Galloway wipes the floor with Sky News anchor

[transplant99]

8 Administrations puts us back to Eisenhower, so I don't think Chomsky has been a critic that long.

Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II.....i think?

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II.....i think?

Nixon and Ford were the same administration. Ford was promoted from within the administration. Same with LBJ and Kennedy. LBJ was promoted from within the administration. The players stayed the same, hence the same administration.

[transplant99]

So 8 presidents and 7 administrations then?

Either way...pretty consistant in his ravings for nearly 40 years.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by transplant99

So 8 presidents and 7 administrations then?

Either way...pretty consistant in his ravings for nearly 40 years.

Exactly. That's actually what I appreciate about Chomsky. The guy is consistent no matter who is office. He critizes what America is based on what she could do. I like that even if I do not agree with his politics. A lot of the things he says resonates because it is true, whether we wish to admit is or not.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

I don't suggest blindly following anybody. What I disagree with is dismissing the guy outright before someone's even read anything of his. And several people are guilty of that in this thread.

I'd mostly agree with you then... That said, if they've read and disagreed with them in the past, there would be a greater temptation to dismiss him again, no?

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

And I certainly don't believe he's faultless, don't put words in my mouth.

Funny. You seemed to revere him as a god throughout the whole thread. OOps.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Funny. You seemed to revere him as a god throughout the whole thread. OOps.

As you so often like to do to me, don't be a dick!

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Exactly. That's actually what I appreciate about Chomsky. The guy is consistent no matter who is office. He critizes what America is based on what she could do. I like that even if I do not agree with his politics. A lot of the things he says resonates because it is true, whether we wish to admit is or not.

says you

this guys leans so far left that no US government, heck no administration in any western democracy could come even close to what he feels is the government of choice.

so raging against the US might be consistent in 40 years but he doesn't get points for hacking down every US administration.

The man has written what 30 books? He must have said many true things, but the omission of content is likely where he falls down, though from what I've read there has been plenty of mistakes in his works that he has never stepped up to admit.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Azure

Yet each has taken a different approach. I cannot argue that each administration DID NOT seek the expansion of American domination throughout the world.

What you call 'different' others would call, again, very minute changes in the details of foreign policy, rather than actual differences in fundamental US foreign policy. Put another way, people disagreed with the Soviet Union consistently across all of their leaders. Though these leaders differed in many meaningful ways, it was the nature of their state itself that caused condemnation, rather than the specific actions of each regime. Same with the US.

But you can't just disagree with every administration and seek their faults. Reading through this thread, that is one of the obvious problems Chomsky has. I guess it wouldn't seem so bad if he could find the positives like he finds the negatives in everything.

Chomsky finds plenty of positives. They just don't happen to exist with the US foreign policy system. If the system and its values have been fundamentally the same throughout these decades, why is it so hard to believe that each administration could be admonished for its lack of control over rampant abuses of US military/economic/political power. The administrations may seem different from each other, but when compared to the administrations of, say, the USSR, they are very similar in action and policy. US and USSR administrations were different, succeeding US administrations were similar.

I think any/every country in the world will seek to do whats best for their corporate world, as it is the corporate world that drives the economy. So is Chomsky right to disagree with the natural means by which a country will support those that fuel its economy?

Well... Chomskly might say that the cost to other countries to see our country gain economically might not be 'fair'. Of course, he probably sees this as a world full of human beings who deserve equal opportunities, rather than full of nation-states who should compete economically with the goal of enriching your own state at the expense of others. He probably imagines that the US has abused its power in and responsibility in the global arena for the sake of pursuing the almighty dollar. Of course, to get any of this you'd probably have to read some of his stuff. You don't seem like someone who would actually educate themselves on the topic, but rather just obfiscate by asking questions when you're supposed to provide answers, dodging topics, re-stating the nature of the debate to suit you, etc, etc.

I would argue they had the responsibility as well, but used that responsibility in demeaning ways.

Who? The US? This statement (like many of yours) is non-sensical.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Bingo

says you

this guys leans so far left that no US government, heck no administration in any western democracy could come even close to what he feels is the government of choice.

so raging against the US might be consistent in 40 years but he doesn't get points for hacking down every US administration.

The man has written what 30 books? He must have said many true things, but the omission of content is likely where he falls down, though from what I've read there has been plenty of mistakes in his works that he has never stepped up to admit.

Yes, and as you've pointed out, you're right on top of what he has written or said, based on your extensive skimming of an article and what ever FauxNews says about the guy. I'll take your word on what a great guy O'Reilly is, because you read him and hang on his every word. I'll take what you say about Chomsky with a massive grain of salt as you readily admit you haven't read anything he has written or listened to any of his speaking engagements. Chomsky is considered one of the greatest minds alive today, whether any of us wants to say otherwise. The guy has more degrees than a thermometer and lectures on too many subjects to list. He is recognized by his peers as being on a completely different level of thought and understanding. Read a couple of his books or watch a couple of the videos outlining his thoughts and comeback and give us a summation of his errors and ommissions.

[transplant99]

Chomsky is considered one of the greatest minds alive today,

Yup...by those that agree with his views.

[Azure]

Who? The US? This statement (like many of yours) is non-sensical.

Nice of you to bring in the personal side to every debate, and call people you disagree with idiots.

Why should I even respond if you're going to act like a jackass with every single post you make? And not only towards me, but towards most of the people you debate with?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Bingo

says you

this guys leans so far left that no US government, heck no administration in any western democracy could come even close to what he feels is the government of choice.

so raging against the US might be consistent in 40 years but he doesn't get points for hacking down every US administration.

