why is he a young conservative? conservative pricks just love war. the person was probably a leftist who supports the war. wrong title. and noam chomsky fucking fail yet again!
@halflifeproductionz conservatives love war ?..you did realized that any administration since decades promoted war no matter if democratic or conservative do you? there is no difference in the partys anymore...the US society is heading straight into a cooporative fascist system and the PatrioAct,NDAA2012 and the Military Commissions Act2006 are effectively converting the US into a military dictatorship no yet officially declared but wait until people stand up..then you see
@halflifeproductionz and btw who are you that you feel qualified to determine if Chomsky failed or not? The list of books this man has written is longer than the list of all class essays you ever have written in your entire school careers you idiot..hes awared a dozen international awards, he developed the propaganda model which describes modern media.Whats on your side after 26 years..oh I see..a Razor1911 cracktro...respect bro..you are really in some real important shit
@rouzbehazshab Because he reads deeply , writes , and speaks with great authority and he appears to have a highly developed moral conscience. -- and a great many, intelligent and influential people listen to him ( although clearly nothing like enough ).
the salient point about the russian invansion and then seeing how stupid it would be if a right wing russian politician said ," see look how they treat each other"
Basically a very long Op Ed piece, attacking Chomsky's character. The first consideration would be whether or not the quotes used would uphold Windschuttle's assertions in context. The second, is how much relevance his argument even has. Of course, it would be quite a remarkable thing to agree with everything a person says, unless we're ready to engage in personality worship. If there is hypocrisy in Chomsky, does that render everything he says wrong, of no value, or not useful? cont
When Chomsky is right, does that make him some kind of flawless god? This is such an elementary matter, as to almost be a waste of time. Instead of attacking the man, he would have done better to address the issues, and present better arguments and proposals. All in all, not very impressive.
@jamesjeffreypaul He denied the genoicide in Cambodia because he criticized the media and government that didn't bother to report on the even bigger genocide in East Temor? Or that he pointed out the government used Cambodia for propaganda purposes? That's a nice try at spin mongering.
This generation is sooo fucked up. I don't agree with either politicial spectrums defined in America. But why the fuck would a some kid try to argue with the one of the most established and educated scholars in America. And I can't stand socialism btw...
@Salvysahagun Probably because these kids have been taught that they are priceless individuals whose every utterance, thought and action, no matter how trivial, uninformed or selfish, are golden nuggets of uniqueness that should be shared with the entire universe.
@PrometheanRunGood Im a patriot, but I have no illusions that the actions I desire are moral which makes me different than the typical patriot I think. Fuck afghanistan and its people I say - they can all get raped and starve and we can steal all their wealth. why the fuck not if it benefits america? noam is a fucking lunatic. morality shouldnt even enter to the equation. you should act in the best interest of your own people - bottom line.
@mittROMNEY666 "they can all get raped and starve and we can steal all their wealth"
and that's why 9/11 happened. Awfully shortsighted and stupid even if you take morality out of the question. How many more parts of the world can you piss off without further consequences?
It'll end up America versus the world, and America is no longer the power that it used to be.
@PrometheanRunGood well fine, if you base foreign policy on utilitarian principles I agree with that. you could be right. but frankly i think the US is more then capable of knocking the shit out of afghanistan without suffering too many consequences. and im pretty sure muslims hate us anyway.
@mittROMNEY666 We lured the Russians into Afghanistan to their economic ruin and demoralization. Then we fall into our own trap. Where have you been? We've blown our treasury there and in Iraq with little to show for it. Talk to a soldier sometime and ask them how things are going there. I served in the Army. How about you since you're such a hawk.
What I find impressive about Chomsky, aside from his humanist viewpoint and mastery of facts, is that he never loses his temper in debate, maintaining civil discourse throughout, despite whatever challenges his opponents toss his way. You hear no inflammatory rhetoric, no name-calling. When he states that the U.S. acts as a rogue nation, he uses our own govt.'s very criterion and facts to substantiate.
@mittROMNEY666 Perhaps it's time so start since our govt. publicly claims it is. After awhile doublespeak confuses even those who engage in it. Our "practical self-serving" foreign policy has frequently failed and backfired: Iran and Iraq are great places to start. How'd it work out undermining a democratic govt. in Iraq, reinstating the despised Shah huh?
@mittROMNEY666 Foreign policy has always been based on morality. Have you ever heard of Manifest Destiny? And your former president George W. Bush used morality to justify the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. He said, "'I am driven with a mission from God'. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did."
@mittROMNEY666 Mr Bush went on: "And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, 'Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East'. And, by God, I'm gonna do it." This was reported by the Guardian in 2005. The statements were made in 2003. By the way Bush made similar statements to Bob Woodward in the lead up to the Iraq War. US foreign policy has almost always been based on Christian thinking.
@SFOtter It's hard to argue with someone when they point out the same information you use and the standards in which you use them. Great comment. I couldn't have said it better.
@ElProximo : Please check wikipedia's page of "iraq war casualties". No need to criticize WP's reliability since they link to external sources and only reproduce the numbers from those sources.
Despite the disputes on the exact number of civilian casualties in Iraq, all the figures agree on the order of magnitude being around or over 100,000. These sources are independant from each other, including United Nations and Wikileaks's disclosure of US Army's data.
@ElProximo The accusation is nonsense. He does not hate a continent. He disagrees with the US foreign policy towards Afghanistan. A majority of the US voters did actively vote for this policy or did not vote against it.
@ElProximo Your a moron if you think that the desert storm conflict was the reason we invaded Iraq and it clearly shows that you have no idea what your talking about.
@ElProximo The war was pre-emptive nonsense. There was no soild evidence but clearly you still can't see past thier facade even after a decade of bullshit that always turns out to be false in the end. It won't matter much once we bankrupt the country with these endless wars and occupations because there won't even be a country left to "defend".You can thank both parties for that.
@ElProximo I was pointing out that Europe had seen much more conflict than the middle east in the years prior to western powers becoming involved in the regions politics. im saying that its wrong for us to get involed and help create these conflicts that end badly and helped make the middle east the unstable mess it is. Kuwait was part of an entirely diffrent conflict than the Iraq war. We attaked Iraq on the premise that they had WMDs It had nothing to do with the invasion of kuwait.
@ElProximo If you want to talk about "EPIC" wars (using your 12 year old vocabulary so you can understand me clearer) you should take a look at WW1 or WW2. Ever heard of a man named Napoleon? I doubt it being the little uneducated shit you are. What a sad and clueless little flag waver. I applaud your sad attempts to cover up the facts but you have nothing to stand on.
@ElProximo Your a moron.If you think the muslim nations are the only ones with a history of war your a total fucking idiot. We have no right to over throw goverments and then steal the natural resources from the land. Your argument is so hollow and broken i really don't understand why you continue to make an ass of yourself. yeah its so "epic" hurr again using the lingo of 12 year olds on xbl.
I was giving an example of a scenario in which you could try to explain why something happened without excusing the act.
What you're telling me is that, in response to that, you pointed to a viewpoint which I don't hold, nor does Noam Chomsky hold in the context of Afghans, and attacked that viewpoint as an example. An example of what? If you don't think I hold the position, and you don't think Noam holds the position, why did you attack it at length, and call me 'sicko' when you were done?
@ElProximo Aaaand that's a strawman. I never said that, and Noam doesn't say that whoever carried out terrorist actions aren't responsible. What he's saying is that government policies were a factor, much like unemployment and wealth inequality are factors in riots.
@ElProximo Right, there you have a textbook argumentum ad hominem. That tends to happen quite often when people have no substantive grounds for their claims, as you clearly don't.
