Stereotype V.0002 Posted June 14, 2007 Share Posted June 14, 2007 Don't get me wrong, he knows his field very well, but when it comes to politics I think he gets attention for saying inane ridiculous shit, blaming America for anything and everything, that is popular in academia. I'm not sure if he even believes everything he says since he is a long time resident of the US and probably pays taxes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted June 14, 2007 Share Posted June 14, 2007 In defense of academic correspondence: Yes it is awesome that people email back. do you think if i tried to email someone in our government with a question about their actions they would? that people who have withstood the rigors of academic developement still make an effort to respond to emails which they have no need to is appreciable. half the professors i know on my campus rarely respond to emails and those are for ones that are of immediate importance. and cmon let us not devalue the idea of academia in all of this. just because some assholes stick to academic buzzwords to mask their inabilities to speak on their own does not mean we need deem the entire course of academic study useless. as you seem to want to do with your diatribe at the end of your post. Call me a college youngster, etc if you want, but when i am 26 and have a PhD, I ain't gonna give a shit with how allusioned you think I am with life or the message of certain academic figures. To presume that a person is in school and thus sucking the ideological dick of anyone whom they read or study is pure ignorance. Half of what I would ever want to talk to him about is refutation of some of his theories. Human decency is what I am concerned with and that someone with as much public reverance as Chomsky takes the time to still be a "real person" is admirable. To chastise such an action is foolish and missing the bigger scope of how people act in this world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted June 14, 2007 Share Posted June 14, 2007 He spoke at my school over a year ago and it was a good speech. He aint the best speaker but his points were well made and valid. It was not inane, it was one of the few academic voices spitting bits of reason during the last several years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted June 14, 2007 Share Posted June 14, 2007 And, I am fairly certain he would email back towards criticism. That is how the academic mode works, criticism, response, ad infinitum. For him to deny on the grounds of critical analyses would be a blow to the very thing he lives for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stereotype V.0002 Posted June 14, 2007 Share Posted June 14, 2007 it was one of the few academic voices spitting bits of reason during the last several years. What about Ward Churchill? I think hes pretty good. Good luck with student loans and shit bud, my cousin spent like 10 years in school and is now in debt up to his ass and is working at a temp agency, his doctorate isn't working out so great. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted June 14, 2007 Share Posted June 14, 2007 ehh, you gotta do grad school right. Fuck paying to go to grad school, get paid to go. Only loans I will incurr are from undergrad, and at that it will be less than 25000 for a 45000 a year school. So I am doin alright. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted June 14, 2007 Share Posted June 14, 2007 Plus, the field I am in, if you get into grad school you have one of two plans, either a fellowship or a TAship, either of which I am ok with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stereotype V.0002 Posted June 14, 2007 Share Posted June 14, 2007 Thats pretty good, my cousin has a 100 grand weight hanging over his head. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted June 14, 2007 Share Posted June 14, 2007 yeah, fuck all that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted June 14, 2007 Share Posted June 14, 2007 Thats a life time of debt right there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MayorMeanBeans Posted June 14, 2007 Share Posted June 14, 2007 why is it that when sterotype writes stuff that your political persuasions cant stomach, you get on a personal level and "hate" him? your first inclination is that hes wrong, you're engaged in political debate, yet you don't have the energy or motivation to prove it? most of the time its a google search away anyway. to be honest i don't know much about chomsky. i've seen him speak a couple times (i agree with whoever said he wasn't a good speech deliverer). I live near him, and he comes into my job periodically, and I've spoken to him about stuff. Often enough, Chomsky (IMO) takes the available information from sources he doesn't trust (yet still accepts the "basic facts" as true), but at a certain point gives up on the source, and re-writes the truth. So, to take the bin Laden thing that Sterotype mentioned, he believed the powers-that-be when they said he was in Tora Bora, but ceased believing them when they said they hadn't caught him. If you're not going to believe them when they say he's still out there, why believe them when they say hes up in Tora Bora? My implicit point is that you can't bend and twist available information to back up your political persuasions. People on both sides of the spectrum are guilty, note the similarities between O'Reilly and Chomsky. On that note, I flew over the border region between Pakistan and Afghanistan. That shit would be maaaad hard to find anyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted June 14, 