There is a problem with this kind of moral/ethical comparison however, that has been most lucidly explained by Sam Harris in his book The End of Faith. Specifically, a section of the book entitled Leftist Unreason and the strange case of Noam Chomsky. In essence Harris explains that for moral/ethical comparisons between US actions and the actions of terrorist groups to be valid, intentions matter.
Mr. Harris, trotting out his truest and tridest hypotheticals trying to show chinks in Mr. Chomsky's armor. We can all play that game: Mr. Harris, so you would rather come home to rubble and the charred remains of your family with a note in the mailbox that reads A: Sorry, we uploaded the wrong coordinates to the drone". instead of B: "Allah Akbar".
I don't think Mr. Harris would want to come home to ruble and charred remains regardless of the note in his mailbox. Harris' point, and mine, is that such caparisons (America =terrorists, or US war in Vietnam = Nazi genocide) are not only intellectually incorrect, but simply grotesque and insulting. Hypotheticals, however over used, are sometimes necessary when the premise you are arguing against (America is a terrorist state) is so absurd.
@MrUprightcitizen100 I read Harris's book, and his arguments for torture were rather weak, I do agree intention matter to a large degree. also I doubt Chomsky thinks America is a terrorist state to the extent that Islamic fundamentalists are terrorist. Neither do I think Chomsky states that our policies in Vietnam are exactly the same as the Nazi's.
I'm definitely sure Chomsky thinks America's terrorism is equivalent if not more so than Islamic fundamentalists. The same w/ your Vietnam remark. Read one of his books.
I don't see the need to make hypothetical scenarios when, as Chomsky says, you have the actual facts. U.S. spread terror (whatever their intentions) not only in Vietnam, but in Guatemala, Iraq, Chile, Nicaragua, Cambodia, Dominican Republic and a lot of other countries.
And if you want to consider "intentions" non of them were "noble" ones. And in turn, the consequences of some of the regimes imposed by the US have also spread their share of terror among those nations.
I believe that the message Chomsky was trying to invoke is the US foreign polices should never have commit actions that could Ever be seriously compared to the actions of radical, anti-humanitarians regimes
Maybe your right. I guess I just really like Buckley. I will say, however, that Chomsky did impress me more in this interview than in others I've seen with him.
It's amusing. Chomsky grew more irate during this debate than he has in many debates with less intelligent people than Buckley. It seems he's more offended by someone who is educated and articulate and wrong than a buffoon who is wrong.
Yes, the conservative supporter of US international terror and profitable violence supports freedom and the peace-promoting leftist anarchist doesn't.
Groundless? Says you......thankfully I have been raised in an environment(Promised Land) that allows me recognize whats right, and whats TRUE.
Vietnam was a mistake. Everyone knows that. However, what Country doesn't make mistakes here and there. I'm thankful for the Freedom I have to criticise a President, War, or proposed spending.
Maybe you should do a little more appreciateing and a little less complaining.
I called your comment groundless on the grounds that you laid no grounds for it in itself. Ironically, you haven't really laid any grounds for it in this one either. All you've done is rave about freedom and somehow know what's right and true without going into detail. You blow the Vietnam war off as a common mistake and complain about my complaining.
everyone thinks there right all the time. we don't go around thinking were wrong on issues. the only reason to have a debate show like firing line is if two people come to it thinking the other is wrong and taking different stances. yet buckley tries to use this as a way to make chomsky look bad.
Not a logical comparison at all. Buckley may have been a dooshbag (at least I think so) but he was an intelligent dooshbag that could argue his dooshery intellectually instead of just yelling.
I remember Buckley's show "Firing Line" from the 70s. It was the funniest thing on television. He was such a pompous, blovating ass -- always speaking in that god-awful lock jaw voice. (pity the tetnus shot didn't work for him) WFB always interrupted his guests and distorted their comments. He was a walking charicture of a silver-spoon, over-privlidged, war mongering, eltist. He was so f#$king funny--the SOB just didn't know it. In a way, I miss him. You couldn't invent a more ridiculous person.
WFB Jr. postured as an intellectual -cultivating the external trappings of same: the faux British accent, the darting tongue, the twinkle eye (so the American audience -the only in the world who mistook him for an intellectual- would be alerted to the extra super special cleverness of what he just said prior to twinkling) etc.
As if further evidence of his intellectual vacuity was needed, he obliged us with coming out on the side of Intelligent Design against Evolution.
You obviously do not consider Buckley to have been an intellectual. What do you consider to be the requirements for one to be an intellectual? Just curious.
An intellectual is someone who neither sells (e.g. in Buckleigh's case: catholicism, segregation, carpet bombing, creationism) nor buys (e.g. catholicism, segregation, carpet bombing, creationism) bullshit.
I do not think Chomsky is either a nerd or geek. He is the rare, true, critical intellectual. Here he is the anti-Buckley, who is pompous, pretentious and self-worshiping, that has no doubt of his omniscience and the ignorance of other people. Buckley has a great deal of nerve to call Chomsky intollerant of the arugment of other people. Buckley always presents a twisted view of Chomsky's arguments so he can then brush them to the side.
@7jerryv7 It's amazing how modern political culture has labeled historical evidence and recognition of context as "elitist" or "nerdy" and rugged idealism as intellectually valid. I can give Buckley the praise of opening up debate with those he disagreed with and putting it in some sort of pragmatic framework for intellectual discussion, but he obviously did not intend to be swayed by his guests, but rather use them to establish his own superior ideology. Buckley, an ideologue, vs. Chomsky...
There has not been a serious debate show like Firing Line since the series ended. I think there will be a demand for shows of this quality in the future.
"at an intellectual level ... in my opinion ...to debate Auschwitz.... there were people who argued in favour of Auschwitz... efficaciously... I don't accept that criticism... emotional and moral falseness... I do feel it is a war crime... I didnt mean that really... my own feeling... this is the way I approach the issue... I felt this feeling... (I hate myself)"
What is the sound of hollowness?
A man without responsibilities beyond organizing a faculty meeting in the chic MIT tutorial lounge.
Sodomy is a delicate art mastered only by the old Greek paedos of yore, much like classical sculpture. It requires both patient skill and prowess and much learning of the butt.
You seem palpably well versed in taking it. Perhaps this is why you are so full of shit, it gets pushed in too often for you to have a chance to expel it.
Dost thou reprove abominations, that art thyself the most notorious degenerate among catamites who pretend to follow Socrates? Thy rough limbs indeed,& the stiff bristles on thy arms, seem to promise a vigorous
mind within ; but on thy smooth rump, the surgeon with a smile lances the swelling piles.