@ElProximo Thirdly, explaining why something happens is not the same as excusing it. For example, if I point out - for example - that the August riots in the UK were mainly in deprived areas, that doesn't mean, and my saying it doesn't even imply that I am in favour of rioting.
@ElProximo So you're saying he doesn't criticise the Taliban because he's racist. Right... No, that's bullshit. Firstly, you can't actually find an explicit statement of his so you have to 'read between the lines' (which quite often, though not all the time, means deducing things which aren't there). Secondly, he explains why he doesn't criticise the Taliban in the video that you're fucking commenting on. I'd have thought you would have noticed. (continued)
@ElProximo When you're making assertions, absolutely you have to back them up. What you're saying is that because this is an online comments section, you don't have to back up your claims, and you flat out refuse to do so. That's incredibly idiotic, and could only come from someone who is either a) flat out lying or b) fucking retarded.
Or both.
So which one is it? If it's neither, provide some evidence.
@ElProximo The burden of proof concept applies in arguments in general, too, you fucking moron. You made the assertions that he had a sexist and racist mentality. Now if you make assertions, you generally have to back them up.
Sure, you aren't obliged to, but nobody's going to buy into your shit until you have backed them up.
(It's also funny that I only tend to ever hear "go look for yourself" from people who have no idea what they're talking about)
@ElProximo But that's what it is, it was used during the Cold War to try to prevent criticism of American foreign policy (and funnily enough, it's being used to the exact same end now)
>I'd prefer you do you're own work on that.
Oh Lord, you're a moron. You were making the claim, you back it up. If you can't, withdraw it.
@ElProximo I don't know how honest I can get. I just basically called myself a dumbass who can't see beyond my own dogmas...and it's true--the veil of my own experience and feelings is too strong, as is everyone else's, that's why pluralism and dynamism is good. But I see you just don't want to give me your point by point analysis, and that's okay. It's true that it's better and more meaningful for one to work out one's own problems. So I'm just gonna say that you 'win'. Good cheer to you!
@ElProximo Its pretty self explanatory. Yeah that CIA crap you're clearly are trying to brush off like its nothing when its the main reason these regions are so unstable. Nah you're right its just our freedom they hate.....*sigh*
@ElProximo Saved from a war we started, kinda irrelavent if you ask me. My numbers are solid but it doesn't matter if it was 10,000 or 100,000 thousand Its still fucking wrong.It made the region less stable and has only given the muslim world more of a reason to attack us. its counter-productive. "/ownage" are you 12?
@ElProximo Over 100,000 civilian causalties. Im sure thier families thank god every day for our "liberation". Atleast they have somwhere to get help after being shot or bombed by the military. How thoughtful of us.
@ElProximo Most of these aweful regimes are products of the CIA and other agencies that have helped these dictators into power in the first place. Then we sell them weapons and exploit the country for thier resources. If it was for humanitarian reasons then why haven't we taken out the saudi arabans who live under shria law?The Supposed 9/11 hijakers were all Saudi Arabians!
@ElProximo Shame it isn't you and your family in the middle east. Then maybe just maybe you would be able to pull your clueless little head out of your ass and take a look around. Thousands of innocent civiliains dead due to OUR foriegn policy and when someone stands up and says enough you have nothing better to say than "well they just hate america".im so sick of you mindless flag wavers and your fake patriotism. Easy to act tough whne is not your neigborhood being bombed.
@ElProximo I must admit that I'm not very smart. I'm quite an idiot, actually. It's hard for me to see outside my own point of view, and it's also hard for me to take criticism from others who don't believe what I believe. I could really use your insight in breaking my ideological force fields. You see, I've watched the video many times over and I just have no idea what you were talking about. I suppose I'm just a poor soul that needs saving. Please help me out.
@ElProximo >He doesn't refute the accusation he hates America
Excuse me? Why should he, it's just a baseless accusation - normally thrown around by propagandists (e.g. Fox News), seemingly to try and shut up dissent.
I'd also like you to give an example of hate speech or his racist mentality.
@ElProximo No. I'm afraid I'm a bit dense, as you can see. If you could elaborate and detail your argument further, maybe you'll be able to enlighten me.
@ElProximo A distinction should be made between criticising America and hating America. I may criticize you, but that doesn't mean I hate you. Actually, if you had a good friend and they are doing something stupid and you don't criticize him, well, you are not a very good friend, yes?
Well this is just one of the all too many cases on our books of Americanism. The only way that we can fight this terrible debilitating social disease, is by informing the general public of its consequences, by showing young people that it's just not worth it. So please give generously to this address: The League for fighting the United States of America, 55 Lincoln House, Basil Street, London, SW3.
chomsky is a disappointment to any who've studied linguistics, as we know that he's merely using word traps to disarm those who debate him, and provides no proof of his own position.
@alistairthegreat Yes, that's right, the only reason he wins debates is because he studies language and grammar. It's impossible that the words he uses to form sentences make sense and are supported by logic, reason and evidence. Doesn't everyone know he's a word wizard who controls our minds with his extensive knowledge of transformational-generative grammar and syntax!?
Yeah, that whole "Language Acquisition Device" (the most important linguistic theory of the 20th century) was just a failure. I mean, Piaget and Chomsky are only in every single Development Psych. textbook on the face of the planet, completely blowing behaviorists like B.F. Skinner out of the water. That's like saying Einstein is a disappointment to those who study Quantum Physics.
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexuality and homosexuality. Even non-religious people know this.
The homosexual agenda is not good for anyone, including those who consider themselves "gay".
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have successfuly framed themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
We have much to learn from this man. People need to take off their blinders and stop generalising all afghans to be on the same group as the fanatic talibans. Only about 2 decades ago afghan people were dancing and drinking in a a very socially forward society. If it wasn't for the Russians, there would possibly never BE any Taliban rule in Afghanistan.
while Chomsky handled this question deftly (as he always does) the young man's points are completely valid. ALL of Chomsky's arguments proceed from an indictment of the west, and particularly the U.S., while he often deliberately overlooks the crimes of non-western powers. It's just what he does--it's formulaic. This is why leftists view him as the second coming.
@oldstock1607 As a more left-leaning type of guy, I agree with you. I think it mostly comes out of the fact that we're just saturated with talking points about how "the radical Muslims are evil" without really looking at ourselves. So, many people like Chomsky because he tries to present the other side of the argument. Maybe the fault does not entirely lie in the "enemy" we're presented with, but mostly on ourselves?
@hawaiigopher Well, to a degree certainly we are our own enemies, and Chomsky, if he does nothing else, probably makes certain Americans more introspective. Bear in mind that this man is a linguist who, while a competent in that field, has built his career and fame by portraying the U.S. as a "terror state." While I have no doubts about Chomsky's intelligence, I can't help but think that his fame stems from his serving up leftists big steaming hot plates of exactly what they're talkin about.
@oldstock1607 Chomsky first came into the spotlight when he revolutionized linguistics, that's what first built his fame. And of course he's popular among leftists, he talks about real events where the U.S. acts as a terror state to preserve it's hegemony while others prefer to plug their ears and look away. We can't deny the atrocities the U.S. performed, aided, facilitated and supported over the years in the Middle East, Central and South America, East Asia and Oceania, etc.
@oldstock1607 (cont.) It's an exposure rather than a portrayal of the U.S. as the terror state it is. As long as we keep ignoring it, people will keep dying because of the sadistic addiction that the leadership of this country have for corporate and American hegemony. Or we can act, and try to change this, for a better, more peaceful, more just future.
