptions.
ghostalin 8 months ago 2
Buckley is obnoxious as hell.
He asks a question to Chomsky and interrupts him in the middle of the answer.
Buckley never listened for more than 20 seconds consecutively.
fastballonly 8 months ago in playlist Noam Chomsky Videos ノーム・チョムスキー 2
This William guy has such a terrible lack of genuine intelligence! Chomsky wipes the floor with him!
zendros 8 months ago
Buckely is irritating in his debate, he picks one from the Chomsky argument and stirs the whole heat of discussion into some other historical/political event.
Why do you say "impose", he said impose as in backed up by the American. Maybe he should learn more about linguistics so he could stop asking trivial questions like a child that can't get a sense of what word is intended to be.
glitchnoise 8 months ago
Wow, William F. Buckley wiped the floor with Noam Chomsky. Comparing the US-Guatemala relationship to the Soviet Union's domination of Eastern Europe is sheer nonsense. I will say this for Chomsky though, he is much more classy and articulate than the liberals of today. You can't even compare Maddow, Schultz, Olbermann etc to him. The same can be said for Buckley on the conservative side.
SavagePersonified90 8 months ago
@SavagePersonified90
"...Buckley wiped the floor with Noam Chomsky."
With what,his accent?lmao
Anyone with even a superficial knowledge of the cold war knows that what it was truly about was not so much the security dilemma typified in the international arms races still prevalent today but rather the two dominant imperial powers of the day carving up the map and shaping global affairs as western hegemony has always done.
thirdshift47 8 months ago 3
Neither man is ideologically perfect, but WFB is far more intellectually dishonest, and unarguably rude with NC
iggyaztec 8 months ago
the polarized comments on this video are really amazing to read. must every debate have to have the winner holding up the victim's heart above his head and pissing on the loser at the same time?
xridethelightningx 9 months ago
I love how accurate Noam Chomsky is, but I also love how much of an ignorant, aggressive, pompous, asshole William F. Buckley is. This is a great debate.
leapingfury 9 months ago 62
@leapingfury What are you talking about? Chomsky got torn to pieces. God, his cultist followers are so extremely annoying.
TaskForceSixTwoSix 8 months ago
@TaskForceSixTwoSix How, how did he get torn?
glitchnoise 8 months ago
@TaskForceSixTwoSix How so, because I saw a man with facts and the other one trying to hold a position with only equivocations.
thesparitan 8 months ago
@leapingfury Could not have said it better!
joecairo1 6 months ago
@leapingfury So he is ignorant, aggressive, and pompous because you don't agree with him?
moonshot926 5 months ago
@leapingfury
Whatever one may think of Buckley, or Chomsky for that matter, the adjective "ignorant" never applies.
jaycee314 5 months ago 4
@leapingfury Well,one great thing about the debate between Buckley and Chomsky is the civility;your comment really misses that point,
mrbriscoe2001 5 months ago
@leapingfury Accurate? When the Venona was uncovered so was Chomsky's fantasy about the Soviet Union being equally interventionist as the US. Buckley was intuitively correct especially about the Soviets
prrolg 4 months ago
@leapingfury
Yea... I agree. It always seems odd to me that a person so uninformed and politically vapid (Buckley) can be so arrogant about his misinformation.
leesagrrl 4 months ago
@leapingfury The problem is, you're correct. But you're correct only insofar as Buckley's sitting across from Chomsky—I would hazard a guess that there's not a single popular politician, 'pundit', or personality who could, at the moment, hold his own (against either NC/WFB) as Buckley attempts here. Were Buckley still alive today, he would still argue, inferior to Chomsky as he may be, in a far more accurate and intellectually honest, consistent, and generally respectable fashion than his peers.
PublicSecrecy 3 months ago 4
at 6:04 you can actually see Buckley thinking, "I need to get somebody on this show that knows way less than this guy."
drgram282 9 months ago
Chomsky in his criticisms of American imperialism gives the impression of downplaying communist totalitarianism. As someone who has been brought up in a country whose leaders had deep sympathies for communist and socialist ideologies I dislike this about Chomsky.
jackjillsean 9 months ago
@jackjillsean I dont think so, if you read and listen to chomsky he often tells people why he criticize america more, he is no less kind to the communist and he is not and never has been a communist.
thesparitan 8 months ago
I don't dislike Buckley because of the interruptions but because neo conservative theories sound good on paper only . Also a lot of what Chomsky says is expo post facto and commentary only.
jackjillsean 9 months ago
The problem today is there are so many channels to watch and only a small few people are willing to watch someone like Bill O'reilly and the others. Also Marxists will not go on shows where they are truly challenged like O'Reilly or Hannity and so a good debate of values and history doesn't take place very often.
