Here is a great American: Noam Chomsky

[futurecurrents]

Quote from zdreg:

http://www.paulbogdanor.com/chomsky/wma.html

Let me guess. You're Jewish and an Israel apologist and hate that Chomsky is critical of it and you feel Chomsky is a traitor.

One look at that website shows that it has similar agenda.

A less biased perspective on Chomsky and Cambodia....

"In a long, illustrious career, Chomsky has amassed a formidable array of books, articles, and speeches. He has been a tireless advocate for the underdog, and has demonstrated admirable commitment to his principles.

The underdogs, however, are not always the good guys, a fact clearly illustrated by the Khmer Rouge. The question of whether or not Noam Chomsky supported the Khmer Rouge is not as clear as either his critics or his defenders would like to pretend. His critics frequently extract a handful of quotes from "Distortions at Fourth Hand" or After the Cataclysm and suggest that Chomsky was an enthusiastic advocate for the Cambodian communists. His defenders, meanwhile, limit their collections of quotes to Chomsky's disclaimers and qualifiers, conveniently ignoring the underlying theme of his articles: that Khmer Rouge Cambodia was not nearly as bad as the regime's detractors claimed."


But the author ends with.....


................................................." Apologists, propagandists, and true believers rarely look twice. The lesson driven home by Chomsky's comments on Cambodia should be clear: Propagandists make poor teachers. Which teaches us more: sophistry, or history?"




http://www.mekong.net/cambodia/chomsky.htm

 

[oldtime]

Quote from futurecurrents:

Let me guess. You're Jewish and an Israel apologist and hate that Chomsky is critical of it and you feel Chomsky is a traitor.

One look at that website shows that it has similar agenda.

A less biased perspective on Chomsky and Cambodia....

"In a long, illustrious career, Chomsky has amassed a formidable array of books, articles, and speeches. He has been a tireless advocate for the underdog, and has demonstrated admirable commitment to his principles.

The underdogs, however, are not always the good guys, a fact clearly illustrated by the Khmer Rouge. The question of whether or not Noam Chomsky supported the Khmer Rouge is not as clear as either his critics or his defenders would like to pretend. His critics frequently extract a handful of quotes from "Distortions at Fourth Hand" or After the Cataclysm and suggest that Chomsky was an enthusiastic advocate for the Cambodian communists. His defenders, meanwhile, limit their collections of quotes to Chomsky's disclaimers and qualifiers, conveniently ignoring the underlying theme of his articles: that Khmer Rouge Cambodia was not nearly as bad as the regime's detractors claimed."


But the author ends with.....


................................................." Apologists, propagandists, and true believers rarely look twice. The lesson driven home by Chomsky's comments on Cambodia should be clear: Propagandists make poor teachers. Which teaches us more: sophistry, or history?"




http://www.mekong.net/cambodia/chomsky.htm

yeah that's right to be fair, the gist seems to be he wasn't defending the killing fields, just attacking the media's bais as to the reason.

But otherwise, thatis socialisms dirty little secret.

 

[oldtime]

Quote from oldtime:

yeah that's right to be fair, the gist seems to be he wasn't defending the killing fields, just attacking the media's bais as to the reason.

But otherwise, that is socialisms dirty little secret.

oops, trading in the dark hit the wrong button, but using socialism in the traditional sense and capiltalism in the traditional sense

if you don't do it the capitalists way, you end up broke
if you don't do it the socialists way, there is always some punishment involved, the killing fields, and who knows how many in Siberia and China.

otherwise, everything is always a distortion, there is no true pure communism or really any true free market, so the debate is always what less than perfect system is worse.

too bad I can't get a little of both. I like the part about food clothing and shelter for everybody. And I like the part about you can have as much as you want if you want to work hard. Doesn't seem like it would be that hard to accomplish both at the same time.

 

[zdreg]

Quote from futurecurrents:

Let me guess. You're Jewish and an Israel apologist and hate that Chomsky is critical of it and you feel Chomsky is a traitor.

One look at that website shows that it has similar agenda.

A less biased perspective on Chomsky and Cambodia....

"In a long, illustrious career, Chomsky has amassed a formidable array of books, articles, and speeches. He has been a tireless advocate for the underdog, and has demonstrated admirable commitment to his principles.

The underdogs, however, are not always the good guys, a fact clearly illustrated by the Khmer Rouge. The question of whether or not Noam Chomsky supported the Khmer Rouge is not as clear as either his critics or his defenders would like to pretend. His critics frequently extract a handful of quotes from "Distortions at Fourth Hand" or After the Cataclysm and suggest that Chomsky was an enthusiastic advocate for the Cambodian communists. His defenders, meanwhile, limit their collections of quotes to Chomsky's disclaimers and qualifiers, conveniently ignoring the underlying theme of his articles: that Khmer Rouge Cambodia was not nearly as bad as the regime's detractors claimed."


But the author ends with.....