I agree with the premise that a sufficiently destructive attack combined with government collusion can constitute an act of war. Destroying the twin towers and attacking the Pentagon, combined with the Taliban's long-known close relationship with Al Qaeda and initial refusal to turn him over, met the definition for act of war, negating the need to accept the Taliban's Johnny-come-lately offer. It wasn't only about revenge, but because the Taliban had proved itself dangerous in hosting Al Qaeda.
Yes, by all means, let's focus on the 'wrongs' of our Nation. Certainly, with the acute self awareness we seem to all have, we can bring this Country down even further. After all, isn't that what our Republic deserves? Is our generation incapable of saying anything positive about the contributions of the United States?The world- without the U.S.- would be a cess pool of third world dung. Maybe we just have too much time on our hands to appreciate what we had when we were a truly free Nation.
@jojmanful I'd be interested to hear the reasoning behind that comment. The one about the world being a "cesspool of third world dung" without the U. S., that is.
@wemorris1001 The U.S. has come to the aid of other nations in every disaster that befalls them. Where is Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and others during these disasters? The citizenry on this Nation is the most charitable on earth and our government wastes no time in spending money to assist. Other than Europe (fast becoming a haven for Muslim extemists) and Asia, the world is led by third world regimes. If our own citizens can't say anything positive about the U.S., we won't survive.
@jojmanful I think I'll just let your comment speak for itself. I don't think anyone needs me to poke holes in it. I would, though, like to suggest an alternative ending to your prophecy: "If our own citizens can't say anything positive about the U.S., it will have to change."
@wemorris1001 Poke holes in what? Saying something positive about the U.S? I get the fact you want change, but change from what to what? Personally, I think the world would be a far worse place without the U.S. even with its flaws. Realistically, and without intellectualizing, what do YOU want the U.S. to look like?
@jojmanful Our charity extends only insofar as our interests. Take Chile, for example. The Ford Foundation provided the most relief and humanitarian work during the Pinochet years, but that was after Ford Motor Co. had already had a hand in the military coup that put that dictator in power in the first place. As a country we inflict a whole lot more suffering around the world than we alleviate.
WOW, Chomsky is totally mis-informed about OBL's denial of involvement in 9/11. He also manifests his trademark- bad will in his use of bad logic applied to an argument. And how can Comsky say that, that kid is responsible for the treatment of the Afgans, he once again show himself to be a loathsome ideological follower of his own disjointed moral code!
Seriously, the U.S. has been beaten up enough by this self loathing attitude among its citizens. You may want to picture the world without the U.S. What would that REALLY look like? There's no reason to remain here if the Russian system looks more appealing. Here's a music vid on Socialist in our government. You can guess who that is.
On Afghanistan, Chomsky is bang on on all counts. The Americans were glad to arm Osama and 'our boys' against the Russians but did absolutely nothing once the Russians left to help the Afghans.
I take offense to that backhanded slap at Alabama since I am from here. Kidding about the offense part. Yea, we do have a TON of Neoconservatives here though, probably more than in any other state in terms of pro war. I get into many spirited debates with my step dad. He actually even did his dissertation for his PhD on Chomesky in college.
Maybe. but I'm kinda talking about the US. Our education sucks (our colleges are very overrated IMO), as for PC, it's kinda counter-productive when your constitution is being violated and muslims are being slaughtered
The best propaganda is veiled with the truth. You can know an enemy, by his works. Ambiguity of intent, hidden in the deniable meaning of purposefully chosen words. That doesn't make supporting socialism OK, it make you a pathological lair, and coward. Chomsky is a socialist, who supported Pol Pot regime., and whose relevance is zero. The people who follow him are rabid socialists, or are ignorant of what he wants and means when he speaks.
@hydin1 From the Manufacturing Consent documentary: "[...] the great act of genocide in the modern period is Pol Pot, 1975 through 1978 - that atrocity - I think it would be hard to find any example of a comparable outrage and outpouring of fury and so on and so forth."
The fact that he criticised the US bombing campaign directly preceding the regime and thought it was unjust to completely neglect that in the media doesn't mean he supported Pol Pot.
@drizztf88 What is an Anarchist? you dont even know. Exhibiting unrestrained violence does not an anarchist make. You are a follower, you clamor for a totalitarian leader, not freedom.
@drizztf88 Sorry, it is a 'foul word' it is what lead to every dictator in history.. always with apparent good intentions in the beginning. Socialism may work for a while, that is, until they run out of other people's money.
2)"until they run out of other people's money": Yeah Thatcher has said some really, really, really stupid things. No you don't run out of other people's money, cause if there actually was socialism, those "other people" wouldn't have "earned" their money in the first place. You know, means of production in the hands of the workers. So this isn't as smart a comment as it seems, it just shows igorance.
@drizztf88 Let's put it this way! One is a complete Idiot if one believes they should not earn their own $ & IF they oppose Freedom! If you take a Capitalistic productive country and instill socialistic policy, they will take the money where it is, with the private sector and tax payers. You comment really makes no sense as in the real world America was based on Capitalism and to incorporate socialistic policy would mean to take it from those who already have earned it.
@drizztf88 PART i:Some more to gripe about. We allowed unions to use the power given to them by FDR under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) of 1936 to both raise wage rates and benefits and discourage labor saving technologies to eventually make our basic industries uncompetitive in world markets (e.g. steel, autos, etc.), thus exporting them to China and elsewhere. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) was
@drizztf88 Part 2: set up by FDR to "balance" the power given to the unions by the NLRA (FDR said that he knew the NLRA effectively allowed the unions the right to seize private property(factories) so he had to balance this power (interestingly, he also said that he could not grant this power to the public employee unions because they would have endless sources of money from taxpayers) He left the decision to allow
@drizztf88 Part 3: public employee collective bargaining to the states. The first state to grant the right to collective bargaining was Bob Lafollet's (progressive that he was) Wisconsin. You see where that got us!
Fast forward to today, Obama, the most blatantly political of Presidents (commie that he most assuredly is) appointed the union's lawyer to the NLRB (under recess appointment-the only way to get him on the board
@drizztf88 Part 4: since congress would not approve him) and he was the deciding vote on the board's Boeing decision to object to Boeing's new plant being built in a "right to work" state (South Carolina, I think).
Anyway, take the US auto industry, its peak in he 60's was succeeded by a steady decline where a combination of above market wages and benefits priced workers out of the market. More importantly, work
@drizztf88 Part 5: rules and punitive payments to existing workers as new labor saving equipment destroyed both productivity and profitability (when GM went bankrupt they paid more per car for workers not working ($2,000) than for the steel (produced and shipped from mostly India- $1,800) used to produce the cars! Without productive, modern facilities and an efficient, smaller, high paid skilled workforce (like
@drizztf88 Part 6: Germany has now-German govt was not bought and paid for by its unions as we are) we lost our base industries (and others that would have located here if we were more employer friendly-put in a better way "free").In the name of giving the "working man" a better life, higher wages and more power, we have turned our backs on world market competition and the freedom to own private property and use it
@drizztf88 Part 7: productively. We call it "fairness", "socially correct" or whatever phrase that sounds good, but it is giving the right for a relatively small number of people (union members) to steal private property and put their self-interest before that of the world consumer. It is communism that is called market-socialism or a mixed economy. As we now witness, there is no such thing. It is made up nonsense by people who do not
1)Oh that's what lead to every dictator in history, I thought it was things like "liberty", "democracy", "spreading democracy","patriotism","god's will","doing whatever necessary to protect our country" and such but thanks for clarifying.