Chrisbedguy 9 months ago
@Chrisbedguy what you're comparing Buckley to bill'oreilly and sean hannity, look i dont like the guy much but he at least has respect for his guests. that's the funniest thing i've heard today also bill o'reilly has huge ratings.
tommo1313 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Buckley is obviously not seeking truth; he is merely defending America and American actions. It's a critical flaw. One must open his mind to new ideas rather than blindly cling to old beliefs.
estoytocandolaguitar 9 months ago
Buckley is obviously not seeking truth; he is merely defending America and American. It's a critical flaw. One must open his mind to new ideas rather than blindly cling to old beliefs.
estoytocandolaguitar 9 months ago
Buckley's body language is that of an office pervert, truly disgusting.
juujuuuujj 9 months ago
Try to count how many times Buckey interrupts Chomsky in the middle of his sentence and tries to derail his argument. Just because Buckey sounds like a faux aristocrat doesn't mean his way of debating is sophisticated. In terms of substance, t's very close to Bill O'Reilly's level.
juujuuuujj 9 months ago 2
@juujuuuujj He learned English at a British school. Ain't his fault he has that accent. =P
Scenwulf 8 months ago
I am continually mystified as to why Chomsky continues to be such an intellectual hero in the world of politics and policy theory. I can only guess two reasons for his continued popularity. 1. He is a college professor, and in the mind of many a PhD in anything somehow equates to expertise in everything. 2. He consistently takes the “correct” POV about America. Specifically, that America is bad and everything we do around the world is bad and motivated by pure evil.
UCBfan1 9 months ago
I agree with Tang Buckley mannerisms are very disgusting! He is in love with himself! Reflective of the current times and how sound arguments are not given a true platform attempting to dilute the point!
jhl3cali1 9 months ago
Chomsky always changes the conversation. Never sticks to a point. always changing the conversation. in a Debate he loses.
eagleseaglessixers 9 months ago
Sure do miss Bill Buckley, Chomsky is an idiot
BaylorSports 9 months ago
@BaylorSports pffft. Buckley got pwned big-time
napalm5 9 months ago
@napalm5 Chomsky is not taken seriously by anyone but a few kooks.
BaylorSports 9 months ago
Buckley has no place to be discussing history with Chomsky. He's outmatched. This should merely be an interview, where Buckley asks a question and then shuts up to listen.
h1yaaaguy 9 months ago 47
@h1yaaaguy YeahlI'm sure the Vietnamese boat people fleeing the North Vietnamese through pirate and shark infested water were convinced of Chomsky's brilliance....
mrbriscoe2001 5 months ago
could hardly watch this because of Buckley's ignorance and dismissal of any valid argument
xW4RNERx 9 months ago 2
Chomsky CRUSHED ol billy with facts, all buckley can do is throw big vocab out there and flounder like the pretentious yale man that he was
takheads 9 months ago 4
british nigga got murked out
blockhart 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@blockhart he's not british. but agreed.
h1yaaaguy 9 months ago
It is interesting to watch the deluded Buckley in action because he was portrayed as an intelligent and critical thinker. Not only does B. interrupt every argument, he shows his ignorance of history. The understanding I got from this interview-like thing is where Chomsky may have got an impetus to write Manufacturing Consent, and how much the media disrespects the intelligence of their viewers. How can arrogant snobbery trump intelligence? But the history of the media argues it has.
elgajd 9 months ago
its interesting reading the comments on this page.the false left right fight that was going on in 69 is still going strong today
jesso191 9 months ago
chomsky is extremely intelligent. He has a loose affiliation with marxist ideas but overall I respect his solid anti imperialist arguments. Buckly is lost in this debate. he sees everything through a warped idea that the us is a liberating good for the world
dannydannyl 9 months ago
I've heard of the legend of Noam Chomsky and this is the first time I've seen him in action. He is certainly an incredibly intelligent (patient!) guy!
I'd never heard of William F. Buckley before and this is the first time I've seen him. What a dickhead!
Billybobble1 9 months ago 2
@Billybobble1 Pah ha ha ha! Spoken like a true Brit. I have come to the conclusion that Buckley is left reeling in this debate and can be seen chugging fumes at 5:58 in this video, with his refugee quip made to soothe his throbbing nobend, red and pulsing at the end of his overfed and chubby shaft. The bony structure of Chomsky presents the modesty and rationale of his intellectual working class upbringing.
As much of a dickhead as Buckley was, I actually feel his intentions were good.
owenhunt 9 months ago
Despite Buckley's irritating attempts at confusing the discussion, Chomsky could at least get a few key points across for the benefit of the viewer. That was some 40 years ago.
tinsh0es 9 months ago
i hated how the guy kept interrupting chomsky in the middle of very important points
pinoypr1d3 10 months ago
Chomsky loses all credit when he says that S. Vietnam tried to make N. Vietnam a satellite.
ironbmike 10 months ago
@ironbmike Ya ironmike? Are you a leading world historian? What do you know of southeast asian history?
h1yaaaguy 9 months ago