You are a man-child beknownst to defecation. You are a sordid mendicant and a peddler of little boys. For shame. Like Shylock, you deal in human flesh. Free yourself of such lewd and filthy acts before judgment is upon you.
Okay shut the fuck up you ignorant anti semite. Slamming Chomsky doesn't make you an intellectual, writing in middle english doesn't make you eloquent, and spraying your slanderous bullshit all over you tube doesn't compensate for your tiny dick.
One wise man would consult the great Attic sculptor Praxiteles on how best to crown the Acropolis with a Doric Order,
To sculpt the last great Homo Gods.
From Titanomachy, they slew the great homo, Prometheus and sent him into the netherworld of Tartarus, condemning him pepertually to a life of infernal defecation and other abominations of the butt.
Neither Zeus nor Hephaestus nor Poseidon were "homos". (I make an exception for Ganymede - from whence comes "catamite")
Butt here is a question: heterosexuals (especially females), I notice, enjoy being catamitesses in our day and age. To be clearer: they receive rectally with glee. In de Sade the Madame states that all true female hedonists despise all coitus that is not rectal. How are we to judge of this? Is it not the same act as when 4 testicals are involved instead of 2?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Buckley is brilliant, I admire him along with Chomsky. Buckley is the best interviewer/debator I have seen in this type of programme. He is a bit cartoonish but he is eloquent, open minded, erudite and a magnificent debator. Chomsky is very good as well. I did not know TV like this ever existed before I saw it.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I like Buckley and I'm a progressive.
I don't have any problem with Goldwater conservatives, or the Ron Paul Libertarians; you can actually have an intelligent and civilized debate with them.
It's those "win at all cost" Gingrich Republicans I can't stand. The spineless Pelosi/Reed Democrats come a close second. They only ever believe something because they are told to believe it.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Ive never had a rational debate with a Paultard, their idea of fact checking is looking at Ron Pauls opinions. They actually believe the gold standard will work in an expanding economy. They don't actually know anything about economics, all of a sudden they watch a conspiracy movie on youtube and move aside Prof. Chomsky this guys an economic expert! lol
Cannot say I disagree with you, robnaro, and the process is very repetitive, sort of like a boxing technique, or plain badgering. Dare we say Big Brotherism? : ) It becomes a rough matter to follow the arguments, in any case, and front-loaded and unfortunate Buckleyan condescensions like "then maybe this is a universal difficulty you're having" just seem silly. Mr. Buckley's program ran on publicly financed television, you know, an irony the host forever seemed to be smacking his lips over.
Correction: the true Buckley badgering comes near the end of this program, which might not be on this "channel" -- it's when they start to get much more into the actual discussion of history and foreign policy rather than making the central matter Chomsky, himself. It's in the "related" window on another channel as "Noam Chomsky vs. William F. Buckley Debate" and it's revealing.
Great interview- once again Noam Chomsky can use facts to defend his position- He's dead on accurate in his responses.
I'm not fan of Buckley, but it's an amazing contrast how he conducts this interview to how modern right wingers interview a person-
Buckley engaged Chomksky in an intelligent dialogue- He never shouted him down or called him names-as would modern right wingers, like Bill O'reiley or Sean Hannity.
They're holed up in our better universities, partly out of fear ("selective exposure"?), and partly because the American Booboisie has neither the brainpower to understand nor the attention span to listen to them anymore. I believe the operant term here is "cultural decline."
True. One can have an opinion on any issue. Whether or not people should take an opinion serioiusly depends on the evidence that supports an opinion and what the credentials and experience in related fields. Ann Coulter's insanity is hardly substantiated by a shred of evidence.
Hardly. His first language was actually Spanish if I remember correctly. The reason he speaks with an English accent is because it's a received pronunciation.
"Why did he have an English accent? He was born in New York and went to Yale. Poser"
It's just an upper crust accent- he was very much American- call the accent the 'Thurston Howell' stammer. Interesting trivia about Buckley- He made a dive to the Titanic wreck (via a sub), and was an excellent harpsichord player
I kind of knew that. I have read an interview book of Chomsky where he states that he was always annoyed by American intellectuals, for whatever reason, pretending to have English accents.
Buckley could not go beyond general slogans during the debate; Chomsky is the real scholar.
and Comedian Rush Limbaugh, and former comedian like Dennis Milller, and Hen-nity, and of course the real harpies: Ann "the Man" Coulter, Michelle "I hate my race and wish I were as white as the Man Coulter", Malkin, and the other idiots: Melanie Morgan and Ingraham.
"If you make one more move on me, you motherfucker, I'll fuckin' cut your fuckin' balls off and shove 'em up your fuckin' ass. I'll fuckin' bury you! I'm gonna stick ice picks in your eyes and send 'em to your family so they can eat them for dessert!!!"
...I'm guessing you're a Uni grad with the amount of fuckings. You sound angry, but it's okay, I understand. Imean if my meal after dinner was comprised of sand, I'd be pissed too!
"If you make one more move on me, you motherfucker, I'll fuckin' cut your fuckin' balls off and shove 'em up your fuckin' ass. I'll fuckin' bury you! I'm gonna stick ice picks in your eyes and send 'em to your family so they can eat them for dessert!!!"
recent history when people like these could argue opposite sides as mature, respectful human beings. Taking sides on a political or moral issue did not mean identifying the guy on the other side as your mortal enemy. There are some special spots reserved in Hell for Coulters, Hannity's and Limbaughs of this world, for all they've done to gut the basic decency and civility we Americans could once take pride in.
Funny, you mention in Limbaugh in that list ( I won't defend Hannity or Coulter ), but Rush regularly give air time to folks who hold opposing views to his. He is always gracious and gives them plenty of time to make their pounts. You should try listening to him rather than spout the leftwing party line on him. If you REALLY want to hear invective and ad hominum attacks, you should find Air America on radio (or internet), or even better, Keith Olbermann and Billl Maher...
First of all, I'm not left-wing... Being disgusted by right-wing jerks who do harm to civil discourse in this society does not make one left-wing, although those same jerks would have you believe otherwise.
Second, as I now live in Asia, I get all my info via the web. Why don't you just take a little peak at the respective websites of Messrs. Limbaugh (today featuring such profound headlines as "Michelle Kicks Hillary in the Uterus") and Olbermann? Not exactly "symmetric", invective-wise.
Olbermann has a segment called "Worst Person in the World." Not symmetric? Puhleeze. I get it, it's a joke, but a lot of on Rush's website is there for grins, too. Take that stuff with a grain of salt. But do yourself a favor, listen to the guy. All I'm saying is there's plenty of uncivil behavior on the left and right preventing enjoyable debate. And, I agree the age of calm debate is over, but I hope not forever. Too many people interested in generating heat, too few generating light.