@drizztf88 Part 8: accept that the world is as it is and we cannot pretend that we can control or outsmart it for some hubristically fantasized "common good". Take away a progressives' words like "ought" and "should" and he has no ideas that work in the real world. His ideas deny that we are creatures that evolved from a Darwinian world that just is and whenever we seek to outsmart it, we create "unintended consequences"
@drizztf88 Part 9: that result in inefficiencies that now "hollow out" our wage earning population to produce the phenomenon we are now witness to: highly productive, well educated, highly paid people at the top with the skills and wealth to live and do well in the global economic real world, and those that were hoodwinked into thinking that their pretend world unions could allow them to escape that real world. A reality that turns
@drizztf88 Part 10: out to be exactly the opposite of what progressives intended when they interfered in the real world market process w/their short term pretend "ideas" that effectively ruined history's most productive economy. The progressives lead lambs to the slaughter with their hubristic, idealistic, denial of the efficiency of free men that must operate freely in free markets without the interference of idealists with utopian ideas that think they're smarter than a Darwinistic real world.
Read "Distortions at Fourth Hand" his article in the June 25, 1977 edition of "the Nation". Chomsky repeatedly denies the Khmer Rouge genocide, says that the forced deportations of civilians from Pnom Penh and other major cities was "a sensible way of dealing with Cambodia's problems" and alleges that "the Khmer Rouge 'slaughter' is a New York Times creation." He has never apologized for these false, and deeply offensive comments
@hydin1 I never heard or read that he supported the pol pot regime, but then again he is claimed to support and stand behind all kinds of things which are not true. Well, unless both of us are mechanical thinkers and interpret things wildly different.
@Tyrfingr I was a fan of Chomsky, I have read all his books. A little research goes a long way, but you have to be looking for the truth. Remember that commits have a time line.
why is he a young conservative? conservative pricks just love war. the person was probably a leftist who supports the war. wrong title. and noam chomsky fucking fail yet again!
halflifeproductionz 4 days ago
@halflifeproductionz conservatives love war ?..you did realized that any administration since decades promoted war no matter if democratic or conservative do you? there is no difference in the partys anymore...the US society is heading straight into a cooporative fascist system and the PatrioAct,NDAA2012 and the Military Commissions Act2006 are effectively converting the US into a military dictatorship no yet officially declared but wait until people stand up..then you see
chris99103 2 days ago
@halflifeproductionz and btw who are you that you feel qualified to determine if Chomsky failed or not? The list of books this man has written is longer than the list of all class essays you ever have written in your entire school careers you idiot..hes awared a dozen international awards, he developed the propaganda model which describes modern media.Whats on your side after 26 years..oh I see..a Razor1911 cracktro...respect bro..you are really in some real important shit
chris99103 2 days ago
why not stick to linguistics, really?
rouzbehazshab 4 days ago
@rouzbehazshab Because he reads deeply , writes , and speaks with great authority and he appears to have a highly developed moral conscience. -- and a great many, intelligent and influential people listen to him ( although clearly nothing like enough ).
calum66 3 days ago
Get em Noam! You're killing him.
artist4africa 5 days ago
Noam is a God. Young Con = just another hand job.
rickbar123 5 days ago
the salient point about the russian invansion and then seeing how stupid it would be if a right wing russian politician said ," see look how they treat each other"
noam is just brilliant...
13stevejohnson 1 week ago
the right wing dumbass didnt realize that the taliban did want to turn over bin laden, but then we invaded and installed another dictator...
13stevejohnson 1 week ago
Man, I really wish I could be half as smart as Noam.
Misanthropedia 3 weeks ago 2
the applauds blow
CptSpauIding 4 weeks ago
Bin Laden dead, we're still in Afghanistan...
sphires 4 weeks ago 4
@WhyMeMoFo hey american idiot.
Search for "Keith Windschuttle, The Hypocrisy of Noam Chomsky" and have a.good time/
paunocu666 4 weeks ago
Basically a very long Op Ed piece, attacking Chomsky's character. The first consideration would be whether or not the quotes used would uphold Windschuttle's assertions in context. The second, is how much relevance his argument even has. Of course, it would be quite a remarkable thing to agree with everything a person says, unless we're ready to engage in personality worship. If there is hypocrisy in Chomsky, does that render everything he says wrong, of no value, or not useful? cont
iiwatcher 1 week ago
When Chomsky is right, does that make him some kind of flawless god? This is such an elementary matter, as to almost be a waste of time. Instead of attacking the man, he would have done better to address the issues, and present better arguments and proposals. All in all, not very impressive.
iiwatcher 1 week ago
Noam Chomsky denied the genocide in Cambodia.
jamesjeffreypaul 1 month ago
@jamesjeffreypaul And he support genocide in Mao's China against landlords...
He is an idiot.
paunocu666 1 month ago
@jamesjeffreypaul Source please?
Try me.
polymath7 4 weeks ago
@jamesjeffreypaul He denied the genoicide in Cambodia because he criticized the media and government that didn't bother to report on the even bigger genocide in East Temor? Or that he pointed out the government used Cambodia for propaganda purposes? That's a nice try at spin mongering.
ped200014 3 weeks ago
This is retarded. You might as well show a boxing match between Mike Tyson and Stephen Hawking...
PrimeConsciousness 1 month ago 2
an awful lot of words (the long question) because some young conservative fool refuses to admit that his own country is a rogue state/
patriotism would be a wonderful thing, giving its believers a beautiful sense of security, if it did not kill so many people
Strefanasha 1 month ago
This generation is sooo fucked up. I don't agree with either politicial spectrums defined in America. But why the fuck would a some kid try to argue with the one of the most established and educated scholars in America. And I can't stand socialism btw...
Salvysahagun 1 month ago
@Salvysahagun Probably because these kids have been taught that they are priceless individuals whose every utterance, thought and action, no matter how trivial, uninformed or selfish, are golden nuggets of uniqueness that should be shared with the entire universe.
motomambo 1 month ago 3
@motomambo
Thier are alot of things I disagree with Chomsky on, but you gotta have some respect. Kids these days...
Salvysahagun 1 month ago
Patriotism... it's a helluva a drug.
PrometheanRunGood 1 month ago 24
@PrometheanRunGood Im a patriot, but I have no illusions that the actions I desire are moral which makes me different than the typical patriot I think. Fuck afghanistan and its people I say - they can all get raped and starve and we can steal all their wealth. why the fuck not if it benefits america? noam is a fucking lunatic. morality shouldnt even enter to the equation. you should act in the best interest of your own people - bottom line.
mittROMNEY666 3 weeks ago
@mittROMNEY666 "they can all get raped and starve and we can steal all their wealth"
and that's why 9/11 happened. Awfully shortsighted and stupid even if you take morality out of the question. How many more parts of the world can you piss off without further consequences?
It'll end up America versus the world, and America is no longer the power that it used to be.
PrometheanRunGood 3 weeks ago
@PrometheanRunGood well fine, if you base foreign policy on utilitarian principles I agree with that. you could be right. but frankly i think the US is more then capable of knocking the shit out of afghanistan without suffering too many consequences. and im pretty sure muslims hate us anyway.
mittROMNEY666 3 weeks ago
@mittROMNEY666 We lured the Russians into Afghanistan to their economic ruin and demoralization. Then we fall into our own trap. Where have you been? We've blown our treasury there and in Iraq with little to show for it. Talk to a soldier sometime and ask them how things are going there. I served in the Army. How about you since you're such a hawk.
SFOtter 3 weeks ago
What I find impressive about Chomsky, aside from his humanist viewpoint and mastery of facts, is that he never loses his temper in debate, maintaining civil discourse throughout, despite whatever challenges his opponents toss his way. You hear no inflammatory rhetoric, no name-calling. When he states that the U.S. acts as a rogue nation, he uses our own govt.'s very criterion and facts to substantiate.
