I'm tied of being called a conspiracy theorist...

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Sep 28 2004, 09:04 AM
To be clear, the "targets of the Illuminati and the Committee of the 300."

Cowperson

Holy Crap did anyone actually read that thing?

This Illuminati business is at the same time a Zionist Conspiracy and a Moslem Conspiracy. They also invented the Rolling Stones in some Stanford University institution -- apparently to corrupt the minds of the world's youth.

They are lucky Jimmy Carter was so inept because his plan to get rid of a hundred million Americans by 2050 is obviously not working.

And at the end of the article, and I found this quite funny, was a link -- "Download Windows Media Player"! It didn't seem to fit.

I could go all day looking up some of the amazing claims made in just that one article.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos+Sep 28 2004, 05:21 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RougeUnderoos @ Sep 28 2004, 05:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Cowperson@Sep 28 2004, 09:04 AM
To be clear, the "targets of the Illuminati and the Committee of the 300."

Cowperson

Holy Crap did anyone actually read that thing?

This Illuminati business is at the same time a Zionist Conspiracy and a Moslem Conspiracy. They also invented the Rolling Stones in some Stanford University institution -- apparently to corrupt the minds of the world's youth.

They are lucky Jimmy Carter was so inept because his plan to get rid of a hundred million Americans by 2050 is obviously not working.

And at the end of the article, and I found this quite funny, was a link -- "Download Windows Media Player"! It didn't seem to fit.

I could go all day looking up some of the amazing claims made in just that one article. [/b][/quote]
Nobody said global domination would be easy.

Cowperson

[transplant99]

Originally posted by Five-hole@Sep 21 2004, 09:51 PM

You're going to have to explain how those are "opinions".

Uhhhhh........because HE SPOKE them maybe?

[Lurch]

You're going to have to explain how those are "opinions".




Uhhhhh........because HE SPOKE them maybe?

I think '99 is way off base to suggest Chomsky and Limbaugh are the same thing. The quotes are conclusions taken from well-thought out research which IS meticulously footnoted and backed. A far more apt comparison is Chomsky and RAND or the Fraser Institutue. There is a HUGE difference between a reasoned, researched and rational opinion from the left or right and someone like Limbaugh. Generally, I have found that I can disagree with Chomsky's premises and conclusions, but I don't think I've ever come across something where I got the impression he was spouting simplistic opinion or playing fast and loose with facts. OTOH, I've never failed to get anything but this impression from Limbaugh.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Lurch@Sep 28 2004, 08:08 PM

I think '99 is way off base to suggest Chomsky and Limbaugh are the same thing. The quotes are conclusions taken from well-thought out research which IS meticulously footnoted and backed. A far more apt comparison is Chomsky and RAND or the Fraser Institutue. There is a HUGE difference between a reasoned, researched and rational opinion from the left or right and someone like Limbaugh. Generally, I have found that I can disagree with Chomsky's premises and conclusions, but I don't think I've ever come across something where I got the impression he was spouting simplistic opinion or playing fast and loose with facts. OTOH, I've never failed to get anything but this impression from Limbaugh.

So, you're saying Chomsky is a genius and Limbaugh is an idiot?

And you're absolutely sure your political point of view isn't colouring the paragraph you just wrote?

The debate issue is whether or not Chomsky is offering a viewpoint, a filter on the events of the day. The answer is an unequivocal "yes." Footnotes don't change that much.

As to whether Chomsky is legitimate or not, plenty would disagree. As an example, type in "Chomsky is an idiot" into Google and the vitriol hits you right in the forehead.

The Anti-Chomsky Reader.

But unlike other cult figures, Chomsky’s power is not commanded by the authority of charisma or the electricity of revelation. His speeches are flat and fatwa-like, hermetically sealed against the oxygen of disagreement by syllogism and self reference. His power comes not from his person, but from the fact that he, more than any other public intellectual, gives an authentic voice to the hatred of America that has been an enduring fact of our national scene since the mid-1960s. It is a voice that is also easily distinguished from others with similar commitments. Chomsky is interested in a few "truths" which are always "beyond dispute." His citations often loop back narcissistically to his own works. He argues with such streamroller-like disregard for other explanations that he often seems to be talking to himself: "The so-called War on Terror is pure hypocrisy, virtually without exception. Can anybody understand that? No, they can’t understand it."

