Unversity cancels Michael Moore speech

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Oct 3 2004, 02:29 AM
Chomsky has declared himself a libertarian and anarchist but has defended some of the most authoritarian and murderous regimes in human history. His political philosophy is purportedly based on empowering the oppressed and toiling masses but he has contempt for ordinary people who he regards as ignorant dupes of the privileged and the powerful. He has defined the responsibility of the intellectual as the pursuit of truth and the exposure of lies, but has supported the regimes he admires by suppressing the truth and perpetrating falsehoods. He has endorsed universal moral principles but has only applied them to Western liberal democracies, while continuing to rationalize the crimes of his own political favorites. He is a mandarin who denounces mandarins. When caught out making culpably irresponsible misjudgments, as he was over Cambodia and Sudan, he has never admitted he was wrong.

That about sums things up.

http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/...03/chomsky.htm

On a sidenote, I wonder if Flame of Liberty thinks Chomsky is Libertarian?

Cowperson

I certainly do not. He is as far from being a libertarian as they come.

However, I didnt know he declared himself a libertarian. I`ve argued many times that libertarian does not equal anarchist (but I am not professor of linguistics and semantics so what do I know).

In the article you posted, it says that Chomsky declared himself libertarian socialist. I said it before and I`m saying it again - libertarian socialist is logical contradiction, like dry water. It looks like holding contradictory views is not a problem for Chomsky, not only that, he`s got no problem declaring that only he and his followers are the ones who see the truth.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by transplant99@Oct 5 2004, 12:38 PM

My "source"?? LOL. Its an article linked in this very thread that I was commenting on.

Yes I was "lying" that me footnoted his piece...with Chomsky's own words.

Keep reeaching....it's funny.

Another lie or another mistake? You linked the article and claimed it was well sourced. The article had one footnote.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by transplant99@Oct 5 2004, 12:38 PM

Again...making stuff up. Where did I ever say this? More Liberal spin....juvenile and expected.

Yeah, guess you're right, you didn't say anything about Saddam. You claimed that he backed

"Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung, Ho Chi Minh and Fidel Castro among others? Clearly 3 of those guys are among the most vile and brutal people we have seen in the last 50 years. Nothing "peaceful or equal" about that in any way shape or form."

You claim that Chomsky supports these guys and/or their regimes. Source these lies... if you can. The truth is, he just didn't support a murderous US policy. You seem to think that de facto Chomsky is automatically 'for' the enemy.

Are all the people who are against the Iraq war friends of Saddam? You sound like you think they are.

[transplant99]

You claim that Chomsky supports these guys and/or their regimes. Source these lies... if you can.

The linked article above is the one that suggests he was in favor of the very type of governments that were running the associated countries. History is littered with abusive men put in power without opposition to their decisions. He supported the whole Pol Pot way of doing things, as the "best" system for that country. Do you agree with him?

The truth is, he just didn't support a murderous US policy. You seem to think that de facto Chomsky is automatically 'for' the enemy.

When you are anti-American on almost every position imaginable (that i have found) , it's pretty easy to assume that he is supporting the "enemy" in a round about way.

Are all the people who are against the Iraq war friends of Saddam? You sound like you think they are

No idea where you get this from. Some are and some aen't....never have i stated otherwise.

Another lie or another mistake? You linked the article and claimed it was well sourced. The article had one footnote.

You sure like to call me a liar. The author was talking about Chomsky's own writings. How many footnotes from other sources do you need to include when your subject is the words of a writer? Seriously.

Oh, and bTW, I haven't "linked" a damn thing in this whole thread. Nice try though...maybe you are "lying" or did you just make a mistake?