We're certainly in sync on that last point. I used to listen to Rush when I was in the States but I always found him too boring (and boorish). Frankly, I started drifting towards conservatism in the early 90's, even to the point of having a t-shirt company that advertised in National Review! (OK, just the classifieds.) But it was conservatism's intellectual arguments that attracted me. That all got drowned out by the cacophony of zealot nutcases, as far as I'm concerned. It's too bad.
At 3:41 into the video, after Chomsky has said that debating the existence of Vietnam is like debating Auschwitz, look at Buckley's right ear. It makes a break for freedom.
you're doing the lord's work chomskyan. youtube may be currently suffocating in a deluge of paulians, but ron's day in the lime-light is almost over and soon he'll be relegated to the lips of the white-supremacist groups that have been propping him up for years. but until then keep it up and thank you.
The Ron Paul phenomenon is interesting and ties in the development of the American Libertarian movement. I can see how it appeals to disconnected and disempowered people and also private capital. The 'Paulians' have the same arrogance and irrationality as the 9/11 Truth-ers, which makes it hard to have serious discussion with them.
To both of you ostriches: WE'RE arrogant! that's a good one coming from you. Almost OVER?!?, it's just beginning. You are the one with an ineffectual & hypocritical leader (Will vote for Hillary?!?! that's a vote for Lockheed) The movement doesn't spring from Doctor Paul or racism!? but from the philosophy of liberty & the reality of spontaneous order. & your inability to back your condescending & dismissive comments with much of ANYTHING is the source of your problems talking to REAL liberals.
iluminatr: The main institution that has supported Doctor Paul through the years is the Mises Institute. Named after & co-founded by two Jewish men. So your comment is ignorant slander. And don't count on your wish.
first of all your brazen assumptions about me are mind boggling. second two jews supporting paul is hardly an argument against anything i said. ron paul has for decades been propped up by the most racist, pernicious elements in the country. remember his racist newsletter. hmm didn't seem to turn off any of his supporters (regardless of authorship).
iluminatr: WHAT brazen assumption?!? The only thing I said about you was that you were mistaken that our movement is going away & that you slandered its members (the other digs were at Chomskyan). Do you not understand what "propping up" means. It is not white supremacists who prop him up. The newsletter smear in fact, was crafted by Neo-Nazi, Bill White in collaboration with Kirchick. The quotes were out of context & the story 12 years old. Paul took responsibility for giving an inadequate...
editor total control as Paul went about his medical practice & shut down the newsletter. It was the authors of the smear who are from the "most racist, pernicious elements", Neo Nazis (they hate Paul & his "Jewish thoughts" being that his main teachers were Jews & the Fed Gov/toady press whose main weapon is the division of people by class, sex & race. The state always tries to define groups & give each benefits against the others making them hate & fear each other, the antithesis of Dr Paul.
Chomskyan said one correct thing, anyone who is disenfranchised or ostracized will naturally gravitate to the candidate who is treated the same by the warmongering corporate press. Every other candidate who (excepting Kucinich/Gravel who they also mock) assisted in the slaughter of 1 million Iraqis is "valid" and approved. Dr. Paul if mentioned at all, it is as a hopeless, nutty racist. Quite revealing. You are focusing on the tiniest fraction of 100s of thousands seeking peace & it IS slander.
(It takes a lot more space to refute smears than to spread them like you have) The quotes used by Kirchick were crafted by Bill White to make them as inflammatory as possible. In context they are about as "racially insensitive" as most HBO standup comedy specials. Why would you focus on a minuscule element of the most important peace movement in the world? Dr Paul DOES what Chomsky only talks about,one can't even count on Chomsky to VOTE for someone who isn't a warmonger EXTREME racism in Iraq.
Hillary vs Paul: Chomsky chooses Hillary! You speak of pernicious supporters?! Lobbyist/murderers don't bother speaking to Dr Paul. Hilary supporters?: Her primary adviser (as of OCT), Mark Penn, is a representative of Blackwater. In exchange for her securing 800 BILLION$ in tax money for them in NY, Lockheed returned the favoring with the free use of a Lockheed corporate jet & in the 3rd quarter, 07 alone, the defense sector donated $122,988 to her, outstripping every Rep. Add Chomsky on top.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Buckley makes Chomsky look like a pseudo intellectual chump. It is obvious from this debate that Chomsky is self serving and far too much in love with his inflated oppinion of himself.
I don't know about Castro and Bin Laden, but you're not suggesting that Chavez is not a huge Chomsky fan are you? If he his, then how can you dismiss "tharnax" as some kind of crazed solipsist?
The three names he mentions have one thing in common, they are against US Foreign Policy. So are many other people, including large part of the US population. What relevance does this have on the accuracy of Chomsky's analysis?
I didn't say anything about the accuracy of Chomsky's analysis. I criticized the inaccuracy and weakness of yellowcakewalk's ad hominem attack. Just trying to stir up something, anything here. How about a "Chomskyite" posting some of the merits of anarcho-syndicalism? Or, I'll throw a theory out: Chomsky is jealous of Doctor Ron Paul.
It's funny you accuse someone of using ad hominem and then employ it yourself. And what about mentioning some names that happens to be attached to Chomsky in the media in the hopes of discrediting him. Where is the argument?
Read Anarcho-Syndicalism by Rudolph Rocker to learn more about it. I think trends that decentralize power and creating a real participatory social structure would be good for the vast majority of population. But maybe you are authoritarians so you don't agree.
I didn't accuse him, I flatly said he did, and he did or there's no such thing as an ad hominem. And asking if someone will engage in exploring a theory is not ad hominem any more than implying someone may be an authoritarian. I will look up this Rocker. By, the way, I don't know this tharnax, and I'm definitely not an authoritarian.
It's been fun chatting with you, gotta go. One last point, if Dr Paul were elected, the constitution would be strictly obeyed for the first time ever. States rights would be pre-eminent. All of you who believe in a "worker's paradise" could go to one state and have it. We'll see how you do. We'll even send you food later. (Sorry, just teasing.)
There is a problem with this kind of moral/ethical comparison however, that has been most lucidly explained by Sam Harris in his book The End of Faith. Specifically, a section of the book entitled Leftist Unreason and the strange case of Noam Chomsky. In essence Harris explains that for moral/ethical comparisons between US actions and the actions of terrorist groups to be valid, intentions matter.