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadA...le.asp?ID=14419

Or this:

WITHOUT QUESTION, the most devious, the most dishonest and -- in this hour of his nation’s grave crisis – the most treacherous intellect in America belongs to MIT professor Noam Chomsky.

It would be easy to demonstrate how on every page of every book and in every statement that Chomsky has written the facts are twisted, the political context is distorted (and often inverted) and the historical record is systematically traduced. Every piece of evidence and every analysis is subordinated to the overweening purpose of Chomsky’s lifework, which is to justify an idée fixe – his pathological hatred of his own country.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...le.asp?ID=1020

Do the same with Limbaugh and you get the identical love/hate thing going. Chomsky is an idiot/genius. Limbaugh is an idiot/genius.

It depends on your point of view.

Check this out. Its hilarious.

http://cassidy.austincollege.edu/cburgess/...20Chompsky.jpeg

Cowperson

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Sep 28 2004, 03:20 PM
So, you're saying Chomsky is a genius and Limbaugh is an idiot?

I don't know what he's saying, but I'll say Limbaugh is an idiot. My political leanings definitely cloud my judgement. His years of ranting about drug-addicted losers and harsh sentences for them kind of prove the point. A reasonably intelligent person doesn't go on the radio and say "drug users deserve to be locked up they are losers bla bla bla" while actually high.

Old fashioned common sense tells me that Limbaugh and Chomsky can't be compared. Pick an educated, non-high, intelligent commentator on the far right and then you have a comparison. Compare Limbaugh to Janeane Garofalo.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos+Sep 28 2004, 10:41 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RougeUnderoos @ Sep 28 2004, 10:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Cowperson@Sep 28 2004, 03:20 PM
So, you're saying Chomsky is a genius and Limbaugh is an idiot?

I don't know what he's saying, but I'll say Limbaugh is an idiot. My political leanings definitely cloud my judgement. His years of ranting about drug-addicted losers and harsh sentences for them kind of prove the point. A reasonably intelligent person doesn't go on the radio and say "drug users deserve to be locked up they are losers bla bla bla" while actually high.

Old fashioned common sense tells me that Limbaugh and Chomsky can't be compared. Pick an educated, non-high, intelligent commentator on the far right and then you have a comparison. Compare Limbaugh to Janeane Garofalo. [/b][/quote]
I've met plenty of idiots in my life with university degrees longer than your arm. Seriously. I'm amazed they can crack an egg. Education qualifications really means nothing in the comparison.

Both Chomsky and Limbaugh are communicating a message in a particular way. Both have their cult followings. Both have their vociferous critics and, the critics of Chomsky ridicule his intellect as well.

Cowperson

[RougeUnderoos]

I agree -- being formally educated doesn't equal intelligence. But being Noam Chomsky does. This isn't some hack with an M.Sc from the U of L.

Disagree with him all you want, but it doesn't make sense to say "he's an idiot".

An idiot?

Or is every well-educated person in the world an idiot? They sure don't seem to think he is.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Sep 28 2004, 11:22 PM
I agree -- being formally educated doesn't equal intelligence. But being Noam Chomsky does. This isn't some hack with an M.Sc from the U of L.

Disagree with him all you want, but it doesn't make sense to say "he's an idiot".

An idiot?

Or is every well-educated person in the world an idiot? They sure don't seem to think he is.

All that means is that as political analyst, he makes for a pretty good linguist.

Or, in the view of a large constituency on the right wing, a rather common, garden variety idiot.

Just like Rush Limbaugh is viewed as an idiot by the other side.

Perspective is everything.

Cowperson

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Sep 28 2004, 07:06 PM
All that means is that as political analyst, he makes for a pretty good linguist.

Or, in the view of a large constituency on the right wing, a rather common, garden variety idiot.

Just like Rush Limbaugh is viewed as an idiot by the other side.

Perspective is everything.

Cowperson

I really can't see how any sensible person can compare these two as equals that happen to be on the opposite side of the fence. Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. Noam Chomsky is not an internationally respected academic, whether anyone likes it or not.

I suspect that the real smart-people and decision-makers on the right-wing side of things don't view him as an idiot at all, large constituency be damned. If they did, they'd have lost a long time ago.