SFOtter 1 month ago 34
@SFOtter noam sounds like a religious figure, waxing on and on about morality. since when has foreign policy been based on morality?
mittROMNEY666 3 weeks ago
@mittROMNEY666 Perhaps it's time so start since our govt. publicly claims it is. After awhile doublespeak confuses even those who engage in it. Our "practical self-serving" foreign policy has frequently failed and backfired: Iran and Iraq are great places to start. How'd it work out undermining a democratic govt. in Iraq, reinstating the despised Shah huh?
SFOtter 3 weeks ago
@mittROMNEY666 Foreign policy has always been based on morality. Have you ever heard of Manifest Destiny? And your former president George W. Bush used morality to justify the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. He said, "'I am driven with a mission from God'. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did."
USASecretHistory 3 weeks ago
@mittROMNEY666 Mr Bush went on: "And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, 'Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East'. And, by God, I'm gonna do it." This was reported by the Guardian in 2005. The statements were made in 2003. By the way Bush made similar statements to Bob Woodward in the lead up to the Iraq War. US foreign policy has almost always been based on Christian thinking.
USASecretHistory 3 weeks ago
@SFOtter It's hard to argue with someone when they point out the same information you use and the standards in which you use them. Great comment. I couldn't have said it better.
USASecretHistory 3 weeks ago
listen to the dumbasses in the audience clapping at every little piece of rhetoric being thrown at them by the young conservative
ProudGayMuslim100 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ElProximo : Please check wikipedia's page of "iraq war casualties". No need to criticize WP's reliability since they link to external sources and only reproduce the numbers from those sources.
Despite the disputes on the exact number of civilian casualties in Iraq, all the figures agree on the order of magnitude being around or over 100,000. These sources are independant from each other, including United Nations and Wikileaks's disclosure of US Army's data.
Get real !
nickst0ne 1 month ago
:trolldad:
ShaktipatSeer2 1 month ago
old man gonna die die die
im going to laugh
you know why why why
noam chomsky is a gayfer
stinnetbennet 1 month ago
@stinnetbennet Go back to watching MTV and drinking budweiser .. you have the consciousness of a pig
ShaktipatSeer2 1 month ago
@stinnetbennet you're clearly thick as fuck. go watch r&b videos and leave the thinking to the grown ups
OracleUndone 1 month ago
@OracleUndone ok tough guy 1v1 sunset bar you'd get destroyed.
stinnetbennet 1 month ago
@stinnetbennet where the fuck is sunset bar? or did you make it up?
OracleUndone 1 month ago
@stinnetbennet Troll detected
ahhhhjjjj 1 month ago
@ElProximo Yes it is not, it is "Ad Hominem" / "character assassination". An empty accusation that is supposed to appeal to the nationalistic.
0MoTheG 1 month ago
@ElProximo The accusation is nonsense. He does not hate a continent. He disagrees with the US foreign policy towards Afghanistan. A majority of the US voters did actively vote for this policy or did not vote against it.
0MoTheG 1 month ago
The way in which this kid metaphorizes Afghanistan as an American property says it all. Unbelievable.
SingYAYfourEd 1 month ago 3
@ElProximo Your a moron if you think that the desert storm conflict was the reason we invaded Iraq and it clearly shows that you have no idea what your talking about.
SyringeCycle 1 month ago
@ElProximo The war was pre-emptive nonsense. There was no soild evidence but clearly you still can't see past thier facade even after a decade of bullshit that always turns out to be false in the end. It won't matter much once we bankrupt the country with these endless wars and occupations because there won't even be a country left to "defend".You can thank both parties for that.
SyringeCycle 1 month ago
@ElProximo I was pointing out that Europe had seen much more conflict than the middle east in the years prior to western powers becoming involved in the regions politics. im saying that its wrong for us to get involed and help create these conflicts that end badly and helped make the middle east the unstable mess it is. Kuwait was part of an entirely diffrent conflict than the Iraq war. We attaked Iraq on the premise that they had WMDs It had nothing to do with the invasion of kuwait.
SyringeCycle 1 month ago
@ElProximo Saddam started the war?Haha You really are full of shit you know that?
SyringeCycle 1 month ago
@ElProximo If you want to talk about "EPIC" wars (using your 12 year old vocabulary so you can understand me clearer) you should take a look at WW1 or WW2. Ever heard of a man named Napoleon? I doubt it being the little uneducated shit you are. What a sad and clueless little flag waver. I applaud your sad attempts to cover up the facts but you have nothing to stand on.
SyringeCycle 1 month ago
@ElProximo Your a moron.If you think the muslim nations are the only ones with a history of war your a total fucking idiot. We have no right to over throw goverments and then steal the natural resources from the land. Your argument is so hollow and broken i really don't understand why you continue to make an ass of yourself. yeah its so "epic" hurr again using the lingo of 12 year olds on xbl.
SyringeCycle 1 month ago
@ElProximo 'you don't get stuff'...interesting definition.
uknowispeaksense 1 month ago
@ElProximo Translation: "herp derp, ur stuped!"
That's an ad hominem. Sorry if I'm a 'faggy atheist' for pointing that out. (I don't even know how that follows)
GiantSandles 1 month ago
@ElProximo (continued) So here we have two options
1) You WERE saying that I hold a similar position, in which case what I said about you strawmanning me still stands.
2) The example you were pointing to doesn't pertain to the discussion at all seeing as no-one here has expressed that view.
I assume I'm supposed to believe that you brought it up for a laugh?
GiantSandles 1 month ago
I was giving an example of a scenario in which you could try to explain why something happened without excusing the act.
What you're telling me is that, in response to that, you pointed to a viewpoint which I don't hold, nor does Noam Chomsky hold in the context of Afghans, and attacked that viewpoint as an example. An example of what? If you don't think I hold the position, and you don't think Noam holds the position, why did you attack it at length, and call me 'sicko' when you were done?
GiantSandles 1 month ago
@ElProximo Aaaand that's a strawman. I never said that, and Noam doesn't say that whoever carried out terrorist actions aren't responsible. What he's saying is that government policies were a factor, much like unemployment and wealth inequality are factors in riots.
GiantSandles 1 month ago
@ElProximo Right, there you have a textbook argumentum ad hominem. That tends to happen quite often when people have no substantive grounds for their claims, as you clearly don't.
GiantSandles 1 month ago
@ElProximo Thirdly, explaining why something happens is not the same as excusing it. For example, if I point out - for example - that the August riots in the UK were mainly in deprived areas, that doesn't mean, and my saying it doesn't even imply that I am in favour of rioting.
GiantSandles 1 month ago
@ElProximo So you're saying he doesn't criticise the Taliban because he's racist. Right... No, that's bullshit. Firstly, you can't actually find an explicit statement of his so you have to 'read between the lines' (which quite often, though not all the time, means deducing things which aren't there). Secondly, he explains why he doesn't criticise the Taliban in the video that you're fucking commenting on. I'd have thought you would have noticed. (continued)
GiantSandles 1 month ago
@ElProximo When you're making assertions, absolutely you have to back them up. What you're saying is that because this is an online comments section, you don't have to back up your claims, and you flat out refuse to do so. That's incredibly idiotic, and could only come from someone who is either a) flat out lying or b) fucking retarded.
Or both.
So which one is it? If it's neither, provide some evidence.
GiantSandles 1 month ago
@ElProximo The burden of proof concept applies in arguments in general, too, you fucking moron. You made the assertions that he had a sexist and racist mentality. Now if you make assertions, you generally have to back them up.
Sure, you aren't obliged to, but nobody's going to buy into your shit until you have backed them up.