MrUprightcitizen100 2 years ago
Mr. Harris, trotting out his truest and tridest hypotheticals trying to show chinks in Mr. Chomsky's armor. We can all play that game: Mr. Harris, so you would rather come home to rubble and the charred remains of your family with a note in the mailbox that reads A: Sorry, we uploaded the wrong coordinates to the drone". instead of B: "Allah Akbar".
fctchk 2 years ago 2
I don't think Mr. Harris would want to come home to ruble and charred remains regardless of the note in his mailbox. Harris' point, and mine, is that such caparisons (America =terrorists, or US war in Vietnam = Nazi genocide) are not only intellectually incorrect, but simply grotesque and insulting. Hypotheticals, however over used, are sometimes necessary when the premise you are arguing against (America is a terrorist state) is so absurd.
MrUprightcitizen100 2 years ago
@MrUprightcitizen100 I read Harris's book, and his arguments for torture were rather weak, I do agree intention matter to a large degree. also I doubt Chomsky thinks America is a terrorist state to the extent that Islamic fundamentalists are terrorist. Neither do I think Chomsky states that our policies in Vietnam are exactly the same as the Nazi's.
fucktard435345345353 1 year ago
@fucktard435345345353
I'm definitely sure Chomsky thinks America's terrorism is equivalent if not more so than Islamic fundamentalists. The same w/ your Vietnam remark. Read one of his books.
GothemcityX 1 year ago
Comment removed
fucktard435345345353 1 year ago
I don't see the need to make hypothetical scenarios when, as Chomsky says, you have the actual facts. U.S. spread terror (whatever their intentions) not only in Vietnam, but in Guatemala, Iraq, Chile, Nicaragua, Cambodia, Dominican Republic and a lot of other countries.
And if you want to consider "intentions" non of them were "noble" ones. And in turn, the consequences of some of the regimes imposed by the US have also spread their share of terror among those nations.
Kinopio2000 1 year ago
I believe that the message Chomsky was trying to invoke is the US foreign polices should never have commit actions that could Ever be seriously compared to the actions of radical, anti-humanitarians regimes
fucktard435345345353 1 year ago
What's wrong with the moderator?
TheWayThingsAre1 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Buckley was one ugly motherfucker
MassiveJungle 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Buckley destroys this FOOL
brian8793 2 years ago
Really? How?
I don't think he said one single thing that wasn't directly contradicted or proven wrong by Chomsky.
aewester 2 years ago 5
Maybe your right. I guess I just really like Buckley. I will say, however, that Chomsky did impress me more in this interview than in others I've seen with him.
Peace:)
brian8793 2 years ago
Oh yeah, RIP Patricia Buckley. Behind every GOOD man, is a GOOD women:)
brian8793 2 years ago
R.I.P. Mr Buckley, you were a beautiful, HIGHLY intelligent man.
Being the sane, educated, compassionate, open minded moderate Republican I am, I must say that William Buckley represents everything I stand for:)
YES
brian8793 2 years ago
It's amusing. Chomsky grew more irate during this debate than he has in many debates with less intelligent people than Buckley. It seems he's more offended by someone who is educated and articulate and wrong than a buffoon who is wrong.
MrSalamander7 2 years ago 4
Comment removed
brian8793 2 years ago
Nice groundless rhetoric there, bub.
Yes, the conservative supporter of US international terror and profitable violence supports freedom and the peace-promoting leftist anarchist doesn't.
Go get learned.
MrSalamander7 2 years ago
Groundless? Says you......thankfully I have been raised in an environment(Promised Land) that allows me recognize whats right, and whats TRUE.
Vietnam was a mistake. Everyone knows that. However, what Country doesn't make mistakes here and there. I'm thankful for the Freedom I have to criticise a President, War, or proposed spending.
Maybe you should do a little more appreciateing and a little less complaining.
Complaining never solved anything
brian8793 2 years ago
I called your comment groundless on the grounds that you laid no grounds for it in itself. Ironically, you haven't really laid any grounds for it in this one either. All you've done is rave about freedom and somehow know what's right and true without going into detail. You blow the Vietnam war off as a common mistake and complain about my complaining.
I'm having difficulty taking you seriously.
MrSalamander7 2 years ago
everyone thinks there right all the time. we don't go around thinking were wrong on issues. the only reason to have a debate show like firing line is if two people come to it thinking the other is wrong and taking different stances. yet buckley tries to use this as a way to make chomsky look bad.
johnnondrowsyd 2 years ago
Buckley was the original O'Reilly
chantoke 2 years ago
O'Reilly can only wish he was half as smart as Buckley was.
And can you picture O'Reilly giving someone like Chomksy serious time on national tv, even if it was to discuss disagreeing with him?
infrogmation 2 years ago
O'Reilly would have Buckley on, but Chomsky?
Nah, we have no time for the hopeless........
brian8793 2 years ago
Not a logical comparison at all. Buckley may have been a dooshbag (at least I think so) but he was an intelligent dooshbag that could argue his dooshery intellectually instead of just yelling.
JeffWilsonMusic 2 years ago
Are you serious? He was a douchbag? WTF?
What was it? Was it his love for freedom? His respect for LIFE?
What was is pal?
brian8793 2 years ago
I remember Buckley's show "Firing Line" from the 70s. It was the funniest thing on television. He was such a pompous, blovating ass -- always speaking in that god-awful lock jaw voice. (pity the tetnus shot didn't work for him) WFB always interrupted his guests and distorted their comments. He was a walking charicture of a silver-spoon, over-privlidged, war mongering, eltist. He was so f#$king funny--the SOB just didn't know it. In a way, I miss him. You couldn't invent a more ridiculous person.
somersetdc 2 years ago 9
lmao precisely
oxidindigo 2 years ago
WFB Jr. postured as an intellectual -cultivating the external trappings of same: the faux British accent, the darting tongue, the twinkle eye (so the American audience -the only in the world who mistook him for an intellectual- would be alerted to the extra super special cleverness of what he just said prior to twinkling) etc.
As if further evidence of his intellectual vacuity was needed, he obliged us with coming out on the side of Intelligent Design against Evolution.
Game over.
fctchk 2 years ago 6
You obviously do not consider Buckley to have been an intellectual. What do you consider to be the requirements for one to be an intellectual? Just curious.
MrUprightcitizen100 2 years ago
An intellectual is someone who neither sells (e.g. in Buckleigh's case: catholicism, segregation, carpet bombing, creationism) nor buys (e.g. catholicism, segregation, carpet bombing, creationism) bullshit.
fctchk 2 years ago
I do not think Chomsky is either a nerd or geek. He is the rare, true, critical intellectual. Here he is the anti-Buckley, who is pompous, pretentious and self-worshiping, that has no doubt of his omniscience and the ignorance of other people. Buckley has a great deal of nerve to call Chomsky intollerant of the arugment of other people. Buckley always presents a twisted view of Chomsky's arguments so he can then brush them to the side.