2007 Share Posted June 14, 2007 were you addressing me or pubes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted June 14, 2007 Share Posted June 14, 2007 http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/06/13/%e2%80%98we-have-made-a-deal-with-the-devil%e2%80%99/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Pubes Posted June 14, 2007 Share Posted June 14, 2007 why is it that when sterotype writes stuff that your political persuasions cant stomach, you get on a personal level and "hate" him? your first inclination is that hes wrong, you're engaged in political debate, yet you don't have the energy or motivation to prove it? most of the time its a google search away anyway. i hate stereo? whatever you say. political debate huh? since you don't know much about chomsky, use google and go for it. chomsky has been attacked repeatedly for his position on the specific things stereo is taking issue with. i don't think there's much to argue about since i think it's pretty clear what his position is if you actually read the entirety of his responses to such attacks, so no, i don't really care to defend somebody else's position when all you need to do is read into it for yourself. and since stereo has obviously made up his own mind, there you have it. the whole thing about 'political persuasions you can't stomach' getting personal is funny and ironic coming from anybody on this forum, including yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted June 14, 2007 Share Posted June 14, 2007 i just wanted to defend emailing professors that you wouldnt think will email you back... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WORDISM45 Posted June 15, 2007 Share Posted June 15, 2007 Yum, the point of advertising is to offer a product as something you want. That would be different than slowly conditioning your mind to ignore how the evil imperialists are raping the world. your definition: without the conditioning you wouldn;t normally want to do it.The point of an advertisement is to condition consumers into desiring a product through repeat exposure and placing the product in desirable context (with a hot woman next to it), would a man normally want to dress up like a complete poofter unless the fashion industry marketted it in such a way that conditioned him into believing it was the cool thing to do? would people realyl want to buy a ridiculously expensive car over a cheaper model that does the exact same thing unless they were conditioned into believing it gave them some kind of status? ask any person in the marketing industry what their goal is, it's to make a consumer believe they need a certain item (no matter how useless it is) if they can't do this they don;t survive long ”that quote is from some right wing observer at a lecture” You seem to be saying here that the quote is a lie, and he must be a Chomsky hater? So you don’t think Chomsky really said any of that stuff and never denied Pol Pot’s massacres? i'd believe it if i saw direct evidence but it wasnt provided, the same way i wouldn't believ a 9/11 truthers comments about the 9/11 commission as fact “he isn't "pro khmer rouge" he simply compares the khmer rouge with the states and says you can;t condemn one and not the other, and says the khmer rouge massacres where focused on and exagerated by the press while similar massacres that were gonig on at the time were downplayed or ignored for political purposes” And now, you say he was simply comparing Pol Pot to the USA (who were equally bad?) and the press really just focused undue attention on the mere 2 million people getting killed instead of focusing on other massacres. Did you not write that above and I’m twisting your words again? And which other massacres should have had more focus than 2 million being killed? Your standpoint basically seems to be any example I can give of Chomsky outright playing down the killing fields is from a “right wing” source, and therefore probably a lie. So here are some quotes, straight from the horse’s mouth. They may possibly be part of the right wing smear campaign. I’m going to waste some bandwidth now. http://www.chomsky.info/articles/19770625.htm ”Well suited for these aims are tales of Communist atrocities” ”Tales” which suggests they are fictional ”It is in this context that we must view the recent spate of newspaper reports, editorials and books on Cambodia, a part of the world not ordinarily of great concern to the press. However, an exception is made when useful lessons may be drawn and public opinion mobilized in directions advantageous to the established order. Such didacticism often plays fast and loose with the truth.” Since the papers don’t focus on Cambodia when 2 million people AREN’T being killed, it means they are “playing fast and loose with the truth.” Yeah. im guessing by that comment he means that the press aren't usually concerned about massacres in SE Asia because they are usually undertaken by the US government ”The response to the three books under review nicely illustrates this selection process. Hildebrand and Porter present a carefully documented study of the destructive American impact on Cambodia and the success of the Cambodian revolutionaries in overcoming it, giving a very favorable picture of their programs and policies, based on a wide range of sources. Published last year, and well received by the journal of the Asia Society (Asia, March-April 1977), it has not been reviewed in the Times, New York Review or any mass-media publication, nor used as the basis for editorial comment, with one exception. The Wall Street Journal acknowledged its existence