EatingPanCakesOnHerGrave wrote:I think he is all about idolatry. His thoughts and presence have been co-opted by the likes of college students, punk rock/indie hipster types like Jello Biafra and a certain fringe of the radical left.

Damn him for the lack of exclusivity in his non-existent movement. If only he would have a pulled a JD Salinger the first time some inadequate punk rock type dared to graft some Chomsky onto his smelly pierced philosophy.

EatingPanCakesOnHerGrave wrote:One of my main problems with him? He slams capitalism in public yet lives in two exclusive, nearly all-white neighborhoods in Massachusetts (one of his home is worth over $1.2 million... hey, isn't against "Property Rights"?)

Criticizing capitalism doesn't mean that you advocate a life of poverty. That is what the capitalists say to scare you away from examining capitalism: "Well, if you dare to restrict our commerce, we'll take our horn of plenty and go home and it will be back to the mud huts for you! Unless you'd prefer Leavenworth, Mr. Commie I mean Chomsky?"

Damn Chomsky for his matching washer and dryer AND his lack of negro neighbors!

EatingPanCakesOnHerGrave wrote: or how he has a trust that he set up in his daughter's and tax attorney's names (though he has denounced trusts publicly)

Damn, now I know why there's not enough armor for the Humvees in Iraq: Chomsky the Tax Cheat! Availing himself of the same laws that only Ken Lay is supposed to know about!

,

EatingPanCakesOnHerGrave wrote: hides him money from the U.S. government so as to pay less in taxes

Dude, can you think of anybody more likely to have every line of his tax returns examined than Chomsky? You can't prove shit about Chomsky hiding money, so shut up.

EatingPanCakesOnHerGrave wrote: (though he has compared tax rebates to a welfare payment) and assigned the copyrights to several of his books to another daughter, Diane Chomsky (even though he claims to be against "intellectual property" and copyrights and patents in general)

Yeah, and I heard that movie theaters make you buy a ticket to see a Michael Moore movie. It's called overhead- do you think Chomsky's publishers get their paper for free?

.

EatingPanCakesOnHerGrave wrote: He also charges $12,000 for speeches given on college campuses-- not exactly the socialist ideal, huh?

Socialism means you sleep in the woods eating pine cones. Run away, Wal Mart is open 24 hours!

EatingPanCakesOnHerGrave wrote: -- and charges fees for people to download them off the Internet (thank you Altervative Tentacles and Jello Biafra, another leftist hypocrite if there ever was one-- he once said on Politically Correct that every penny a person makes after $100,000 per-year should be confiscated by the IRS).

Server space and traffic= $$$

EatingPanCakesOnHerGrave wrote: There is something about him that strikes me as phony and two-faced. He should be lucky that he has the position and power that he has.

Chomsky is very powerful indeed. His decadent lifestyle has caused your brain to fry just thinking about it.

Champion Rabbit wrote:[Ignoring the fact that this is a paraphrasing of that stupid Peter Schweize hatchet-job book, a couple of points:

I don't care if its Chomsky or Limbaugh and his drug abuse, if the facts are accurate I accept it as truth.

EatingPanCakesOnHerGrave wrote:

nihil wrote:

Hour_of_the_Wolf wrote:

Champion Rabbit wrote:

nihil wrote:
Maybe i'm not understanding you correctly, but i can't recall Chomsky ever refusing to hold Israel accountable for it's actions. Are you referring to the United States and our direct support for Israel's actions? He points this out often, for good reason.

It's because of his consistant critisism of Israel that he's called a self-hating jew by dipshits like matthew. So i don't think i understand what you are saying.

You do understand me correctly, and until recently I would have been of the same opinion but if you start focusing on Chomsky's writings relating to Israel and his views relating to what should be done about Israel you'll find that he is fairly steadfast in his refusal to consider Israel as anything more than a US outpost. He genuinely doesn't appear to believe that Israel is responsible for it's own actions.

Israel is merely an innocent glove-puppet of the US to Chomsky.

There are some very telling quotes (I'll try to find them) where he denies the validity of sanctions against Israel because (to paraphrase) 'the Israeli's don't want sanctions' (the implication being that there is no democratic system in Israel and thus the Israelis would be innocent victims of their cruel dictators), whilst supporting sanctions against the US for providing aid to Israel.

Odd.

nihil wrote:It's because of his consistant critisism of Israel that he's called a self-hating jew by dipshits like matthew. So i don't think i understand what you are saying.

Not that I agree with matthew on anything but I haven't seen him resulting to name calling. If you can't use any civility , it makes you nihil the supreme "dipshit". I enjoy this board but can't stand the occasional gang up mentality on someone just because they have a different point of view.

As for Chomsky, I don't like him because he is a whiner. If he really wants to waste his time deconstructing about how bad America is and what countries are "puppet nations" why doesn't he really do something? He hasn't offered any viable solutions or made any change. The American public as a whole couldn't care less. I don't see him running for any public office. If you aren't going to do anything to institute change instead of bemoan I don't find you helpful just spouting a lot of rhetoric. Maybe I'm wrong? Just uncertain.