................................................." Apologists, propagandists, and true believers rarely look twice. The lesson driven home by Chomsky's comments on Cambodia should be clear: Propagandists make poor teachers. Which teaches us more: sophistry, or history?"




http://www.mekong.net/cambodia/chomsky.htm [/QUOTE

"Israel apologist"
let me guess. you are from the UK and have not gotten over the reality that a rag tag bunch of Jews kicked the limeys out one of their last outposts in the middle east.

 

[piezoe]

Quote from Rodney King:

There's a nice chapter on Chomsky in Peter Schweizer's book http://amzn.to/zI23gz --

<i>Chomsky's considerable fortune has translated not only into desirable real estate holdings but also into a nice sailboat... A few years back he went to Boston's venerable white-shoe law firm Palmer and Dodge and, with the help of a tax attorney specializing in "income-tax planning," set up an irrevocable trust to protect his assets from Uncle Sam. He named his tax attorney (every socialist radical needs one!) and a daughter as trustees... He gives speeches on college campuses around the country at $12,000 a pop, often dozens of times a year. Can't go and hear him in person? No problem: You can go online and download clips from earlier speeches -- for a fee...</i>

You do realize, don't you, that Chomsky is not a socialist in the traditional sense. You might want to read about his political philosophy here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky

He is a complex man who is not easily pigeonholed. I see nothing inconsistent with his life choices and his political philosophy.

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from zdreg:

Quote from futurecurrents:

Let me guess. You're Jewish and an Israel apologist and hate that Chomsky is critical of it and you feel Chomsky is a traitor.

One look at that website shows that it has similar agenda.

A less biased perspective on Chomsky and Cambodia....

"In a long, illustrious career, Chomsky has amassed a formidable array of books, articles, and speeches. He has been a tireless advocate for the underdog, and has demonstrated admirable commitment to his principles.

The underdogs, however, are not always the good guys, a fact clearly illustrated by the Khmer Rouge. The question of whether or not Noam Chomsky supported the Khmer Rouge is not as clear as either his critics or his defenders would like to pretend. His critics frequently extract a handful of quotes from "Distortions at Fourth Hand" or After the Cataclysm and suggest that Chomsky was an enthusiastic advocate for the Cambodian communists. His defenders, meanwhile, limit their collections of quotes to Chomsky's disclaimers and qualifiers, conveniently ignoring the underlying theme of his articles: that Khmer Rouge Cambodia was not nearly as bad as the regime's detractors claimed."


But the author ends with.....


................................................." Apologists, propagandists, and true believers rarely look twice. The lesson driven home by Chomsky's comments on Cambodia should be clear: Propagandists make poor teachers. Which teaches us more: sophistry, or history?"




http://www.mekong.net/cambodia/chomsky.htm [/QUOTE

"Israel apologist"
let me guess. you are from the UK and have not gotten over the reality that a rag tag bunch of Jews kicked the limeys out one of their last outposts in the middle east.

No.

I just know from experience that biggest Chomsky haters and the most narrow minded about him are the Zionists, usually the conservative ones. It's a one-issue thing with them and they go out of their way to knock him.

But maybe I'm wrong. It happened once before.

 

[trefoil]

I don't know why everyone's gettin' all hot & bothered in a thread by South America. The guy posted one from Niall Ferguson on the US dollar collapsing or something, and now this guy on, well, whatever. Common theme: they have bad things to say re the US. Else, Ferguson is way over on the right, Chomsky equally way over on the left. One is an apologist for the British Empire, which did spread ideas of liberty throughout its domains, but also did such interesting things as fighting China for the right to sell them opium.
The other is an apologist for the Khmer Rouge, which really is all you should have to say to disqualify someone as a serious, well, anything.
But South America likes em both. Why? Because they say bad things about the US.
That's all you need to do to be a great anything in his eyes.

 

[Rodney King]

Quote from piezoe:

You do realize, don't you, that Chomsky is not a socialist in the traditional sense. You might want to read about his political philosophy here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky

LOL... My friend, I spent plenty of time in Cambridge studying Chomsky. I don't think I need Wikipedia to tell me what time it is.

 

[oldtime]

Quote from Rodney King:

LOL... My friend, I spent plenty of time in Cambridge studying Chomsky. I don't think I need Wikipedia to tell me what time it is.

yeah, but at least somebody considered him worth studying, so that is saying something

90% of all the disagreements on ET are nothing more than misunderstanding

scalpers argue with swing traders not realizing they are often times talking about completely different things

prop traders argue with independent traders

Capitalists argue with socialists when in fact both of them have completely different definitions of capitalism and socialism

If you could ever get everybody on the same page, I bet 90% of everybody would agree

otherwise, Cambridge or Harvard doesn't carry much weight around here

whenever they finally prove that Cambridge graduates are better traders then maybe we will start listening

until then, it's just a lifestyle choice

 

[Grandluxe]

Quote from Rodney King:

LOL... My friend, I spent plenty of time in Cambridge studying Chomsky. I don't think I need Wikipedia to tell me what time it is.

Come'on surfy, When did you ever go to Cambridge?