in an editorial entitled "Cambodia Good Guys" (November 22, 1976), which dismissed contemptuously the very idea that the Khmer Rouge could play a constructive role, as well as the notion that the United States had a major hand in the destruction, death and turmoil of wartime and postwar Cambodia.” Now, if you can read, you can tell he looks favorably on a book that depicts the Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot in a good light, as “revolutionaries.” He feels that the Khmer Rouge were a positive force inside Cambodia. And he scoffs at the notion that someone would disagree that Pol Pot’s people aren’t “good guys”, and he thinks anyone who says Pol Pot isn't playing a "constructive role" in Cambodia is an anti commie right wing nut. Look up, thats what he actually wrote. Also here and throughout the article he tries to play up the role of the US, like we were the real cause of the communist genocide. This might have something to do with people like him who worked for cutting the funds to Lon Nol, which directly resulted in Pol Pot coming to power. Look you're not gonig to catch me defending Pol Pot. From what you posted above it seems that Chomsky supported the Khmer Rouge in their overthrow of the oppressive government that was before them (engaged in political killings etc). He's obviously wrong if he said Pol Pot played a constructive role in Cambodia (assuming it was said once the massacres had become public knowledge) if you can show that he did do this then yes you've proven him wrong on this account however you haven't done so thus far. ”But the mass media are not grateful for the Hildebrand-Porter message, and have shielded the general public from such perceptions of Cambodia.” He’s pissed the media “shielded” the public from the Khmer Rouge being portrayed as heros. Yup, hes not pro khmer rouge at all. thsi was written in 78, they year that the genocide apparently increased in intensity, so i'm not sure whether he even knew they existed (if the claims supported by evidence)at the time ”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.” Another example, no massacres and its all really the US bombing. ”Refugees are frightened and defenseless, at the mercy of alien forces. They naturally tend to report what they believe their interlocuters wish to hear.” So all reports of Khmer Rouge massacres from Cambodians are probably false. Dem dere gooks caynt be trusted! well if the reports emphasise that and they're backed up by proof then it's probably true, it seems they're referring to previous claims of massacres not the substantiated massacres that occurred years after the civil war ”Cambodian revolutionaries” He never refers to the Khmer Rouge by their name, he calls them “revolutionaries.” Never mind they were killing people wholesale. That’s not a positive view of them? so what islamic terrorists are 'revolutionaries' too it's a fact ”He also gives a rather positive account of Khmer Rouge programs of social and economic development, while deploring much brutal practice in working for egalitarian goals and national independence.” Well, another positive account of the Khmer Rouge Chomsky just happens to agree with, what a fucking surprise. How brash of me to call him pro-Khmer Rouge. wait so he is deploring brutal practices? why is that a bad thing? ”In the New York Times Magazine, May 1, 1977, Robert Moss (editor of a dubious offshoot of Britain's Economist called "Foreign Report" which specializes in sensational rumors from the world's intelligence agencies) A Christian Science Monitor editorial states: "Reports put the loss of life as high as 2 million people out of 7.8 million total." Again, there is no source, but we will suggest a possibility directly. The New York Times analysis of "two years after the Communist victory" goes still further. The "slaughter" by the Khmer Rouge is a Moss-New York Times creation.” He repeatedly flat out denies that mass murders are going on. He denies that the brave communist forces would be involved. It really must be the US, somehow, despite what Cambodians and everything and everyone else tells him. Every reputable news source, which says otherwise, are lying and part of an anti-communist conspiracy. alright if there were substantiated proofs at the time then it looks like he was wrong, Chomsky is far too intelligent to deny something when provided with clear evidence though so i'm guessing that this moss dude didn;t supply clear evidence at the time This is a long, boring article, I can do this all day. If you can read you should be able to see his point. But I’m sure these are fake quotes, or he didn’t mean what he said cause he was having a stroke, or I’m twisting his words, blah blah blah blah. This is why I really don’t want to get into it with cult members and true believers. Let’s forget I posted anything – here is my new post: Whoa dude, I emailed Chomsky and he emailed me back!!!!! Like a real person would!!!! I got such a boner right now dude!!!!! Im gonna get his face tattooed on my ass!!!! Fuckin sick brah!!!! Imperialism!!! Hegemony!! Big words make up for a total lack of facts!!! yeah hegemony and imperialism don;t exist america is just spreading democracy and freedom to the rest of the world GIULLIANI 08! read chomsky's rebuttal and refute that if you have any further accusations to make against him there's not much point going over shit he has already covered Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stereotype V.0002 Posted June 15, 2007 Share Posted June 15, 2007 “wait so he is deploring brutal practices? why is that a bad thing?” I left that in for