7jerryv7 2 years ago 12
@7jerryv7 It's amazing how modern political culture has labeled historical evidence and recognition of context as "elitist" or "nerdy" and rugged idealism as intellectually valid. I can give Buckley the praise of opening up debate with those he disagreed with and putting it in some sort of pragmatic framework for intellectual discussion, but he obviously did not intend to be swayed by his guests, but rather use them to establish his own superior ideology. Buckley, an ideologue, vs. Chomsky...
slytown 1 year ago
u fools. u cant argue against THE CHOMSKY it knows too much! it is the King of all Nerds.
LimpLoser 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Oh...back in the day...when the Conservative movement wasn't overrun by Fox News morons and Noam Chomsky wasn't a smug doofus...god, how I miss it...
40thCapeRifles 2 years ago
Typical criticism of ignorance. Simple ridicule. Why exactly is Chomsky now a 'Doofus' perhaps you could explain for us?
Pinch0fSalt 2 years ago 3
is it just me or does this guy "buckley" sound pretty annoying lol
zayadnay 2 years ago 5
This has been flagged as spam show
your a fucking idiot
bigmattfro 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
suck a big cock you fucking fatso ... :D thank you come again !
zayadnay 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Your a fucking idiot
bigmattfro 2 years ago
check out 3.40 to 3.43
his ear tries to escape his head
tsarenvy 2 years ago
tsarenvy,
Very interesting to say the least. I looked at that cut 3:40 to 3:43 over and over again. My conclusion is that Buckley was a shapeshifting demon.
Yoshua144 2 years ago
Dude his ear moves by itself.
chantoke 2 years ago 2
That's an exo-skeleton with a controllable being underneath
Yoshua144 2 years ago 2
Truer racial slurs were never spake.
AnonymousWhitePerson 2 years ago
There has not been a serious debate show like Firing Line since the series ended. I think there will be a demand for shows of this quality in the future.
randydrama77 2 years ago 3
Alas, the mass public today is far too braindead to appreciate civil debate shows such as this unless it is battered in grease and deep-fat-fried.
AnonymousWhitePerson 2 years ago 5
ummm soooo yummy!!! lol
zayadnay 2 years ago
Agreed. However, what do you mean by 'truer racial slur slurs were never spake'?
sumitgill 2 years ago
Chomsky is a genius! This is so relevant today.
BrilliantClash 2 years ago 6
what kind of bird is that in the background?
JacobRainey08 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
That's no bird...it's the sound of Chomsky's anal sphincter releasing gas
bofinch 2 years ago
observe how fearful this conservative pig is when introducing the greatness that is noam
camaples 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Fearful? Buckley always talked this way. You're a silly fellow, aren't you? "Look how afraid the enemy is of my big bad hero!"
wenders99 2 years ago
Comment removed
ludachris475 3 years ago
Comment removed
ludachris475 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Chomsky looks exactly like Marty McFly in Back to the Future.
dmaradona10 3 years ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
What's in a Jew?
A Jew by any other name would still smell as sweet.
ludachris475 3 years ago
Noam Chomsky is such a Genius.
68david09 3 years ago 3
How could you eliminate or mitigate the horrors of Auschwitz through debate?
ludachris475 3 years ago
My pussy is dripping like a plate of flap-jacks.
ludachris475 3 years ago
JewTube: Broadcast Yourself®.
ludachris475 3 years ago
Yes, Docteur, most Jewish women look like a cross between the Hunchback of Notre Dame and a troll. Sigh...
ludachris475 3 years ago
Zeus was a demiurge.
ludachris475 3 years ago
He had a thirst only quenched by little boys' tushies.
Zeus was a sick immortal bastard.
ludachris475 3 years ago
What manner of sissy god impersonates a swan?
ludachris475 3 years ago
The Myth of Genesis is an inferior plagiarisation of the Myth of Prometheus.
ludachris475 3 years ago
Gnome Chomsky.
ludachris475 3 years ago
"at an intellectual level ... in my opinion ...to debate Auschwitz.... there were people who argued in favour of Auschwitz... efficaciously... I don't accept that criticism... emotional and moral falseness... I do feel it is a war crime... I didnt mean that really... my own feeling... this is the way I approach the issue... I felt this feeling... (I hate myself)"
What is the sound of hollowness?
A man without responsibilities beyond organizing a faculty meeting in the chic MIT tutorial lounge.
DocteurLariviere 3 years ago 3
LOL at 7:22 WFB's pomposity comes through loud and clear with that ear splitting..."a priori assSSSerrrshun" lead in.
jereuter01 3 years ago
Chomsky is a disgrace to the Communist race.
ludachris475 3 years ago
you suck.
68david09 3 years ago
Really?
You are a walking, talking advertisement for Sodomy.
May you forever choke on cock.
ludachris475 3 years ago
A complement, thank you.
68david09 3 years ago
Why, you're welcome.
I am not known for my subtlety.
Sodomy is a delicate art mastered only by the old Greek paedos of yore, much like classical sculpture. It requires both patient skill and prowess and much learning of the butt.
ludachris475 3 years ago
You seem palpably well versed in taking it. Perhaps this is why you are so full of shit, it gets pushed in too often for you to have a chance to expel it.
Not that there is anything wrong with that.
68david09 3 years ago 2
Dost thou reprove abominations, that art thyself the most notorious degenerate among catamites who pretend to follow Socrates? Thy rough limbs indeed,& the stiff bristles on thy arms, seem to promise a vigorous
mind within ; but on thy smooth rump, the surgeon with a smile lances the swelling piles.
DocteurLariviere 3 years ago 3
68david09,
You seem to excel in all matters of the butt.
The anus is your ancestral turf.
ludachris475 3 years ago
You are a man-child beknownst to defecation. You are a sordid mendicant and a peddler of little boys. For shame. Like Shylock, you deal in human flesh. Free yourself of such lewd and filthy acts before judgment is upon you.
ludachris475 3 years ago
Oh stop it, you're starting to sound like my mother.
68david09 3 years ago 4
Doth thy make thy mother's womb a vehicle for incest?
Thy prostate is like a Gaellic bagpipe.
Thou art an abomination of the butt.
ludachris475 3 years ago
Okay shut the fuck up you ignorant anti semite. Slamming Chomsky doesn't make you an intellectual, writing in middle english doesn't make you eloquent, and spraying your slanderous bullshit all over you tube doesn't compensate for your tiny dick.