(It's also funny that I only tend to ever hear "go look for yourself" from people who have no idea what they're talking about)
GiantSandles 1 month ago
@ElProximo But that's what it is, it was used during the Cold War to try to prevent criticism of American foreign policy (and funnily enough, it's being used to the exact same end now)
>I'd prefer you do you're own work on that.
Oh Lord, you're a moron. You were making the claim, you back it up. If you can't, withdraw it.
You know, burden of proof and all that.
GiantSandles 1 month ago
@ElProximo Yes Mr. Truth Winner! You're so smart! I like smart.
ThisSentenceIsFalse 1 month ago
@ElProximo I don't know how honest I can get. I just basically called myself a dumbass who can't see beyond my own dogmas...and it's true--the veil of my own experience and feelings is too strong, as is everyone else's, that's why pluralism and dynamism is good. But I see you just don't want to give me your point by point analysis, and that's okay. It's true that it's better and more meaningful for one to work out one's own problems. So I'm just gonna say that you 'win'. Good cheer to you!
ThisSentenceIsFalse 1 month ago
@ElProximo Its pretty self explanatory. Yeah that CIA crap you're clearly are trying to brush off like its nothing when its the main reason these regions are so unstable. Nah you're right its just our freedom they hate.....*sigh*
SyringeCycle 1 month ago
@ElProximo Saved from a war we started, kinda irrelavent if you ask me. My numbers are solid but it doesn't matter if it was 10,000 or 100,000 thousand Its still fucking wrong.It made the region less stable and has only given the muslim world more of a reason to attack us. its counter-productive. "/ownage" are you 12?
SyringeCycle 1 month ago
@ElProximo Over 100,000 civilian causalties. Im sure thier families thank god every day for our "liberation". Atleast they have somwhere to get help after being shot or bombed by the military. How thoughtful of us.
SyringeCycle 1 month ago
@ElProximo Most of these aweful regimes are products of the CIA and other agencies that have helped these dictators into power in the first place. Then we sell them weapons and exploit the country for thier resources. If it was for humanitarian reasons then why haven't we taken out the saudi arabans who live under shria law?The Supposed 9/11 hijakers were all Saudi Arabians!
SyringeCycle 1 month ago
@ElProximo Shame it isn't you and your family in the middle east. Then maybe just maybe you would be able to pull your clueless little head out of your ass and take a look around. Thousands of innocent civiliains dead due to OUR foriegn policy and when someone stands up and says enough you have nothing better to say than "well they just hate america".im so sick of you mindless flag wavers and your fake patriotism. Easy to act tough whne is not your neigborhood being bombed.
SyringeCycle 1 month ago
Yeah, this heckler's right. As soon as Bin Ladin is out of the picture, all the troops will come home.... Oh waaait...
nezballa001 2 months ago 35
@nezballa001 He didn't say that at all; you're dropping context.
sybo59 1 week ago
Comment removed
zyxek 5 days ago
@ElProximo I must admit that I'm not very smart. I'm quite an idiot, actually. It's hard for me to see outside my own point of view, and it's also hard for me to take criticism from others who don't believe what I believe. I could really use your insight in breaking my ideological force fields. You see, I've watched the video many times over and I just have no idea what you were talking about. I suppose I'm just a poor soul that needs saving. Please help me out.
ThisSentenceIsFalse 2 months ago 2
@ElProximo >He doesn't refute the accusation he hates America
Excuse me? Why should he, it's just a baseless accusation - normally thrown around by propagandists (e.g. Fox News), seemingly to try and shut up dissent.
I'd also like you to give an example of hate speech or his racist mentality.
GiantSandles 2 months ago
@ElProximo No. I'm afraid I'm a bit dense, as you can see. If you could elaborate and detail your argument further, maybe you'll be able to enlighten me.
ThisSentenceIsFalse 2 months ago
@ElProximo A distinction should be made between criticising America and hating America. I may criticize you, but that doesn't mean I hate you. Actually, if you had a good friend and they are doing something stupid and you don't criticize him, well, you are not a very good friend, yes?
ThisSentenceIsFalse 2 months ago 5
That's the longest question I've ever heard.
marmite400 2 months ago
"In the 1980's..." when you were still dancing around in your Batman drawers.
jduplechin 2 months ago
We need more Noam Chomskys...He won't be there forever
frepi 2 months ago 19
@frepi he is sadly also getting older and it is noticable in his resent lectures :S
shaithesm0ck 1 month ago
@frepi Here is a Chomsky. =) I will try to affect my own country and through that the world. =)
Auraruth8 1 month ago
Hey FYI the left took our Bin Laden - Obama isn't that left in my opinion but of the fox news crowd he is - anyways what a jackass this kid is
JefferySchmitz 2 months ago
Chomskys a moron
batstoogeproductions 2 months ago
@batstoogeproductions hahahahaha yeah right>>>??
JefferySchmitz 2 months ago
The term young conservative makes me want to laugh my ass off.
SlipAllCityToy 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Well this is just one of the all too many cases on our books of Americanism. The only way that we can fight this terrible debilitating social disease, is by informing the general public of its consequences, by showing young people that it's just not worth it. So please give generously to this address: The League for fighting the United States of America, 55 Lincoln House, Basil Street, London, SW3.
FireEyedMaidOfWar 2 months ago
chomsky is a disappointment to any who've studied linguistics, as we know that he's merely using word traps to disarm those who debate him, and provides no proof of his own position.
and he's a communist.
alistairthegreat 3 months ago
@alistairthegreat Yes, that's right, the only reason he wins debates is because he studies language and grammar. It's impossible that the words he uses to form sentences make sense and are supported by logic, reason and evidence. Doesn't everyone know he's a word wizard who controls our minds with his extensive knowledge of transformational-generative grammar and syntax!?
typenamehere19 3 months ago
@alistairthegreat
Yeah, that whole "Language Acquisition Device" (the most important linguistic theory of the 20th century) was just a failure. I mean, Piaget and Chomsky are only in every single Development Psych. textbook on the face of the planet, completely blowing behaviorists like B.F. Skinner out of the water. That's like saying Einstein is a disappointment to those who study Quantum Physics.
ChomskyandCheetos 2 months ago
@alistairthegreat he's not a communist you dingbat - and he compared to you is the smartest person on the planet
JefferySchmitz 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
RON PAUL 2012
ronpaulfan1 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexuality and homosexuality. Even non-religious people know this.
The homosexual agenda is not good for anyone, including those who consider themselves "gay".
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have successfuly framed themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 3 months ago
We have much to learn from this man. People need to take off their blinders and stop generalising all afghans to be on the same group as the fanatic talibans. Only about 2 decades ago afghan people were dancing and drinking in a a very socially forward society. If it wasn't for the Russians, there would possibly never BE any Taliban rule in Afghanistan.
xoticLC 3 months ago
Boom roasted. Chomsky is great.
emptypepsi 3 months ago
while Chomsky handled this question deftly (as he always does) the young man's points are completely valid. ALL of Chomsky's arguments proceed from an indictment of the west, and particularly the U.S., while he often deliberately overlooks the crimes of non-western powers. It's just what he does--it's formulaic. This is why leftists view him as the second coming.
oldstock1607 3 months ago
@oldstock1607 As a more left-leaning type of guy, I agree with you. I think it mostly comes out of the fact that we're just saturated with talking points about how "the radical Muslims are evil" without really looking at ourselves. So, many people like Chomsky because he tries to present the other side of the argument. Maybe the fault does not entirely lie in the "enemy" we're presented with, but mostly on ourselves?