the context to have the full sentence, but he was supporting an account of the Khmer Rouge which portrayed the Khmer Rouge as working for “social and economic development” which is a little disgusting. But technically this would be accurate, since the Khmer Rouge had wiped out a sizeable portion of the population they had more money for themselves and a higher social standing for all. ”so what islamic terrorists are 'revolutionaries' too it's a fact” I understand what you mean but I see the term “revolutionary” as being positive. George Washington was a revolutionary, Pol Pot killed people for wearing glasses. ”From what you posted above it seems that Chomsky supported the Khmer Rouge in their overthrow of the oppressive government that was before them (engaged in political killings etc). He's obviously wrong if he said Pol Pot played a constructive role in Cambodia (assuming it was said once the massacres had become public knowledge) if you can show that he did do this then yes you've proven him wrong on this account however you haven't done so thus far. thsi was written in 78, they year that the genocide apparently increased in intensity, so i'm not sure whether he even knew they existed (if the claims supported by evidence)at the time well if the reports emphasise that and they're backed up by proof then it's probably true, it seems they're referring to previous claims of massacres not the substantiated massacres that occurred years after the civil war” By that point in 77-78 it was very clear what Pol Pot was doing, and documented by every reputable news source in the country and from numerous Cambodian refugees, etc. In the article he tries to attack these accounts as false or unreliable, and says the refugees were “just saying what their interlocutors wanted to hear.” By denying or dismissing all of the various accounts, and praising sketchy books that paint the Khmer Rouge as populist heroes, it seems like he is inferring that there weren’t any massacres taking place. That’s why he stirred up controversy then with his account, it would be like an article indirectly denying genocide in Darfur today. Also, I’ve read his rebuttal (30 years after the fact) and wasn’t very satisfied. His words from the original article speak for themselves, and even if it was 30 years ago its hard to admit when you were wrong. ”or whatever you wacky americans eat” piccatta rotini with gravy! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WORDISM45 Posted June 15, 2007 Share Posted June 15, 2007 ”or whatever you wacky americans eat” piccatta rotini with gravy! how did u see that i edited it out straight away? yeah it looks like Chomsky is as fallible as the rest of us. I have to say for someone who has been in the spotlight for the last 40 years for their political/social views being proven wrong once out of however many hundreds or thousands of stances they've taken isn't bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted June 15, 2007 Share Posted June 15, 2007 cmon stereo, we all know nothing is happening in darfur... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
russell jones Posted June 15, 2007 Share Posted June 15, 2007 Plus, the field I am in, if you get into grad school you have one of two plans, either a fellowship or a TAship, either of which I am ok with. I was a TA in graduate school, definitely the way to go for me. I think a long time ago you expressed the desire to avoid teaching, but your long posts in the philosophical discussion thread suggest to me that you may be headed in the direction of teaching nonetheless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted June 15, 2007 Share Posted June 15, 2007 Yeah... I have been slowly accepting that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted June 15, 2007 Share Posted June 15, 2007 and shit boy, if you readin it. respond. i need some convo in there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
russell jones Posted June 15, 2007 Share Posted June 15, 2007 I think you missed my last response. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2342 Posted June 20, 2007 Share Posted June 20, 2007 http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56254 Being a bleeding heart liberal- I look forward to the merger.........nipple Finally! The full expose of North American agenda Book documents plans for merger of U.S., Mexico, Canada -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted: June 20, 2007 1:00 a.m. Eastern © 2007 WorldNetDaily.com WASHINGTON – Resistance to enforcing immigration laws and border security by political elites in the nation's capital is, at least in part, a result of plans to promote political, social and economic integration of the U.S., Mexico and Canada, charges a new book, "The Late Great USA." "It's the only context in which the current immigration travesty makes sense," says Jerome Corsi, co-author of the best-selling "Unfit for Command," "and it must be stopped." Millions of Americans, shocked by the Senate "grand bargain" on immigration that gives the precious gift of legalization to millions of illegal aliens and felons, have taken to the phones to demand no amnesty. But, claims Corsi, there's far more to the current Senate bill – a story documented in shocking detail in "The Late Great USA: The Coming Merger with Mexico and Canada," published by WND Books. "Prior to this 'grand bargain' cooked up in a backroom by our so-called representatives, many people had never heard of the Security and Prosperity Partnership, yet several amendments in the Senate bill are designed specifically to further the SPP's agenda," explains