Noam Chomsky Is an Idiot

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

[quote]zephead4747 wrote:
Anyone else think he’s an idiot? He’s a historical revisionist who claims to search for truth. Seems to hold many anti semitic views. He also seems to be dishonest for the sake of pushing an agenda.

http://www.paulbogdanor.com/chomsky/200chomskylies.pdf

I have more. But anyone else here want to cement my belief or try to change it?

I’m posting this because some idiot in my AP gov’t class keeps using chomsky as a source, and it’s getting stupid argueing with someone who can’t see past chomsky’s lies.[/quote]

I say the same shit about Headhunter and Ayn Rand. Because he doesn’t agree with you doesn’t mean that he “can’t see past the lies”. It’s not the fucking x-files bro.

Ever think it’s possible that he just agrees with him? I’m the same way with Bill Maher… I don’t get my political views from him, but we agree on nearly everything except gun rights and hunting. It doesn’t mean that I “can’t see past his lies.”

And by the way, some asshole will have a site trying to discredit every public figure ever. Read his books and come up with your own conclusions.

22

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
ProwlCat wrote:
Otep wrote:
ProwlCat wrote:

Good thing for Europe that the American anti-interventionists weren’t calling the shots in WWII.

Huh?

This is the second world war, right? The one America didn’t get involved in until it was attacked?

Yeah. The one that the liberal idiots of the 1940s did not want us to be involved in, even after Pearl Harbor.

The same people who were telling us not to “intervene” in Europe since Germany did not attack us (although they declare war on the U.S. most agree that in 1942 Germany was in no position to wage war against the US on US or neutral soil. I recommend you read a book. One not written by Noam Chomsky or Howard Zinn.

That’s not true. I think only one person voted against a declaration of war against Japan, and our “liberal idiot” president had been helping England with everything short of sending troops until Pearl Harbor.

Many wars in Europe have been looked at as “Just another European war” up to that point, and I think that the majority of people did not want to be involved in a war again so quickly after the carnage of WWI.

I recommend you read a book. And make sure it’s right side up this time. [/quote]

I suggest you pull your head out of your ass. The real world, reality, all that…actually looks pretty good when you’re paying attention. Did you have a vote on the Iraq war? Did I? No.

What I was alluding to is “public sentiment”, which is what you and the other morons who blame the US for everything from WWI to WWII and everthing before and after love so much to express. Now, go Google some more facts about votes from 1941 and pretend you thought of it all by yourself.

23

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
zephead4747 wrote:
Anyone else think he’s an idiot? He’s a historical revisionist who claims to search for truth. Seems to hold many anti semitic views. He also seems to be dishonest for the sake of pushing an agenda.

http://www.paulbogdanor.com/chomsky/200chomskylies.pdf

I have more. But anyone else here want to cement my belief or try to change it?

I’m posting this because some idiot in my AP gov’t class keeps using chomsky as a source, and it’s getting stupid argueing with someone who can’t see past chomsky’s lies.

I say the same shit about Headhunter and Ayn Rand. Because he doesn’t agree with you doesn’t mean that he “can’t see past the lies”. It’s not the fucking x-files bro.

Ever think it’s possible that he just agrees with him? I’m the same way with Bill Maher… I don’t get my political views from him, but we agree on nearly everything except gun rights and hunting. It doesn’t mean that I “can’t see past his lies.”

And by the way, some asshole will have a site trying to discredit every public figure ever. Read his books and come up with your own conclusions. [/quote]

Chomsky can do whatever he wants as far as him own political belifs go, and he is great with linguistics. However he has a huge problem with making shit up when it comes to history.

Where does Ayn Rand do this? You can disagree with her politics all you want, say she is a shitty writer and that is great. What I’m concerned with is someone using an author who quite frankly makes shit up as a credible source.

24

[quote]ProwlCat wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
ProwlCat wrote:
Otep wrote:
ProwlCat wrote:

Good thing for Europe that the American anti-interventionists weren’t calling the shots in WWII.

Huh?

This is the second world war, right? The one America didn’t get involved in until it was attacked?

Yeah. The one that the liberal idiots of the 1940s did not want us to be involved in, even after Pearl Harbor.

…

What I was alluding to is “public sentiment”, which is what you and the other morons who blame the US for everything from WWI to WWII and everthing before and after love so much to express. Now, go Google some more facts about votes from 1941 and pretend you thought of it all by yourself.
[/quote]

Ah, yes. It is good that the US government is unresponsive to ‘public sentiment’.

25

[quote]ProwlCat wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
ProwlCat wrote:
Otep wrote:
ProwlCat wrote:

Good thing for Europe that the American anti-interventionists weren’t calling the shots in WWII.

Huh?

This is the second world war, right? The one America didn’t get involved in until it was attacked?

Yeah. The one that the liberal idiots of the 1940s did not want us to be involved in, even after Pearl Harbor.

The same people who were telling us not to “intervene” in Europe since Germany did not attack us (although they declare war on the U.S. most agree that in 1942 Germany was in no position to wage war against the US on US or neutral soil. I recommend you read a book. One not written by Noam Chomsky or Howard Zinn.

That’s not true. I think only one person voted against a declaration of war against Japan, and our “liberal idiot” president had been helping England with everything short of sending troops until Pearl Harbor.

Many wars in Europe have been looked at as “Just another European war” up to that point, and I think that the majority of people did not want to be involved in a war again so quickly after the carnage of WWI.

I recommend you read a book. And make sure it’s right side up this time.

I suggest you pull your head out of your ass. The real world, reality, all that…actually looks pretty good when you’re paying attention. Did you have a vote on the Iraq war? Did I? No.

