Chomsky explains the lie of the free market and how democracy really works

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHj2GaPuEhY&feature=g-vrec&context=G20a46d9RVAAAAAAAAAA - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHj2GaPuEhY&feature=g-vrec&context=G20a46d9RVAAAAAAAAAA

From about 1 hour point he talks about the future of the internet

 

'Bad' isn't there...so he doesn't get a rating.

Very well said.

Originally posted by Centrix Vigilis anti-Semite's

 

 

Only if you're both advocating Conservapedia as a ligitimate academic source.

 

On Cambodia he published everything he ever wrote on Cambodia on his website, read through and find a single thing you mention, then get back to me.

 

As for anti-semitism, he backs absolute freedom of speech, the price of this is racist people getting to say racist things, French people saying French things, tolerating cats meowing and fascists getting to dis Jews. Believing the benefits of freedom of speech outweight the negatives isn't antisemitism. In Germany they jail holocaust deniers, in the UK we don't, we refute them with evidence. Why do you hate freedom of speech so much?

 

Read comments:

 

Chomsky is not a shrwed scientist or anything that honorable. He is an anti American; far left wing ideologue. He wants a result {always anti American} then uses his abilities justify it.  Unfortunately these guys get a lot of attention. Otherwise a dog barking has more logic in it than Chomsky. He has no regard for lives of people. Just wants to see USA fail. A real face of the so called "peace" movement.

 

Mr. Chomsky, do you have difficulty recalling that since coming to power the regime of the Islamic Republic has repressed Iranians with or without any "external threat?" Is it your age or your prejudice against Iranians which disallows you to see things clearly? Blaming things on "external threats" may be used to curtail political activities of all kinds, how do you justify lack of social and cultural freedoms under the brutal rule of IR for the past three decades? Shame on you, Mr. Chomsky! This is not about your bankrupt linguistic theories where you accuse your critics of misunderstanding them. We are talking about tens of millions of human beings here!

 

The man is really an idiot!

 

Such is.. and will remain the delusion of the socialist. As they fall to the fascist.....look at Sweden for a current executive example...and Amerika as well.

 

The socialist remains the dupe of the totalitarianistic. period. an honest and object review of the historical developement and record, unless willingly denied and obsfucated, can not be refuted.

 

But alas..... covert or overt..feigned intellectualist or other... they all seek their comfort zone.

 

Quoting a couple of idiots making stuff up about what he says isn't an argument against him, it's a misunderstanding at best and laziness to bother to learn what he really says at worst.

Chomsky is an anarchist (in your right wing definition, a libertarian that supports the minimal state) so putting up an example of an authoritarian state as an example seems to be a misunderstanding or a strawman... If you wish to oppose his arguments please tell me why ayou support a large state?

 

As for fascism, this is a political label, the economics term for this is the corperate state. Fascism is when the corperations and government join together to rule a country. Think of a country where the politicians receive funds from corperations? Where the parties are funded by corperations, where the news on politics is reported by corperations, where 90% of the wealth is owned by corperations, where the foriegn policy is to promote the interests of corperations, where the central bank is a corperation, where the monitary system is controlled by corperations, there wars are conducted for corperate gain and where almost all decisions made by the corperate funded politicians are in the interest of corperations........ This is a corperate state, fascism.

 

As for antisemitism, let alone providding an example you haven't even given a definiton.

 

 

John Stuart Mill in on Liberty gives supports absolute freedom of speech, notes all your objections and answers them. If you suppress unpaleatable views you may allow them to fester and grow. One thing about these views is they always contains grains of truth, this then allows the people advocating these views to ignore the false bits, point to the truth bits and gains support by showing the truth is being suppressed. If you bring them into the public you can address them, seprate the truth from the falsity.

 

An example would be rightwing groups say blacks are more likely to commit crimes because of their race, the proof is the disproportinate number of blacks in prison. If I suppress this opinion, the right wingers could simply say I am suppressing them from saying more black are criminals, and their view will gain creedence. If I allow them to say their view I can then address it, say it's true more blacks are in prison but your racist views are wrong, the reason behind this is because they grow up in deprived areas where the rate of white criminality is the same.

I did in the OP, here it is again, rip away................

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHj2GaPuEhY&feature=g-vrec&context=G20a46d9RVAAAAAAAAAA - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHj2GaPuEhY&feature=g-vrec&context=G20a46d9RVAAAAAAAAAA

Trouble is in the US not supporting fundementalist zionism and agreeing that 100% of Palestinian lands can and should be taken away from them and the population ethnically cleansed means your anti-semite. A defintion which makes half of Israelis and almost all non-American Jews anti-semites too.

Did you apply the same high standards of scrutiny with the source of information for the accusation you made?

I like the bit about him showing that government's relationship to big bisuness is that of a socialist system.

Toltec, in your boy's own words:

"

Before looking more closely at Ponchaud's book and its press treatment, we would like to point out that apart from Hildebrand and Porter there are many other sources on recent events in Cambodia that have not been brought to the attention of the American reading public. Space limitations preclude a comprehensive review, but such journals as the Far Eastern Economic Review, the London Economist, the Melbourne Journal of Politics, and others elsewhere, have provided analyses by highly qualified specialists who have studied the full range of evidence available, and who concluded that executions have numbered at most in the thousands; that these were localized in areas of limited Khmer Rouge influence and unusual peasant discontent, where brutal revenge killings were aggravated by the threat of starvation resulting from the American destruction and killing. These reports also emphasize both the extraordinary brutality on both sides during the civil war (provoked by the American attack) and repeated discoveries that massacre reports were false. They also testify to the extreme unreliability of refugee reports, and the need to treat them with great caution, a fact that we and others have discussed elsewhere (cf. Chomsky: At War with Asia, on the problems of interpreting reports of refugees from American bombing in Laos). Refugees are frightened and defenseless, at the mercy of alien forces. They naturally tend to report what they believe their interlocuters wish to hear. While these reports must be considered seriously, care and caution are necessary. Specifically, refugees questioned by Westerners or Thais have a vested interest in reporting atrocities on the part of Cambodian revolutionaries, an obvious fact that no serious reporter will fail to take into account."

You can find it here:          http://www.chomsky.info/articles/19770625.htm

Now, notice how carefully he (the royal 'we') did that: Citing others, but reinforcing the idea that reports of genocide "on the part of Cambodian revolutionaries" were overstated, exaggerated, are in all likelihood wrong.

For the record,  I equate Chomsky to L. Ron Hubbard, and Chomskyites to Scientologists.

   

 

 

 

This is a case of moving the goal posts.

 

In your original post you made the claim

 

1. He denied the Cambodian Holocaust

2.  and denied he denied it. 

 

Your quote above shows him disputing the actual number of executions.

 

 

 

Originally posted by lirelou Whatever his contribution to linguistics, and it is presently under attack from some quarters, I must judge him as a polemicist rather than a serious historian. He denied the Cambodian holocaust while it was on-going, then denied that he ever denied it. So, as Don Q had noted, any chance he has for his reputation surviving into the future will depend upon how well his work on linguistics stands the test of time. Even if overturned, he will be remembered for having stood out in his era.

 

 

 

 

Thank you. You've proven my point in re Chomsknologists. 

To clarify, I just think Foucault walked the talk more than Chomsky. I admire both of them greatly.