Corsi. In "The Late Great USA," Corsi shows how the SPP, an agreement signed in 2005 by Bush, Stephen Harper of Canada and Vicente Fox of Mexico, is nothing less than a full-frontal assault on American sovereignty. This aim to create a North American Union between the United States, Mexico and Canada is the real reason behind "comprehensive immigration reform." Says Corsi, "Bush's goal to create a North American Union – with no borders, a shared currency, and utterly no voice for average Americans in their own futures – is the real reason he won't enforce immigration laws." Utilizing thousands of documents released as a result of the Freedom of Information Act, "The Late Great USA" shows how unelected bureaucrats in faceless agencies such as the Department of Commerce have been given the power to foist the NAU on the American public incrementally. "The European Union, which now holds millions of voiceless, voteless Europeans in thrall to a heedless Brussels bureaucracy, was put into place little by little over a 50-year period," Corsi writes, "not by the citizens of the member states, but by elitists who disguised their goal of a regional government." In "The Late Great USA," Corsi details: 1. The tactics unelected globalist business leaders, bureaucrats and taxpayer-funded academics are using to lead to the merger of the United States with Mexico and Canada 2. How the state of Texas is seizing millions of acres of privately owned land so foreign investors can cash in on a NAFTA "super-highway" from Mexico to the Canadian border. 3. How China, through its proxies in Mexico, plans to bring the world's sole superpower to its knees economically – without firing a shot. "A North American Union would not just be the end of America as we know it," claims Corsi, "but the beginning of an EU-like nightmare – a bureaucratic coup d'etat foisted upon millions of Americans without their knowledge or consent." "The Late Great USA" is a meticulously researched story of deceit, the chapters of which are being written in secret. For Corsi, "The Late Great USA" is nothing less than a wake-up call to the American people. "The Security and Prosperity Partnership is not just unconstitutional, but an act of treason at the highest levels," he says. "Anyone who cares about the future of this country – our children’s future – must act now against a North American Union and the underhanded way in which our sovereignty is being compromised, one illegal alien at a time." Corsi, a WND columnist, received a Ph.D. from Harvard University in political science in 1972 and has written many books and articles, including the No. 1 New York Times best-seller, "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry." Corsi's most recent book was authored with Michael Evans: "Showdown with Nuclear Iran." Corsi's other recent books include "Black Gold Stranglehold: The Myth of Scarcity and the Politics of Oil," which he co-authored with WND columnist Craig. R. Smith, and "Atomic Iran." "The Late Great USA" is set for official release July 4, but is available now exclusively through WND. For a limited time, all first-edition copies of the book are autographed by the author at no additional charge. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Related offer: Get a first-edition copy of Jerome Corsi's "The Late Great USA" autographed for only $19.95 today. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Previous stories: The North American Union agenda exposed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted June 20, 2007 Share Posted June 20, 2007 What would Jack Bauer do? http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070616.BAUER16/TPStory/TPNational/Television/rss Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juan Fuentes Posted June 20, 2007 Author Share Posted June 20, 2007 how many idols they make,and make him seem a sane human,people feel identified because of any similarities or what not...just to shape your minds to their benefit. sometimes shapping it so bad that u think its not that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 neo-cons are trash ‘Bomb Iran’ Podhoretz: War Would ‘Unleash A Wave’ Of Global Anti-Americanism Prominent neocon Norman Podhoretz, who has just published an essay titled “The Case For Bombing Iran," admits in an interview that "if we were to bomb the Iranians as I hope and pray we will, we’ll unleash a wave of anti-Americanism all over the world that will make the anti-Americanism we’ve experienced so far look like a lovefest.” http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/20/podhoretz-bomb/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 Fucking rediculous. The thing I find astounding about people like that, is absolutely no conception of life in general. I am curious what this dude's background is. The fuck goes through these people's minds? Fuck all of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 I like how we are now adopting a strategy, of "yes, lets make the whole world hate us even more." As if such a strategy is a means for viable governmental sustainability. Fucking ignorant assholes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MayorMeanBeans Posted June 23, 2007 Share Posted June 23, 2007 i seriously think (hope) that any military person with any sort of know how will not let that happen. i honestly think its not being seriously considered by the us. maybe israel, but even that, after hizballah last summer, i don't think they consider themselves in a situation warranted another nuclear raid like iraq in the early 80's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.