One thing I find funny though is that when someone, say "me", says George W. Bush is an idiot, the response is often "yeah well he went to Yale and Harvard so I guess he's not an idiot". His academic career is evidence of intelligence, while Chomsky's infinitely more impressive academic accomplishments are sneered at.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos+Sep 29 2004, 02:09 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RougeUnderoos @ Sep 29 2004, 02:09 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Cowperson@Sep 28 2004, 07:06 PM
All that means is that as political analyst, he makes for a pretty good linguist.

Or, in the view of a large constituency on the right wing, a rather common, garden variety idiot.

Just like Rush Limbaugh is viewed as an idiot by the other side.

Perspective is everything.

Cowperson

I really can't see how any sensible person can compare these two as equals that happen to be on the opposite side of the fence. Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. Noam Chomsky is not an internationally respected academic, whether anyone likes it or not.

I suspect that the real smart-people and decision-makers on the right-wing side of things don't view him as an idiot at all, large constituency be damned. If they did, they'd have lost a long time ago.

One thing I find funny though is that when someone, say "me", says George W. Bush is an idiot, the response is often "yeah well he went to Yale and Harvard so I guess he's not an idiot". His academic career is evidence of intelligence, while Chomsky's infinitely more impressive academic accomplishments are sneered at. [/b][/quote]
I think you're missing my point.

You're trying to tell us that because Chomsky is an "academic," he should be given a heap of slack even though you amply demonstrated in your link that his credentials offer no more formal political science education than claimed by Rush Limbaugh.

Chomsky is as much of a hobbyist at political commentary as Limbaugh is, both with their cult-like followings. That the method of delivery of their respective messages, one in dour, Spock-like fashion and the other with bombastic finger-pointing, is varied is rather "academic" to the conversation.

And, we should note, those debunking Chomsky and calling him a narrow-minded, juvenile idiot have plenty of university degrees of their own. Does that cancel his out?

Cut him slack? Why? Why not treat him with the same skepticism as Limbaugh, a radical element on one side of the debate?

You beat me to the punch on the Bush/Harvard thing. I was going to throw it on the table as well. It seems a convenient dismissal by his critics.

Cowperson

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Cowperson+Sep 28 2004, 10:11 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cowperson @ Sep 28 2004, 10:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

I really can't see how any sensible person can compare these two as equals that happen to be on the opposite side of the fence. Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. Noam Chomsky is not an internationally respected academic, whether anyone likes it or not.

I suspect that the real smart-people and decision-makers on the right-wing side of things don't view him as an idiot at all, large constituency be damned. If they did, they'd have lost a long time ago.

One thing I find funny though is that when someone, say "me", says George W. Bush is an idiot, the response is often "yeah well he went to Yale and Harvard so I guess he's not an idiot". His academic career is evidence of intelligence, while Chomsky's infinitely more impressive academic accomplishments are sneered at.

I think you're missing my point.

You're trying to tell us that because Chomsky is an "academic," he should be given a heap of slack even though you amply demonstrated in your link that his credentials offer no more formal political science education than claimed by Rush Limbaugh.

Chomsky is as much of a hobbyist at political commentary as Limbaugh is, both with their cult-like followings. That the method of delivery of their respective messages, one in dour, Spock-like fashion and the other with bombastic finger-pointing, is varied is rather "academic" to the conversation.

And, we should note, those debunking Chomsky and calling him a narrow-minded, juvenile idiot have plenty of university degrees of their own. Does that cancel his out?

Cut him slack? Why? Why not treat him with the same skepticism as Limbaugh, a radical element on one side of the debate?

You beat me to the punch on the Bush/Harvard thing. I was going to throw it on the table as well. It seems a convenient dismissal by his critics.

Cowperson [/b][/quote]
I don't think he should be "given a heap of slack", I just happen to think that the opinion and research of perhaps one of the most respected "minds" in the world should be given slightly more credence than the opinion of a drug-addicted draft-dodger with a high school diploma and a loud voice.

I'm not too familiar with Chomsky's formal political science education, but I would guess that he took at least one poli sci course in college. Considering how many years Chomsky went to school and how many Rush did (less than one) I'm pretty confident that Chomsky enrolled in (and maybe even passed) one. Not that it matters of course.

And just to re-iterate -- the people with university degrees and power on the right-wing don't think Chomsky is an idiot. They wouldn't even exist if they dismissed people like him as "idiots". Just as an aside, I'm sure they do consider Rush Limbaugh a "useful idiot", which is better than plain old "idiot", but not a real compliment.

