[quote]Hack Wilson wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Hack Wilson wrote:
It’s incorrect to say that I’ve never read Chomsky or seen him debate. I’ve seen him “debate” on Bill Maher a few times. I was wholly unimpressed by his “points”, even as he was backed by an approving and howling audience (and Maher himself). I’ve read bit of his work here and there. It’s the same tired old anti-American / pro-Everone Else garbage that is pervasive among the liberal elite. He’s against any action the U.S. might take to defend it’s self but makes excuses for the likes of Castro, blaming “show trials” and mass exectutions of ban citizens on, you guess it, George Bush and the old U.S. of A. Seems U.S. boycotting and embargos drive Castro to kill Cubans.
It’s so much drivel masquerading as “liberal thought”. Too bad it’s not guided by morality or anything relative to reality.
My intent on this thread was to voice my hope for progress in our government, no matter who is in charge. I’m not quite sure what that has to do with the great liberal “thinkers” like Chomsky. People like him and Michael Moore and Gore Vidal and Maureen Dowd and Thomas Friedman and, well, I could go on, are not going to support anyone in anything they do unless it exactly suits their own liberal agenda. It does not matter if it’s what the country or what’s best for the citizens of the United States.
PERHAPS, there’s a kernel of truth in what you say about some of those people. But I’m glad you figured out that the arch-conservatives are just as bad or WORSE with their own agenda in the opposite direction. The actual intentions of both could be greatly debated.
But at the least, both very liberal and very conservative politicans are quite misguided and very divorced from what the people want and what would be best for the country.
Stop putting words in my mouth. I never said that ‘arch-conservatives’ are bad or worse. I totally disagree with that. The Bush-haters have put the Clinon-haters to shame. THe rancor is and has been at a fever pitch. It’s everywhere and it’s poisonous.
My POINT is that I want what’s best for America. Unlike the Bush-bashers (Sarandon and Robbins, Penn and Streisand, Vidal and Maher, Chomsky and Carter, Gore and Kerry, Asner and Mellencamp, on and on, et al) I don’t claim to know for certain what that is. I don’t care if the answers come from George Bush or Nancy Pelosi. I guess I’ll know it when I look around and see an end result that’s positive and I can say, “Yeah. Things are pretty good, right now!” [/quote]
Well, ok. I think Bush gave a lot more solid reason to have serious detractors than Clinton, and I certainly wouldn’t simply use the liberal celebrities as the only representatives of that group. Not all Clinton-bashers were arch-conservatives either. That’s a select group, and most of those are every bit as venemous as the most virulent Bush-basher. But you believe what you believe. No point in arguing about it. I do agree that I don’t really care where positive progress comes from, be it George Bush or Nancy Pelosi.