hawaiigopher 3 months ago
@hawaiigopher Well, to a degree certainly we are our own enemies, and Chomsky, if he does nothing else, probably makes certain Americans more introspective. Bear in mind that this man is a linguist who, while a competent in that field, has built his career and fame by portraying the U.S. as a "terror state." While I have no doubts about Chomsky's intelligence, I can't help but think that his fame stems from his serving up leftists big steaming hot plates of exactly what they're talkin about.
oldstock1607 3 months ago
@oldstock1607 Chomsky first came into the spotlight when he revolutionized linguistics, that's what first built his fame. And of course he's popular among leftists, he talks about real events where the U.S. acts as a terror state to preserve it's hegemony while others prefer to plug their ears and look away. We can't deny the atrocities the U.S. performed, aided, facilitated and supported over the years in the Middle East, Central and South America, East Asia and Oceania, etc.
typenamehere19 3 months ago
@oldstock1607 (cont.) It's an exposure rather than a portrayal of the U.S. as the terror state it is. As long as we keep ignoring it, people will keep dying because of the sadistic addiction that the leadership of this country have for corporate and American hegemony. Or we can act, and try to change this, for a better, more peaceful, more just future.
typenamehere19 3 months ago
@oldstock1607 interesting point
shanyin1234 3 months ago
That young conservative must like BBQ's because he just got smoked lolol
moety2 3 months ago
Props Professor Chomsky! awesome
Destinybest1 3 months ago
Possibly the best rebuttal I have ever heard. Bravo Mr. Chomsky.
metyzermanfan19 3 months ago
lol, such a loaded question. Why is it that whenever someone attacks Chomsky it's a loaded question?
Valkyriefury 3 months ago
I agree with the premise that a sufficiently destructive attack combined with government collusion can constitute an act of war. Destroying the twin towers and attacking the Pentagon, combined with the Taliban's long-known close relationship with Al Qaeda and initial refusal to turn him over, met the definition for act of war, negating the need to accept the Taliban's Johnny-come-lately offer. It wasn't only about revenge, but because the Taliban had proved itself dangerous in hosting Al Qaeda.
baigandine 4 months ago
What a spanking. Bring out the talcum powder, then rock him to sleep.
CCSF1999 4 months ago
What a BRAT hope he got his ass handed to him by a man in a wheelchair then thrown under a bus by an Afghan vet.
ZephonTLucifer 4 months ago
This is Noam's trollface
Gorevet 4 months ago
You mean a young NEO-CON, right?
drshlotzkin 4 months ago
@drshlotzkin
I'm pretty sure that conservatives don't believe in nation building so yeah you're right.
catbuffalo 4 months ago
Ah yes as ever Chomsky puts daft but seemingly well though out opinions in their rightful place, nice one for posting this mate!
freddiemercerful 4 months ago
Yes, by all means, let's focus on the 'wrongs' of our Nation. Certainly, with the acute self awareness we seem to all have, we can bring this Country down even further. After all, isn't that what our Republic deserves? Is our generation incapable of saying anything positive about the contributions of the United States?The world- without the U.S.- would be a cess pool of third world dung. Maybe we just have too much time on our hands to appreciate what we had when we were a truly free Nation.
jojmanful 4 months ago
@jojmanful I'd be interested to hear the reasoning behind that comment. The one about the world being a "cesspool of third world dung" without the U. S., that is.
wemorris1001 4 months ago
@wemorris1001 The U.S. has come to the aid of other nations in every disaster that befalls them. Where is Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and others during these disasters? The citizenry on this Nation is the most charitable on earth and our government wastes no time in spending money to assist. Other than Europe (fast becoming a haven for Muslim extemists) and Asia, the world is led by third world regimes. If our own citizens can't say anything positive about the U.S., we won't survive.
jojmanful 4 months ago
@jojmanful I think I'll just let your comment speak for itself. I don't think anyone needs me to poke holes in it. I would, though, like to suggest an alternative ending to your prophecy: "If our own citizens can't say anything positive about the U.S., it will have to change."
wemorris1001 4 months ago
@wemorris1001 Poke holes in what? Saying something positive about the U.S? I get the fact you want change, but change from what to what? Personally, I think the world would be a far worse place without the U.S. even with its flaws. Realistically, and without intellectualizing, what do YOU want the U.S. to look like?
jojmanful 4 months ago
@jojmanful Our charity extends only insofar as our interests. Take Chile, for example. The Ford Foundation provided the most relief and humanitarian work during the Pinochet years, but that was after Ford Motor Co. had already had a hand in the military coup that put that dictator in power in the first place. As a country we inflict a whole lot more suffering around the world than we alleviate.
Orangey222 4 months ago
"Professor Chomsky, thank you for coming tonight, and I know we're all honored to have you here."
Acculturated in the language of newspeak, young Winston here, of course, says the exact opposite of what he meant to say.
bapyou 5 months ago
WOW, Chomsky is totally mis-informed about OBL's denial of involvement in 9/11. He also manifests his trademark- bad will in his use of bad logic applied to an argument. And how can Comsky say that, that kid is responsible for the treatment of the Afgans, he once again show himself to be a loathsome ideological follower of his own disjointed moral code!
LiveItLiveNow 5 months ago
@LiveItLiveNow haha. Yes, you win. You just owned Chomsky....good job man. I would say thats the best way to describe Noam..... mis-informed.
PracticeMakesAwesome 5 months ago
Seriously, the U.S. has been beaten up enough by this self loathing attitude among its citizens. You may want to picture the world without the U.S. What would that REALLY look like? There's no reason to remain here if the Russian system looks more appealing. Here's a music vid on Socialist in our government. You can guess who that is.
jojmanful 5 months ago
I think that family in the house analogy says more about the psychology of conservatives than anything about what's really happening in Afghanistan.
epsilon8998 5 months ago 19
On Afghanistan, Chomsky is bang on on all counts. The Americans were glad to arm Osama and 'our boys' against the Russians but did absolutely nothing once the Russians left to help the Afghans.
Magenta408 5 months ago
Chomsky bitchslapped that guy back to Alabama
clickswitchh 5 months ago
@clickswitchh
I take offense to that backhanded slap at Alabama since I am from here. Kidding about the offense part. Yea, we do have a TON of Neoconservatives here though, probably more than in any other state in terms of pro war. I get into many spirited debates with my step dad. He actually even did his dissertation for his PhD on Chomesky in college.
rmccay88 5 months ago
Chomsky never questions american colleges or political correctness-two principle forms of coercion in our society.
Crazy? Chomsky is in fact too cautious
SUpersaiyajinjerkbag 5 months ago
@SUpersaiyajinjerkbag Political correctness is accepted. That's not coercion, anymore than the idea a parent has 'duty of care' to their children.
Redcarpet01 5 months ago
@Redcarpet01
Maybe. but I'm kinda talking about the US. Our education sucks (our colleges are very overrated IMO), as for PC, it's kinda counter-productive when your constitution is being violated and muslims are being slaughtered
SUpersaiyajinjerkbag 5 months ago
"How would the government react to a home in this situation?"
We know how. It's called Waco.
xHarry2112x 5 months ago
Noam Chomsky has a resalable logical correct answer for everything
DDTphoenix 5 months ago
This guy isn't a true conservative. He's another neocon fuck.
HammerOvThor 6 months ago
"If the Taliban handed over Osama...it could end the genocide immediately"
Well he's dead and we're scheduled to be in Afghanistan until 2026 so
Thekillerrrsss 6 months ago 2
@Thekillerrrsss
Umm... that's our own damn fault, no?
IngeniousEpithet 5 months ago
Noam Chomsky is a genius.
uninoculated 6 months ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Chomsky is such a know-it-all Toad
bilbob7624 6 months ago
@bilbob7624
Not at all difficult with the standards of the USA masses.