What I was alluding to is “public sentiment”, which is what you and the other morons who blame the US for everything from WWI to WWII and everthing before and after love so much to express. Now, go Google some more facts about votes from 1941 and pretend you thought of it all by yourself.
[/quote]

What in the fuck are you talking about?

I don’t blame the US for anything from WWI or WWII. If anything, it’s one of the best examples of what America can do and be for the rest of the world.

You’re not alluding to dick, you’re just rambling and not making sense.

26

[quote]zephead4747 wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
zephead4747 wrote:
Anyone else think he’s an idiot? He’s a historical revisionist who claims to search for truth. Seems to hold many anti semitic views. He also seems to be dishonest for the sake of pushing an agenda.

http://www.paulbogdanor.com/chomsky/200chomskylies.pdf

I have more. But anyone else here want to cement my belief or try to change it?

I’m posting this because some idiot in my AP gov’t class keeps using chomsky as a source, and it’s getting stupid argueing with someone who can’t see past chomsky’s lies.

I say the same shit about Headhunter and Ayn Rand. Because he doesn’t agree with you doesn’t mean that he “can’t see past the lies”. It’s not the fucking x-files bro.

Ever think it’s possible that he just agrees with him? I’m the same way with Bill Maher… I don’t get my political views from him, but we agree on nearly everything except gun rights and hunting. It doesn’t mean that I “can’t see past his lies.”

And by the way, some asshole will have a site trying to discredit every public figure ever. Read his books and come up with your own conclusions.

Chomsky can do whatever he wants as far as him own political belifs go, and he is great with linguistics. However he has a huge problem with making shit up when it comes to history.

Where does Ayn Rand do this? You can disagree with her politics all you want, say she is a shitty writer and that is great. What I’m concerned with is someone using an author who quite frankly makes shit up as a credible source.[/quote]

Because Rand makes up shit, and people believe that it’s a credible source. Same fucking thing.

I’m not fond of anyone who subscribes to the beliefs of one guy exclusively, so I know what you’re saying. But Chomsky is looking at history through a different paradigm than that which is traditionally presented to Americans; Zinn is the same way. What a “lie” is depends on who’s hearing it I think.

27

I think he is an idiot…

28

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Chomsky is looking at history through a different paradigm than that which is traditionally presented to Americans;
…

What a “lie” is depends on who’s hearing it I think.[/quote]

Ah, so being knowingly, factually untrue – e.g. with regard to acts of dictators such as how many of their own people they had put to death – is not lying, but “looking through a different paradigm.”

The left sure does love Newspeak.

29

I have to agree with Irish, Chomsky is an interesting author and obviously a clever guy. I agree with some of what he writes and I totally disagree with other things he writes. Failed States is a really interesting book whether you agree with its conclusions or not.

The list of lies and truths is itself a lie, a number of those are taken out of context and twisted around, then the truth doesn’t actually pertain to the same thing as the supposed lie. That in itself is pretty intellectually dishonest.

30

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Chomsky is looking at history through a different paradigm than that which is traditionally presented to Americans;
…

What a “lie” is depends on who’s hearing it I think.

Ah, so being knowingly, factually untrue – e.g. with regard to acts of dictators such as how many of their own people they had put to death – is not lying, but “looking through a different paradigm.”

The left sure does love Newspeak.[/quote]

Right, because the American government would never doctor things in order to serve their own purposes right?

Gulf of Tonkin much? Half of what went on Vietnam? The lead up to the BS Iraq War? Oh yea, we don’t need people that try to dig up shit on the government, cause they always tell the truth.

31

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Chomsky is looking at history through a different paradigm than that which is traditionally presented to Americans;
…

What a “lie” is depends on who’s hearing it I think.

Ah, so being knowingly, factually untrue – e.g. with regard to acts of dictators such as how many of their own people they had put to death – is not lying, but “looking through a different paradigm.”

The left sure does love Newspeak.

Right, because the American government would never doctor things in order to serve their own purposes right?

Gulf of Tonkin much? Half of what went on Vietnam? The lead up to the BS Iraq War? Oh yea, we don’t need people that try to dig up shit on the government, cause they always tell the truth.[/quote]

We do. Just not Chomsky. Facts and perspective are cool, but slanted bias and selective presentation of facts is not.

If you’re interested in that kind of shit you should check out Legacy of Ashes - The History of the CIA. Maybe the most interesting book I have read.

32

[quote]dhickey wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Chomsky is looking at history through a different paradigm than that which is traditionally presented to Americans;
…

What a “lie” is depends on who’s hearing it I think.

Ah, so being knowingly, factually untrue – e.g. with regard to acts of dictators such as how many of their own people they had put to death – is not lying, but “looking through a different paradigm.”

The left sure does love Newspeak.

Right, because the American government would never doctor things in order to serve their own purposes right?

Gulf of Tonkin much? Half of what went on Vietnam? The lead up to the BS Iraq War? Oh yea, we don’t need people that try to dig up shit on the government, cause they always tell the truth.

We do. Just not Chomsky. Facts and perspective are cool, but slanted bias and selective presentation of facts is not.

If you’re interested in that kind of shit you should check out Legacy of Ashes - The History of the CIA. Maybe the most interesting book I have read.[/quote]

Slanted bias and selective presentation is what all politics are built on. Chomsky’s just got his part in the game is all.

And I’ll check that book out. Backed up as fuck but I can squeeze another one in.

33

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:

The left sure does love Newspeak.[/quote]

Yes because todays conservatives still believe that the Reagan freedom fighters in Afghanistan are still just as “valiant and courageous” today, no about face in that group, right?

34

[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:

The left sure does love Newspeak.

Yes because todays conservatives still believe that the Reagan freedom fighters in Afghanistan are still just as “valiant and courageous” today, no about face in that group, right?[/quote]

Most conservatives today are part of the left.