The man has written what 30 books? He must have said many true things, but the omission of content is likely where he falls down, though from what I've read there has been plenty of mistakes in his works that he has never stepped up to admit.

Says you, someone with an admitted deficiency of knowledge on this particular subject. Why you continue to embarass yourself with completely uninformed rants about his personal political leanings that contribute nothing substantive to the conversation (other than to solidify your position as inconsequential), I'll never know, but I would urge you to stop as your posts are only successful in detracting from the conversation and painting yourself further into a corner.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Azure

Nice of you to bring in the personal side to every debate, and call people you disagree with idiots.

Why should I even respond if you're going to act like a jackass with every single post you make? And not only towards me, but towards most of the people you debate with?

You seem to mistake personal attacks with judgements of your post quality. A personal attack is 'you are stupid' or 'can't you read?'. I don't believe I called anyone an idiot, so thats slander on your part.

[Hakan]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

You seem to mistake personal attacks with judgements of your post quality. A personal attack is 'you are stupid' or 'can't you read?'. I don't believe I called anyone an idiot, so thats slander on your part.

I've got to pipe in here. Not to dogpile but I find that Azure's posts are not only banal but are consistently derailing legitimate and interesting discussion in the off topic forum.

Azure, as a tip, before you post something, figure out what you mean to say and say it concisely. Don't just start blathering on about something until your train of thought has trailed off. You pollute threads. That's not a personal attack, it's a consistent observation.

Either shape up or ship out.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

What left wing governments has he scapegoated?

Perhaps his vehement opposition to US Foreign Policy over the last 8 presidential administrations has something to do with the destructive nature of American foreign policy? Perhaps he rails against it with such vigor because it is a vessel for human suffering all over the world?

The 60 percent argument is garbage. You're actively reinforcing your own ignorance by refusing to even acknowledge information that isn't the status quo. That's the type of thinking that produced the dark ages.

By dismissing '20%' of the argument on both sides, you're only getting just over half of the conversation. Is that not terrifying?

No, it's the 'Bell curve' of which you can't see because you are on the wrong side of it.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by Bingo

says you

this guys leans so far left that no US government, heck no administration in any western democracy could come even close to what he feels is the government of choice.

so raging against the US might be consistent in 40 years but he doesn't get points for hacking down every US administration.

The man has written what 30 books? He must have said many true things, but the omission of content is likely where he falls down, though from what I've read there has been plenty of mistakes in his works that he has never stepped up to admit.

I'll be waiting anxiously for his diatribe against Chavez and Castro...

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by Hakan

I've got to pipe in here. Not to dogpile but I find that Azure's posts are not only banal but are consistently derailing legitimate and interesting discussion in the off topic forum.

Azure, as a tip, before you post something, figure out what you mean to say and say it concisely. Don't just start blathering on about something until your train of thought has trailed off. You pollute threads. That's not a personal attack, it's a consistent observation.

Either shape up or ship out.

Moderator? I recall you calling me numerous names in some global warming thread... Good on ya for being consistent though.

Have a nice day now.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

You seem to mistake personal attacks with judgements of your post quality. A personal attack is 'you are stupid' or 'can't you read?'. I don't believe I called anyone an idiot, so thats slander on your part.

Huh?

This statement (like many of yours) is non-sensical.

If that isn't calling someone and idiot, or un-educated, I don't know what is. I guess your 5 years of schooling gives you the right to call other people 'poor' posters, and go "Zing" for those that your approve of.

[Azure]

I've got to pipe in here. Not to dogpile but I find that Azure's posts are not only banal but are consistently derailing legitimate and interesting discussion in the off topic forum.

Where do I derail discussions? Seriously man, I may take a certain post made by someone and respond to it, but I hardly ever try to flatout change the subject.

Not all of us have 5 years of University education to show for like Agamemnon.

Azure, as a tip, before you post something, figure out what you mean to say and say it concisely. Don't just start blathering on about something until your train of thought has trailed off. You pollute threads. That's not a personal attack, it's a consistent observation.

Advice taken. Like I said before, I try my best to stay within the realms of the topic we are talking about.

But, hell, don't waste your time with me, just put me on your ignore list like everyone else around here does. Seems to work for them.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Yes, and as you've pointed out, you're right on top of what he has written or said, based on your extensive skimming of an article and what ever FauxNews says about the guy. I'll take your word on what a great guy O'Reilly is, because you read him and hang on his every word. I'll take what you say about Chomsky with a massive grain of salt as you readily admit you haven't read anything he has written or listened to any of his speaking engagements. Chomsky is considered one of the greatest minds alive today, whether any of us wants to say otherwise. The guy has more degrees than a thermometer and lectures on too many subjects to list. He is recognized by his peers as being on a completely different level of thought and understanding. Read a couple of his books or watch a couple of the videos outlining his thoughts and comeback and give us a summation of his errors and ommissions.

Can't you just deal with a guy has actually said and not put words in his mouth? I find that really frustrating.

"hang on his every word?" that's not even close to what I said. Unlike others in this string when it comes to Chomsky I came right out and said I only agree with roughly 60% of what O'Reilly has to say which is a far cry "from hanging on his every word".

Nowhere did I say I saw anything on Chomsky on Fox, and in fact I haven't. The man has a huge critics list on the web that is easy to find. It stretches many many pages. I read five of them and there is a real consistency in the guys short coming when it comes to his leanings.

Beyond that ... is he a Linguist? I could accumulate a pile of degrees too ... but if none of them actually fit the topic to which he writes I'm not sure you want to lean on his education.

I'm sure he's a sharp guy, never doubted that, but he has a serious axe to grind and for that I question is work on this subject.

Really my perogative isn't it?