DrMerkwuerdichliebe 6 months ago
Noam Chomsky won American Idol using only sign language. This guy owns.
paradoxicalparabola 6 months ago 27
The best propaganda is veiled with the truth. You can know an enemy, by his works. Ambiguity of intent, hidden in the deniable meaning of purposefully chosen words. That doesn't make supporting socialism OK, it make you a pathological lair, and coward. Chomsky is a socialist, who supported Pol Pot regime., and whose relevance is zero. The people who follow him are rabid socialists, or are ignorant of what he wants and means when he speaks.
hydin1 6 months ago
@hydin1 More of an anarchist.
blackmichael75 6 months ago
@hydin1 From the Manufacturing Consent documentary: "[...] the great act of genocide in the modern period is Pol Pot, 1975 through 1978 - that atrocity - I think it would be hard to find any example of a comparable outrage and outpouring of fury and so on and so forth."
The fact that he criticised the US bombing campaign directly preceding the regime and thought it was unjust to completely neglect that in the media doesn't mean he supported Pol Pot.
trallala 6 months ago
@hydin1 Yes we are socialists(or anarchists or just progressives or whatever). It isn't a foul word, that's just in your restricted world.
And, fasle accusation about Pol Pot, he has never supported him.
drizztf88 6 months ago 27
@drizztf88 What is an Anarchist? you dont even know. Exhibiting unrestrained violence does not an anarchist make. You are a follower, you clamor for a totalitarian leader, not freedom.
hydin1 5 months ago
@hydin1
Uh what? did you even read my post or are you a bot?
drizztf88 5 months ago
@drizztf88 Sorry, it is a 'foul word' it is what lead to every dictator in history.. always with apparent good intentions in the beginning. Socialism may work for a while, that is, until they run out of other people's money.
WingThaiJ 5 months ago
@WingThaiJ
2)"until they run out of other people's money": Yeah Thatcher has said some really, really, really stupid things. No you don't run out of other people's money, cause if there actually was socialism, those "other people" wouldn't have "earned" their money in the first place. You know, means of production in the hands of the workers. So this isn't as smart a comment as it seems, it just shows igorance.
drizztf88 5 months ago
@drizztf88 Yes she did; ran out of room in the text box to quote her, but it's rather obvious anyway. Socialists have such a warped view of things..
WingThaiJ 5 months ago
@drizztf88 Let's put it this way! One is a complete Idiot if one believes they should not earn their own $ & IF they oppose Freedom! If you take a Capitalistic productive country and instill socialistic policy, they will take the money where it is, with the private sector and tax payers. You comment really makes no sense as in the real world America was based on Capitalism and to incorporate socialistic policy would mean to take it from those who already have earned it.
WingThaiJ 5 months ago
@drizztf88 PART i:Some more to gripe about. We allowed unions to use the power given to them by FDR under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) of 1936 to both raise wage rates and benefits and discourage labor saving technologies to eventually make our basic industries uncompetitive in world markets (e.g. steel, autos, etc.), thus exporting them to China and elsewhere. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) was
WingThaiJ 5 months ago
@drizztf88 Part 2: set up by FDR to "balance" the power given to the unions by the NLRA (FDR said that he knew the NLRA effectively allowed the unions the right to seize private property(factories) so he had to balance this power (interestingly, he also said that he could not grant this power to the public employee unions because they would have endless sources of money from taxpayers) He left the decision to allow
WingThaiJ 5 months ago
@drizztf88 Part 3: public employee collective bargaining to the states. The first state to grant the right to collective bargaining was Bob Lafollet's (progressive that he was) Wisconsin. You see where that got us!
Fast forward to today, Obama, the most blatantly political of Presidents (commie that he most assuredly is) appointed the union's lawyer to the NLRB (under recess appointment-the only way to get him on the board
WingThaiJ 5 months ago
@drizztf88 Part 4: since congress would not approve him) and he was the deciding vote on the board's Boeing decision to object to Boeing's new plant being built in a "right to work" state (South Carolina, I think).
Anyway, take the US auto industry, its peak in he 60's was succeeded by a steady decline where a combination of above market wages and benefits priced workers out of the market. More importantly, work
WingThaiJ 5 months ago
@drizztf88 Part 5: rules and punitive payments to existing workers as new labor saving equipment destroyed both productivity and profitability (when GM went bankrupt they paid more per car for workers not working ($2,000) than for the steel (produced and shipped from mostly India- $1,800) used to produce the cars! Without productive, modern facilities and an efficient, smaller, high paid skilled workforce (like
WingThaiJ 5 months ago
@drizztf88 Part 6: Germany has now-German govt was not bought and paid for by its unions as we are) we lost our base industries (and others that would have located here if we were more employer friendly-put in a better way "free").In the name of giving the "working man" a better life, higher wages and more power, we have turned our backs on world market competition and the freedom to own private property and use it
WingThaiJ 5 months ago
@drizztf88 Part 7: productively. We call it "fairness", "socially correct" or whatever phrase that sounds good, but it is giving the right for a relatively small number of people (union members) to steal private property and put their self-interest before that of the world consumer. It is communism that is called market-socialism or a mixed economy. As we now witness, there is no such thing. It is made up nonsense by people who do not
WingThaiJ 5 months ago
@WingThaiJ
1)Oh that's what lead to every dictator in history, I thought it was things like "liberty", "democracy", "spreading democracy","patriotism","god's will","doing whatever necessary to protect our country" and such but thanks for clarifying.
drizztf88 5 months ago
@drizztf88 Your welcome, anytime...
WingThaiJ 5 months ago
@drizztf88 Part 8: accept that the world is as it is and we cannot pretend that we can control or outsmart it for some hubristically fantasized "common good". Take away a progressives' words like "ought" and "should" and he has no ideas that work in the real world. His ideas deny that we are creatures that evolved from a Darwinian world that just is and whenever we seek to outsmart it, we create "unintended consequences"
WingThaiJ 5 months ago
@drizztf88 Part 9: that result in inefficiencies that now "hollow out" our wage earning population to produce the phenomenon we are now witness to: highly productive, well educated, highly paid people at the top with the skills and wealth to live and do well in the global economic real world, and those that were hoodwinked into thinking that their pretend world unions could allow them to escape that real world. A reality that turns
WingThaiJ 5 months ago
@drizztf88 Part 10: out to be exactly the opposite of what progressives intended when they interfered in the real world market process w/their short term pretend "ideas" that effectively ruined history's most productive economy. The progressives lead lambs to the slaughter with their hubristic, idealistic, denial of the efficiency of free men that must operate freely in free markets without the interference of idealists with utopian ideas that think they're smarter than a Darwinistic real world.
WingThaiJ 5 months ago
@drizztf88
Read "Distortions at Fourth Hand" his article in the June 25, 1977 edition of "the Nation". Chomsky repeatedly denies the Khmer Rouge genocide, says that the forced deportations of civilians from Pnom Penh and other major cities was "a sensible way of dealing with Cambodia's problems" and alleges that "the Khmer Rouge 'slaughter' is a New York Times creation." He has never apologized for these false, and deeply offensive comments
TheTollundWoman 4 months ago
@hydin1 I never heard or read that he supported the pol pot regime, but then again he is claimed to support and stand behind all kinds of things which are not true. Well, unless both of us are mechanical thinkers and interpret things wildly different.
Tyrfingr 5 months ago
@Tyrfingr I was a fan of Chomsky, I have read all his books. A little research goes a long way, but you have to be looking for the truth. Remember that commits have a time line.
hydin1 5 months ago