But... looking up some of old Rush's accomplishments I did find out that he signed an 8 year, 250million dollar contract at one point. Maybe he ain't an idiot after all. But he's still a moron.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Sep 28 2004, 04:04 PM
To be clear, the "targets of the Illuminati and the Committee of the 300."

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/300.htm

But . . . . any conspiracy theory has its skeptics:

http://skepdic.com/illuminati.html

http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Illuminati

http://www.pfo.org/illumint.htm

Cowperson

That certainly is a lot of info to get through, but some immediate thoughts to get the conversation going (if this topic gets enough attention, maybe it could be separated into a new topic with these posts in it?):

The illuminati are a real secret society, that is a fact. Another thing is whether you believe they rule the world, hide aliens and are led by George W. Bush.

Another thing, because illuminati means "enlightened ones", many groups claimed this name and the may be some confusion between them, ie. primitive satanic cults etc. Therefore clarifications as to what groups are these pages talking about would be nice. They usually put them all in one bag.

Illuminati started as a group of scientists and artist who were in opposition to the church. Simply put, they were men of science as opposed to men of faith. It is argued that later on they infiltraded free masonic society, which of course again blurs their goals that may be confused by goals of the freemasons. Supposedly W. Chruchill said that had the British infiltrated Nazi Germany the way freemasons and illuminati infiltrated the British Parliament, the war would be over in a month.

As for illuminati occultism, that is semantics, because many christian traditions/customs etc were directly adopted from other religions or cults (where cult is simply young religion) for example the halo over the head of saints is a sun disc representing the sun god from ancient egyptian religion. Just because illuminati adopted some symbols too doesnt make them any more "occult."

[Daradon]

You're probably right, that that is a TON of info to get through. I'll admit, I mostly just skimmed, read some parts that were of specific interest.

But it seems to me that this theory is mostly endorsed by fundamentalist Christians as it seems to keep going back to the Bible and the book of revelation and the ideas that armegeddon is near and parralles can be drawn to passages in the book of revelation and that the Anti-Christ is here. (like every fear mongering preacher likes to indicate, or money making genius POSING as a fear mongering preacher. See that blasted Jack Van Impe that shows up on my TV late at night.) Religious quack or money making genius? Either way, one evil dude!

And as we know, fundamentalist groups have been spreading around fear and misinformation since the dawn of time in a bid for money, power, control etc. Leaders are doing it in Islam now, but it wasn't long ago that Christianity was just as bad, and there are definitely small groups within that still have roots in that.

I think you it the nail on the head with the statement, 'The illuminati are a real secret society, that is a fact. Another thing is whether you believe they rule the world, hide aliens and are led by George W. Bush.'

There's no denying they are real, but methinks their motives are often highly exaggerated, twisted, or made up by other groups.

But as shown by the articles you linked too, the conspiracy theorist usually like to accuse them of being tied to 'trying to erradicate religion' or bring about conditions that would indicate the beginning of armegeddon. Meaning they are probably written and read by Christian fundamentalists. These theories have gotten read, and changed slightly by other conspiracy theorists giving them a more broad base.

In fact the 'targets' you linked to don't seem to be written by the illuminati at all, but by someone trying to create a buzz and fear about them for their own ends (or because they bought into the story by someone they believe knows what they are talking about) as they have a very Anti-Christian, Anti-'American' sentiment. Leading me to think is has been written by a gun toting bible thumping fear mongerer. Not saying being Christian or American is either of those things, just that, the person who wrote the article seems to have the RADICAL right wing ideals, or at least has hinted they may have them.

It was my understanding (and this I could be wrong on, there seems to be a lot of people on here who know more than I on this) that the Illuminati were started during the dark ages (Illuminati obviously coming from the word illuminate) to try and counter act the oppressive nature of the church at that time, or at least give it's members a place and forum to practice their beliefs and their intelligence and creativity without being condemned and persecuted. After a while it became more powerful and it tried to excercise a bit of this power (aganist the church, we are still talking a long time ago, dark ages middle ages) or at least keep the sparks of free thinking alive in society.

I think the society has stayed around since that time, but I don't think it has such far reaching or life and society changing goals as suggested by conspiracy theorists whether they be religious in nature or not.

