Noam Chomsky on the Bush Family

No description available.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• CHOMSKY ON THE BUSH FAMILY
• ronald reagan
• us policy
• policy making
• bush talk to god
• chomsky on economics
• chomsky on philosophy
• linguistics
• linguist
• chomsky on progressivism

[xHarry2112x]

@Martial024 Not really. We have lots of money. We spend more on the military than China, Saudi Arabia, Japan, Germany, Italy, England, France, South Korea, Russia, Canada, Australia, Brazil, and India—combined. Not only do we spend a lot, but our spending is disproportionate to our GDP. But what happens when you demilitarize? Thousands come home and need work, and b/c we let corporations do as they will, many of our jobs are overseas. No government wants mass jobless ex-military; it's dangerous.

[TheSkunkCat]

The problem in the US started with the McCarthy witchhunts and Reagan pretty much clinched it.

The US will never get out of the shadow of it's businesses, it's citizens will forever be the collective (and largely WILLING (because they don't know any better) bitch of the overclass. And their overclass will continue to tyrannize the world until the US economy finally collapses under the strain of all the wars (At which point it'll be like Russia now.)

[budapest509]

@kuhnmartin Wich planet you live on???

[kuhnmartin]

@HarryTheTalkingDude Well, we will agree to disagree then.

[HarryTheTalkingDude]

@kuhnmartin The only waste of time is reading that which you already agree with; I used to disagree with Chomsky, but I read things that encourage me to challenge my assumptions and current perspective. That's how you develop your mind.

[kuhnmartin]

@HarryTheTalkingDude I have no interest in reading his books if this is the kind of sewage that spews from his face. Why would I want to read that? A guy that thinks the position of the President of the United States and the position of the Queen of England are the same? I'll pass, thank you. Why people like you give this guy the time of day when he obviously does not know what he is talking about is beyond me. Why would you waste your time?

[HarryTheTalkingDude]

@kuhnmartin "Not even sure"? How could I be sure if he doesn't elaborate? Chomsky's obviously in a guest lecture or a conference and doesn't elaborate upon why he makes that distinction in depth because he hasn't been encouraged to. Complaining about his voice has no bearing upon his theories either; if you're that eager to refute him them read some of his work, you won't need to hear his voice and would be far more aware of his theories in detail.

[kuhnmartin]

@HarryTheTalkingDude Most probably? See, you are not even sure why he makes the comparison. Whatever his reasons for making the comparison still doesn't make the comparison a good one. If this guy is so brilliant, why can't be muster the brain power to make a true and accurate comparison? And why can't he muster somre freaking volume in his voice, you can hardly hear him, he almost mumbles his way through an answer. Anyways, my point is made.

[HarryTheTalkingDude]

@kuhnmartin My point is that Chomsky most probably makes the comparison to draw attention to his theories as to the relative impotence of executive authority when the surrounding structures are taken into account. Personally, I don't wholeheartedly subscribe to a literal interpretation of executive authority as being a complete bystander in world events; I think Chomsky here is drawing his theories to their extreme conclusion in order to summarise them in a short period of time in a conference

[kuhnmartin]

@HarryTheTalkingDude Okay, well no matter what amount of fact I bring to the table you will just dismiss it. The point is the position of the President of the United States has these powers, the Queen of England does not, therefore to make a comparison between the two as Chomsky does is a comparison lacking in any understanding of what exactly each position is even capable of. They are in no way near the same thing.

[HarryTheTalkingDude]

@kuhnmartin My silence is largely indicative of the fact that I'm not on youtube as regularly as you might presume; personally I didn't say that the President is "just a figure head" but said that he's less influential over his surroundings than you may presume. You mentioned the use of 'executive orders' and 'nuclear weapons' for example; do you think that Presidents can use these powers independent of the interests of corporations, parties, the media, etc? Power is relative to your environment

[kuhnmartin]

@HarryTheTalkingDude So I believe that your silence means that you don't have any argument against my own argument? Is that correct? Would you say now that the President of the United States is in fact, more than just a figure head and is actually a position with power and substance?