68david09 3 years ago 5
I am not anti-semitic.
I thought it was cute.
ludachris475 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
thou art an abomination of the butt!!
sumlatinkid 3 years ago 2
Fuck you. you eat hermaphrodite junk.
68david09 3 years ago
Sounds like Little Richard is hard at work, again.
NoBlowBama 3 years ago
that's what she said.
68david09 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Chomsky murders Buckley in this debate.
He pounds Buckley again and again and again, then rolls over, lights a cigarette, and falls asleep.
ludachris475 3 years ago 4
Could somebody please send me the link where I can find that internet sex video of Chomsky and Brad Pitt?
I have heard it was on You-Porn, and have been hunting for it all night, but without any luck. :(
DocteurLariviere 3 years ago 3
Domitian's niece, Julia, was married. She was carnally known by Domitian, conceived, and aborted the infant, dying from the abortifaciants.
She committed 3 heinous crimes against nature and the household and the cosmos revolted!
(See Juvenal Satire II)
DocteurLariviere 3 years ago 2
One wise man would consult the great Attic sculptor Praxiteles on how best to crown the Acropolis with a Doric Order,
To sculpt the last great Homo Gods.
From Titanomachy, they slew the great homo, Prometheus and sent him into the netherworld of Tartarus, condemning him pepertually to a life of infernal defecation and other abominations of the butt.
ludachris475 3 years ago
Neither Zeus nor Hephaestus nor Poseidon were "homos". (I make an exception for Ganymede - from whence comes "catamite")
Butt here is a question: heterosexuals (especially females), I notice, enjoy being catamitesses in our day and age. To be clearer: they receive rectally with glee. In de Sade the Madame states that all true female hedonists despise all coitus that is not rectal. How are we to judge of this? Is it not the same act as when 4 testicals are involved instead of 2?
DocteurLariviere 3 years ago 5
The Supreme arbiter of Mount Dicta.
Are you sure Zeus was not a homo?
He impersonated a swan and there is much mythology that dealt with his craving for young boys.
ludachris475 3 years ago
Yes, he took Ganymede as a trophy and plucked the chaste young boy like a lyre.
ludachris475 3 years ago
You are an effete drunkard and a demagogue.
Really it pains me to see good Cognac squandered on such a fustian dreg.
Spare me the pleasantries of gutter-life.
ludachris475 3 years ago
If you gave Buckley an enema, he could be buried in a matchbox!!!
GallagherXXX 3 years ago 8
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Buckley is brilliant, I admire him along with Chomsky. Buckley is the best interviewer/debator I have seen in this type of programme. He is a bit cartoonish but he is eloquent, open minded, erudite and a magnificent debator. Chomsky is very good as well. I did not know TV like this ever existed before I saw it.
klimes86 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I like Buckley and I'm a progressive.
I don't have any problem with Goldwater conservatives, or the Ron Paul Libertarians; you can actually have an intelligent and civilized debate with them.
It's those "win at all cost" Gingrich Republicans I can't stand. The spineless Pelosi/Reed Democrats come a close second. They only ever believe something because they are told to believe it.
jumbowhite 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Ive never had a rational debate with a Paultard, their idea of fact checking is looking at Ron Pauls opinions. They actually believe the gold standard will work in an expanding economy. They don't actually know anything about economics, all of a sudden they watch a conspiracy movie on youtube and move aside Prof. Chomsky this guys an economic expert! lol
patient0Studios 3 years ago
Perhaps its because you begin by calling them a Paultard?
robnaro 3 years ago
Why can't we have television like this anymore?
jumbowhite 3 years ago 2
because your television has been preempted to limit the potential for these types of incursions. that same thing will happen with the internet
harpoonflyby 3 years ago 3
very true, extremely sad state of affairs.
zaf198398 3 years ago
It seems like the whole process is Buckley trying to deviate Chomsky from taking a thought to its logical conclusion.
robnaro 3 years ago 5
robnaro:
that's Buckley.... that is exactly his strategem.... what an embarassment Buckley is!!
BombayRepertoire 3 years ago 4
Cannot say I disagree with you, robnaro, and the process is very repetitive, sort of like a boxing technique, or plain badgering. Dare we say Big Brotherism? : ) It becomes a rough matter to follow the arguments, in any case, and front-loaded and unfortunate Buckleyan condescensions like "then maybe this is a universal difficulty you're having" just seem silly. Mr. Buckley's program ran on publicly financed television, you know, an irony the host forever seemed to be smacking his lips over.
yes55 3 years ago
Correction: the true Buckley badgering comes near the end of this program, which might not be on this "channel" -- it's when they start to get much more into the actual discussion of history and foreign policy rather than making the central matter Chomsky, himself. It's in the "related" window on another channel as "Noam Chomsky vs. William F. Buckley Debate" and it's revealing.
yes55 3 years ago
who can look at this and not think about today and the foreign policy our government enforces?
OneLivingT 3 years ago 2
Great interview- once again Noam Chomsky can use facts to defend his position- He's dead on accurate in his responses.
I'm not fan of Buckley, but it's an amazing contrast how he conducts this interview to how modern right wingers interview a person-
Buckley engaged Chomksky in an intelligent dialogue- He never shouted him down or called him names-as would modern right wingers, like Bill O'reiley or Sean Hannity.
The art of the debate seems dead.
TitanicTarn 3 years ago 4
Thank you so very much for posting this. Much appreciated.
lysis28 3 years ago
total contrast of personalities. buckley is super pretentious, but his show is far superior than any other propaganda hype trash on today.
888zzz 3 years ago
Jesus Christ Almighty...... And now we're stuck with Coulter and Moore???? WTF happened to the intellectuals in this country?
redresch 3 years ago
They're holed up in our better universities, partly out of fear ("selective exposure"?), and partly because the American Booboisie has neither the brainpower to understand nor the attention span to listen to them anymore. I believe the operant term here is "cultural decline."
ChopstickBrando 3 years ago
Coulter isn't a intellectual, shes a pundit.
sf0d 3 years ago
She is neither. Coulter is a fool. She has no credentials to say anything. The woman is full of nothing more than virulent lunacy.
robtul12 3 years ago 5
You don't need credentials for a political opinion
tomheppy 3 years ago
True. One can have an opinion on any issue. Whether or not people should take an opinion serioiusly depends on the evidence that supports an opinion and what the credentials and experience in related fields. Ann Coulter's insanity is hardly substantiated by a shred of evidence.
robtul12 3 years ago
Why did he have an English accent? He was born in New York and went to Yale. Poser.
comandante69 3 years ago
Hardly. His first language was actually Spanish if I remember correctly. The reason he speaks with an English accent is because it's a received pronunciation.