[Flame Of Liberty]

You're probably right, that that is a TON of info to get through. I'll admit, I mostly just skimmed, read some parts that were of specific interest.

But it seems to me that this theory is mostly endorsed by fundamentalist Christians as it seems to keep going back to the Bible and the book of revelation and the ideas that armegeddon is near and parralles can be drawn to passages in the book of revelation and that the Anti-Christ is here. (like every fear mongering preacher likes to indicate, or money making genius POSING as a fear mongering preacher. See that blasted Jack Van Impe that shows up on my TV late at night.) Religious quack or money making genius? Either way, one evil dude!

And as we know, fundamentalist groups have been spreading around fear and misinformation since the dawn of time in a bid for money, power, control etc. Leaders are doing it in Islam now, but it wasn't long ago that Christianity was just as bad, and there are definitely small groups within that still have roots in that.

Yes, the winners write history. Specifically, the church has been long suspected of rewriting history and omiting facts that dont fit them (see the case with gospels that were included in the Bible, other gospels (gnostic or what not) that didnt fit the church are either ignored or painted by a dark brush as outright satanic). One can argue that fundamentalist christians have interest in creating and fuelling negative opinions about illuminati (or any other anti-religious group).


But as shown by the articles you linked too, the conspiracy theorist usually like to accuse them of being tied to 'trying to erradicate religion' or bring about conditions that would indicate the beginning of armegeddon. Meaning they are probably written and read by Christian fundamentalists. These theories have gotten read, and changed slightly by other conspiracy theorists giving them a more broad base.

In fact the 'targets' you linked to don't seem to be written by the illuminati at all, but by someone trying to create a buzz and fear about them for their own ends (or because they bought into the story by someone they believe knows what they are talking about) as they have a very Anti-Christian, Anti-'American' sentiment. Leading me to think is has been written by a gun toting bible thumping fear mongerer. Not saying being Christian or American is either of those things, just that, the person who wrote the article seems to have the RADICAL right wing ideals, or at least has hinted they may have them.

Actually Cowperson linked those articles you mention, I said 'The illuminati are a real secret society, that is a fact. Another thing is whether you believe they rule the world, hide aliens and are led by George W. Bush.' which you seem to agree with. Early Illuminati were against religion and church dogmas that opressed those who disagreed, so the fact that radical christians go nuts about them is hardly surprising. Also I agree, there is no evidence that the targets and the Comitee of 300 was written by the Illuminati, some targets contradict what Illuminate were about originally, not to mention some are outrigt crazy, which I dont think the most educated brains of middle ages (ie Gallileo) would ever think of doing. Fearmongering from the religious “right“ seems far more likely to me.


It was my understanding (and this I could be wrong on, there seems to be a lot of people on here who know more than I on this) that the Illuminati were started during the dark ages (Illuminati obviously coming from the word illuminate) to try and counter act the oppressive nature of the church at that time, or at least give it's members a place and forum to practice their beliefs and their intelligence and creativity without being condemned and persecuted. After a while it became more powerful and it tried to excercise a bit of this power (aganist the church, we are still talking a long time ago, dark ages middle ages) or at least keep the sparks of free thinking alive in society.

That is my point of view as well.


I think the society has stayed around since that time, but I don't think it has such far reaching or life and society changing goals as suggested by conspiracy theorists whether they be religious in nature or not.

And this is the 100 point question. I dont think their goals are as suggested by conspiracy theorist/religious groups, but IMO they have some financial, think tank, media, foundations etc. muscle behind them.

[Daradon]

'Also I agree, there is no evidence that the targets and the Comitee of 300 was written by the Illuminati, some targets contradict what Illuminate were about originally, not to mention some are outrigt crazy, which I dont think the most educated brains of middle ages (ie Gallileo) would ever think of doing. Fearmongering from the religious “right“ seems far more likely to me.

(Taps nose)

Exactly, a lot of those 'points' seem to be against the original philosophies of the illuminati.

Sorry, I had missed that it was Cow who linked the links.

[TheCommodoreAfro]

Originally posted by transplant99@Sep 21 2004, 08:59 PM
The big difference between Chomsky and Limbaugh is that Chomsky theorizes. Limbaugh says his opinion (spouts).

"The 'corporatization of America' during the past century [has been] an attack on democracy."
This issue is explored in some detail in a couple of the books he has written. Of Idealogy of Deterring Democracy are two of them.

"The most effective way to restrict democracy is to transfer decision-making from the public arena to unaccountable institutions: kings and princes, priestly castes, military juntas, party dictatorships, or modern corporations."
That's a pretty true statement, actually. Media corporations are also fronted by groups like the NRA (isn't it funny that in an election year the assault weapon ban died, despite the backing of the majority of Americans)

" The U.S. will not permit constructive programs in its own domains, so it must ensure that they are destroyed elsewhere to terminate " the threat of a good example".
Here's a link to a really good outside source about the grand neocon plan for Iraq.
My Webpage

" The more you can increase fear of drugs and crime, welfare mothers, immigrants and aliens, the more you control all the people. "
This statement is expanded on in a couple of books, one of which is Manufacturing Consent.

"I think it only makes sense to seek out and identify structures of authority, hierarchy, and domination in every aspect of life, and to challenge them; unless a justification for them can be given, they are illegitimate, and should be dismantled, to increase the scope of human freedom."
Ever had this happen to you in an office. It's called downsizing. This is more of a mantra than statement of fact.


"Democracy requires dissolution of private power. As long as there is private control over the economic system, talk about democracy is a joke. You can't even talk about democracy until you have democratic control of industry, commerce, banking, everything..."
He talks at length about this in Profit over People and Necessary Illusions.

The 'conservatives' who are calling for an end to school lunches for hungry children are also demanding an increase in the budget for the Pentagon, which was established in the late 1940s in its current form because - as the business press was kind enough to tell us - high tech industry cannot survive in a "pure, competitive, unsubsidized, 'free enterprise' economy," and the government must be its "saviour."

The world was different in the 1940's. Conservatives were actually centrist, and government was not a bad thing as long as it helped out. That opinion has changed. The military does get a lot more funding during Republican terms than schools do.

"If the Nuremberg laws were applied today, then every Post-War American president would have to be hanged."
Media Control is the source for that.


ALL of the above are Chomsky "opinions"...not backed up with "meticulous footnoting of source"

No, just books. They aren't quotes, actually, but excerpts with a quote or two thrown in.

Chomsky and Limbaugh are the same thing.

"When a gay person turns his back on you, it is anything but an insult; it's an invitation"

"They vote with their vaginas"

Guess who said the last two things.

The difference being is that he published books backing up those statements, with lots of footnotes. In case your interested I went through and added comments to your quotes with a bit of a reference guide for you.

Here's an intelligent quote from Rush Limbaugh, just as a bit of a contrast to the comparison.

"Feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream."

I agree with Rouge, bring someone to the table here from the right.

[Cowperson]

I don't think he should be "given a heap of slack", I just happen to think that the opinion and research of perhaps one of the most respected "minds" in the world should be given slightly more credence than the opinion of a drug-addicted draft-dodger with a high school diploma and a loud voice.

I'm not too familiar with Chomsky's formal political science education, but I would guess that he took at least one poli sci course in college. Considering how many years Chomsky went to school and how many Rush did (less than one) I'm pretty confident that Chomsky enrolled in (and maybe even passed) one. Not that it matters of course.

And just to re-iterate -- the people with university degrees and power on the right-wing don't think Chomsky is an idiot. They wouldn't even exist if they dismissed people like him as "idiots". Just as an aside, I'm sure they do consider Rush Limbaugh a "useful idiot", which is better than plain old "idiot", but not a real compliment.

But... looking up some of old Rush's accomplishments I did find out that he signed an 8 year, 250million dollar contract at one point. Maybe he ain't an idiot after all. But he's still a moron.

Within a certain left wing clique he is respected - university circles, academia - but to suggest he isn't regarded as little more than a self-loathing, left wing crackpot by a certain other broad element on the other side of the debate would be pure fiction.

Bottom line, you've conceded that a lengthy list of degrees isn't necessarily the mark of broad intelligence on more than a handful of subjects. You've also agreed Chomsky has zero political science training that anyone can visibly see. And lastly, from that, you're telling us a respected linguist who made a hobby and then a cottage industry out of dabbling in political commentary is more relevant than a fat ass, loud mouthed chump who signed a $250 million deal because someone, apparently, found what he had to say relevant.

They all look the same to me.