Warbird13 3 years ago
"Why did he have an English accent? He was born in New York and went to Yale. Poser"
It's just an upper crust accent- he was very much American- call the accent the 'Thurston Howell' stammer. Interesting trivia about Buckley- He made a dive to the Titanic wreck (via a sub), and was an excellent harpsichord player
TitanicTarn 3 years ago
I kind of knew that. I have read an interview book of Chomsky where he states that he was always annoyed by American intellectuals, for whatever reason, pretending to have English accents.
Buckley could not go beyond general slogans during the debate; Chomsky is the real scholar.
comandante69 3 years ago 2
Ha, Amsterdam, even dead he is still more intelligent then you:D
Sexandtoast 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Im glad buck is RIP
amsterdam78 3 years ago
television used to be so intelligent. now you have idiots like bill o'reily.
mrtyles 3 years ago 5
Agreed
FetchStaley 3 years ago
and Comedian Rush Limbaugh, and former comedian like Dennis Milller, and Hen-nity, and of course the real harpies: Ann "the Man" Coulter, Michelle "I hate my race and wish I were as white as the Man Coulter", Malkin, and the other idiots: Melanie Morgan and Ingraham.
lifter1204 3 years ago
Yeah, I really miss Green Acres and Gilligans's Island.
jkuehner 3 years ago
Say what you like about WFB, I am no fan, but at least he was one of three conservatives/Republicans who were against the war before it was launched.
marx102 3 years ago
Buckley is effeminate and weird like a Bond villain. BTW check out his ear at 3:43.
mosfonotoc 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
HEY USA, I WANNA SAY TO YOU ALL:
"If you make one more move on me, you motherfucker, I'll fuckin' cut your fuckin' balls off and shove 'em up your fuckin' ass. I'll fuckin' bury you! I'm gonna stick ice picks in your eyes and send 'em to your family so they can eat them for dessert!!!"
GallagherXXX 3 years ago
...I'm guessing you're a Uni grad with the amount of fuckings. You sound angry, but it's okay, I understand. Imean if my meal after dinner was comprised of sand, I'd be pissed too!
Booyaka9000 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
HEY USA, I WANNA SAY TO YOU ALL:
"If you make one more move on me, you motherfucker, I'll fuckin' cut your fuckin' balls off and shove 'em up your fuckin' ass. I'll fuckin' bury you! I'm gonna stick ice picks in your eyes and send 'em to your family so they can eat them for dessert!!!"
GallagherXXX 3 years ago
Indeed...
Booyaka9000 3 years ago
What's most notable is there was a time in our
recent history when people like these could argue opposite sides as mature, respectful human beings. Taking sides on a political or moral issue did not mean identifying the guy on the other side as your mortal enemy. There are some special spots reserved in Hell for Coulters, Hannity's and Limbaughs of this world, for all they've done to gut the basic decency and civility we Americans could once take pride in.
TroyOi 3 years ago
Funny, you mention in Limbaugh in that list ( I won't defend Hannity or Coulter ), but Rush regularly give air time to folks who hold opposing views to his. He is always gracious and gives them plenty of time to make their pounts. You should try listening to him rather than spout the leftwing party line on him. If you REALLY want to hear invective and ad hominum attacks, you should find Air America on radio (or internet), or even better, Keith Olbermann and Billl Maher...
bodeaninbama 3 years ago
First of all, I'm not left-wing... Being disgusted by right-wing jerks who do harm to civil discourse in this society does not make one left-wing, although those same jerks would have you believe otherwise.
Second, as I now live in Asia, I get all my info via the web. Why don't you just take a little peak at the respective websites of Messrs. Limbaugh (today featuring such profound headlines as "Michelle Kicks Hillary in the Uterus") and Olbermann? Not exactly "symmetric", invective-wise.
TroyOi 3 years ago
Olbermann has a segment called "Worst Person in the World." Not symmetric? Puhleeze. I get it, it's a joke, but a lot of on Rush's website is there for grins, too. Take that stuff with a grain of salt. But do yourself a favor, listen to the guy. All I'm saying is there's plenty of uncivil behavior on the left and right preventing enjoyable debate. And, I agree the age of calm debate is over, but I hope not forever. Too many people interested in generating heat, too few generating light.
bodeaninbama 3 years ago
We're certainly in sync on that last point. I used to listen to Rush when I was in the States but I always found him too boring (and boorish). Frankly, I started drifting towards conservatism in the early 90's, even to the point of having a t-shirt company that advertised in National Review! (OK, just the classifieds.) But it was conservatism's intellectual arguments that attracted me. That all got drowned out by the cacophony of zealot nutcases, as far as I'm concerned. It's too bad.
TroyOi 3 years ago
anyone interested in chomsky should read his exchange with christopher hitchens in the nation, still available on that magazine's website
jjjconrad 3 years ago
buckley is so good.
roostertrigger 3 years ago
He was pompous. And his constant fiddling of his ear and/or pencil always annoyed me.
Watch him accuse Chomsky of using history for positive argumentative furtherance - then procede to do the same. Pretentious swine.
And yet I was fond of him.....
jumbowhite 3 years ago
First time I've seen Buckley speak.
He looks like and comes across as a sly smarmy rat.
Perhaps that is the character required when one's raison detre is beating the drums for murderous wars.
colincolenso 3 years ago
1. Suicide, before execution
2. Prison
3. Accolades, power & the comforts of a wealthy old age.
A. Goebbels
B. Speer
C. Gehlen & Buckley
mpolzkill 3 years ago
I don't really know much about Buckley...but the man has a wonderful voice and poise. Very interesting to watch.
chcknpie04 3 years ago 2
So sad to lose Buckley and be left with brainless talking heads like Hannity & Co.
padseenoodle 3 years ago 2
At 3:41 into the video, after Chomsky has said that debating the existence of Vietnam is like debating Auschwitz, look at Buckley's right ear. It makes a break for freedom.
HONZIK20 3 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
chomsky took too many drugs
josephiav 3 years ago
chomsky took no drugs
jumbowhite 3 years ago
Who let the bluejays into the "Firing Let" studio!?
ChopstickBrando 3 years ago
Wow, I really came into this wanting to like William F Buckley, but he's sort of an ass.
dasgdasg 3 years ago
William F Buckley, a bright fellow kudos to him for the willingness to debate, but his blood is soooooooo blue.
bigfilmhat 4 years ago
You can be a blueblood without being as smug and theatrical as WFB.
SedanChair 3 years ago 2
But such humility won't get you on TV!