Cowperson

[Lurch]

The debate issue is whether or not Chomsky is offering a viewpoint, a filter on the events of the day. The answer is an unequivocal "yes." Footnotes don't change that much.

Where exactly was it written that this was the context of the debate? IMO, the question is more around the type of debate that Chomsky and Limbaugh engage. That is why I think it is more appropriate to compare Limbaugh and Moore, Fraser Institute and Chomsky.

It is a little presumptuous on your part (which is of course, the norm, in a medium like this ) to think my 'politics' colour my opinion in this area. As I noted, I generally disagree with Chomsky's positions and conclusions, but his methodology, IMO, couldn't be more different than Limbaugh's. My opinion in this is coloured, definitely, but more by my profession and training than political leanings.

The key difference, IMO, between Chomsky and Limbaugh is that I can see clearly Chomsky's belief, 'evidence' for his position, and logically how he interpreted what he presented. In other words, a measured and logical progression similar to what I would expect in a right wing position paper that I also often read. Where Chomsky fails with me is that he jumps to far with what the evidence shows - if he stopped at illustrating that a corporate media, even with no inherent political bias, will naturally gravitate towards certain stories, positions and ultimately influence a society in a certain direction, I would no doubt agree. If you want to read something less politically motivated but quite enlightening, IMO, you should look into "A Mathemetician Reads the Newspaper" by John Allen Paulos.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Lurch@Sep 29 2004, 03:03 PM

Where exactly was it written that this was the context of the debate? IMO, the question is more around the type of debate that Chomsky and Limbaugh engage. That is why I think it is more appropriate to compare Limbaugh and Moore, Fraser Institute and Chomsky.

It is a little presumptuous on your part (which is of course, the norm, in a medium like this ) to think my 'politics' colour my opinion in this area. As I noted, I generally disagree with Chomsky's positions and conclusions, but his methodology, IMO, couldn't be more different than Limbaugh's. My opinion in this is coloured, definitely, but more by my profession and training than political leanings.

The key difference, IMO, between Chomsky and Limbaugh is that I can see clearly Chomsky's belief, 'evidence' for his position, and logically how he interpreted what he presented. In other words, a measured and logical progression similar to what I would expect in a right wing position paper that I also often read. Where Chomsky fails with me is that he jumps to far with what the evidence shows - if he stopped at illustrating that a corporate media, even with no inherent political bias, will naturally gravitate towards certain stories, positions and ultimately influence a society in a certain direction, I would no doubt agree. If you want to read something less politically motivated but quite enlightening, IMO, you should look into "A Mathemetician Reads the Newspaper" by John Allen Paulos.

Our friend, TheCommodoreAfro, said this:

The big difference between Chomsky and Limbaugh is that Chomsky theorizes. Limbaugh says his opinion (spouts). Very different to publish a book with meticulous footnoting of source than to simply ramble on. That's the difference.

I was saying they're both filtering news, both expressing opinions. Commodore says Chomsky is only guilty of theorizing, which I obviously disagreed with.

That's pretty much the only point I've been arguing in this thread, that neither Chomsky nor Limbaugh are particularly different.

What I've seen from defenders of Chomsky is that he's different because he uses footnotes.

As I noted, I generally disagree with Chomsky's positions and conclusions, but his methodology, IMO, couldn't be more different than Limbaugh's.

I actually said one was Spock-like and the other was a bombastic ass, both delivering a particular message, however, and both regarded as extreme on either side and both with their cult-like followings.

The key difference, IMO, between Chomsky and Limbaugh is that I can see clearly Chomsky's belief, 'evidence' for his position, and logically how he interpreted what he presented.

In all honesty, the left seems to claim the attraction of Limbaugh is that he presents a position that even is attractive to the commonest of hillbillies because they can understand it.

Both are attractive to their followers because they can communicate an understandable message, even if the method is different.

In other words, a measured and logical progression similar to what I would expect in a right wing position paper that I also often read. Where Chomsky fails with me is that he jumps to far with what the evidence shows - if he stopped at illustrating that a corporate media, even with no inherent political bias, will naturally gravitate towards certain stories, positions and ultimately influence a society in a certain direction, I would no doubt agree.

And even mainstream critics of Limbaugh who might lean to the right would agree he stretches the truth to fit the position. Again, similar to Chomsky.

Cowperson