ChopstickBrando 3 years ago
you're doing the lord's work chomskyan. youtube may be currently suffocating in a deluge of paulians, but ron's day in the lime-light is almost over and soon he'll be relegated to the lips of the white-supremacist groups that have been propping him up for years. but until then keep it up and thank you.
iluminatr462 4 years ago
Thanks iluminatr462. Just doing what I can.
The Ron Paul phenomenon is interesting and ties in the development of the American Libertarian movement. I can see how it appeals to disconnected and disempowered people and also private capital. The 'Paulians' have the same arrogance and irrationality as the 9/11 Truth-ers, which makes it hard to have serious discussion with them.
Chomskyan 4 years ago
To both of you ostriches: WE'RE arrogant! that's a good one coming from you. Almost OVER?!?, it's just beginning. You are the one with an ineffectual & hypocritical leader (Will vote for Hillary?!?! that's a vote for Lockheed) The movement doesn't spring from Doctor Paul or racism!? but from the philosophy of liberty & the reality of spontaneous order. & your inability to back your condescending & dismissive comments with much of ANYTHING is the source of your problems talking to REAL liberals.
mpolzkill 4 years ago
iluminatr: The main institution that has supported Doctor Paul through the years is the Mises Institute. Named after & co-founded by two Jewish men. So your comment is ignorant slander. And don't count on your wish.
mpolzkill 4 years ago
first of all your brazen assumptions about me are mind boggling. second two jews supporting paul is hardly an argument against anything i said. ron paul has for decades been propped up by the most racist, pernicious elements in the country. remember his racist newsletter. hmm didn't seem to turn off any of his supporters (regardless of authorship).
iluminatr462 4 years ago
iluminatr: WHAT brazen assumption?!? The only thing I said about you was that you were mistaken that our movement is going away & that you slandered its members (the other digs were at Chomskyan). Do you not understand what "propping up" means. It is not white supremacists who prop him up. The newsletter smear in fact, was crafted by Neo-Nazi, Bill White in collaboration with Kirchick. The quotes were out of context & the story 12 years old. Paul took responsibility for giving an inadequate...
mpolzkill 4 years ago
editor total control as Paul went about his medical practice & shut down the newsletter. It was the authors of the smear who are from the "most racist, pernicious elements", Neo Nazis (they hate Paul & his "Jewish thoughts" being that his main teachers were Jews & the Fed Gov/toady press whose main weapon is the division of people by class, sex & race. The state always tries to define groups & give each benefits against the others making them hate & fear each other, the antithesis of Dr Paul.
mpolzkill 4 years ago
Chomskyan said one correct thing, anyone who is disenfranchised or ostracized will naturally gravitate to the candidate who is treated the same by the warmongering corporate press. Every other candidate who (excepting Kucinich/Gravel who they also mock) assisted in the slaughter of 1 million Iraqis is "valid" and approved. Dr. Paul if mentioned at all, it is as a hopeless, nutty racist. Quite revealing. You are focusing on the tiniest fraction of 100s of thousands seeking peace & it IS slander.
mpolzkill 4 years ago
(It takes a lot more space to refute smears than to spread them like you have) The quotes used by Kirchick were crafted by Bill White to make them as inflammatory as possible. In context they are about as "racially insensitive" as most HBO standup comedy specials. Why would you focus on a minuscule element of the most important peace movement in the world? Dr Paul DOES what Chomsky only talks about,one can't even count on Chomsky to VOTE for someone who isn't a warmonger EXTREME racism in Iraq.
mpolzkill 4 years ago
Hillary vs Paul: Chomsky chooses Hillary! You speak of pernicious supporters?! Lobbyist/murderers don't bother speaking to Dr Paul. Hilary supporters?: Her primary adviser (as of OCT), Mark Penn, is a representative of Blackwater. In exchange for her securing 800 BILLION$ in tax money for them in NY, Lockheed returned the favoring with the free use of a Lockheed corporate jet & in the 3rd quarter, 07 alone, the defense sector donated $122,988 to her, outstripping every Rep. Add Chomsky on top.
mpolzkill 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Buckley makes Chomsky look like a pseudo intellectual chump. It is obvious from this debate that Chomsky is self serving and far too much in love with his inflated oppinion of himself.
Fwap1 4 years ago
Noam Chomsky is a Propagandist. He has the right to be one. He has three VERY prominent supporters:
1. Hugo Chavez. (would-be dictator)
2. Fidel Castro. (Communist dictator)
3. Osama Bin Laden. (Al-Qaeda fanatic)
Yesterday's failures: Trotskyites.
Today's new-and-improved failures: Chomskyites!
tharnax 4 years ago
Must be nice to live in a world completely constructed inside your own skull.
yellowcakewalk 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
That world would be called.....Earth?
tharnax 4 years ago
I don't know about Castro and Bin Laden, but you're not suggesting that Chavez is not a huge Chomsky fan are you? If he his, then how can you dismiss "tharnax" as some kind of crazed solipsist?
mpolzkill 4 years ago
The three names he mentions have one thing in common, they are against US Foreign Policy. So are many other people, including large part of the US population. What relevance does this have on the accuracy of Chomsky's analysis?
Chomskyan 4 years ago
I didn't say anything about the accuracy of Chomsky's analysis. I criticized the inaccuracy and weakness of yellowcakewalk's ad hominem attack. Just trying to stir up something, anything here. How about a "Chomskyite" posting some of the merits of anarcho-syndicalism? Or, I'll throw a theory out: Chomsky is jealous of Doctor Ron Paul.
mpolzkill 4 years ago
It's funny you accuse someone of using ad hominem and then employ it yourself. And what about mentioning some names that happens to be attached to Chomsky in the media in the hopes of discrediting him. Where is the argument?
Read Anarcho-Syndicalism by Rudolph Rocker to learn more about it. I think trends that decentralize power and creating a real participatory social structure would be good for the vast majority of population. But maybe you are authoritarians so you don't agree.
Chomskyan 4 years ago
I didn't accuse him, I flatly said he did, and he did or there's no such thing as an ad hominem. And asking if someone will engage in exploring a theory is not ad hominem any more than implying someone may be an authoritarian. I will look up this Rocker. By, the way, I don't know this tharnax, and I'm definitely not an authoritarian.
mpolzkill 4 years ago
It's been fun chatting with you, gotta go. One last point, if Dr Paul were elected, the constitution would be strictly obeyed for the first time ever. States rights would be pre-eminent. All of you who believe in a "worker's paradise" could go to one state and have it. We'll see how you do. We'll even send you food later. (Sorry, just teasing.)
mpolzkill 4 years ago