I'll stick with my description of matthew....he's earned it.
You just called Chomsky a "whiner"........something he has not earned. If the American public could care less, why are all his appearances jam packed and booked years in advance? Chomsky has dedicated his life to tireless activism. He is not an idol or a politician. Look into this a little more. I think you might change your mind.

I think he is all about idolatry. His thoughts and presence have been co-opted by the likes of college students, punk rock/indie hipster types like Jello Biafra and a certain fringe of the radical left.

One of my main problems with him? He slams capitalism in public yet lives in two exclusive, nearly all-white neighborhoods in Massachusetts (one of his home is worth over $1.2 million... hey, isn't against "Property Rights"?); or how he has a trust that he set up in his daughter's and tax attorney's names (though he has denounced trusts publicly), hides him money from the U.S. government so as to pay less in taxes (though he has compared tax rebates to a welfare payment) and assigned the copyrights to several of his books to another daughter, Diane Chomsky (even though he claims to be against "intellectual property" and copyrights and patents in general). He also charges $12,000 for speeches given on college campuses-- not exactly the socialist ideal, huh? -- and charges fees for people to download them off the Internet (thank you Altervative Tentacles and Jello Biafra, another leftist hypocrite if there ever was one-- he once said on Politically Correct that every penny a person makes after $100,000 per-year should be confiscated by the IRS). There is something about him that strikes me as phony and two-faced. He should be lucky that he has the position and power that he has.

This is funny to me. I've read and heard people say the same types of things about Steve Abini without doing any research. You know, the usual crap about how Steve "claims" to support independent music but is "phony" because he recorded Nirvana, etc.. Chomsky, like Albini, has responded to this many times. Do some research. I don't think it's fair to make a judgement without giving someone the benefit of a response

EatingPanCakesOnHerGrave, Did you seriously read this Peter Schwiezer book?

If so, you have blown my tiny mind.

Edit:

Hour_of_the_Wolf wrote:

Cranius wrote:EatingPanCakesOnHerGrave, Did you seriously read this Peter Schwiezer book?

If so, you have blown my tiny mind.

What I find troubling is the sycophantic love for Chomsky and no rebuttle to any of the facts in question. If you have any hard evidence that contradicts some of the things that Chomsky has said or done, I will be happy to read it . I also find it really boring the strict dogma imposed on this thread based on one intrepretation of idelogical views. Conservative= bad, Liberal= good. It is such limiting, black & white parameters and very dull.

Just my opinion. I would like to read that book and an opposing viewpoint to balance out my own view.

Cranius wrote:EatingPanCakesOnHerGrave, Did you seriously read this Peter Schwiezer book?

If so, you have blown my tiny mind.

The Chomsky chapter has been abridged and reprinted by a bazillion Faux News-type US right-wing outlets...

Having read this thread, I'd like to read some Chomsky. He seems to upset people in the right sort of way. But I have no idea where to start. Any recommendations for a starter?

EatingPanCakesOnHerGrave wrote:
The fact is that by this illustration you portray Chomsky as a saint, which I have a big problem with. He represents the rich, white upper class status quo that you claim he is against when I find it all to be a laughable facade. How much of Chomsky's money is going toward anything charitable or otherwise? intellectual pontificating is fine but intellectual masturbation I have a problem with. As the old saying goes, action speaks louder than words.

Number one, please don't quote previous posts in their entirety just to add a brief rebuttal.

In response ( and I love this quote, BTW: "intellectual pontificating is fine but intellectual masturbation I have a problem with" ):

First, you can't describe the difference.

Second, you don't get to regulate the depth or breadth of what any public figure speaks about.

Are you a fascist? If you choose to not be a fascist, then why don't you stop trying to build a box for Chomsky's lifestyle and then demand that he wedge himself into it, and instead, explain why you disagree with Chomsky's criticism of U.S. foreign policy?

Because that would be hard work, and cribbing a bunch of smear from an uncredited source is easier?

clocker bob wrote:
Number one, please don't quote previous posts in their entirety just to add a brief rebuttal; server space costs money and Steve's almost out of Nirvana cash and he'll have to borrow from Chomsky the millionaire to add a rack of storage.

In response ( and I love this quote, BTW: "intellectual pontificating is fine but intellectual masturbation I have a problem with" ):

First, you can't describe the difference.

Second, you don't get to regulate the depth or breadth of what any public figure speaks about.

Are you a fascist? If you choose to not be a fascist, then why don't you stop trying to build a box for Chomsky's lifestyle and then demand that he wedge himself into it, and instead, explain why you disagree with Chomsky's criticism of U.S. foreign policy?

Because that would be hard work, and cribbing a bunch of smear from an uncredited source is easier?

Number 1 Bob: Don't dictate to others what they are supposed to do as if you were the moderator of this board. It is an authoritative tone and yet you want to call me a fascist?

Number 2: I am currently at work and don't have a lot of time to get more in depth at the moment so don't make assumptions. When I have the extra free time I will follow up on this. As for "wedging" Chomsky, I think some of his viewpoints are "wedged" in or narrow minded in regards to foreign policy but more on that later when I have the time.

Number 3: If you can find anything Chomsky has said about American society in a positive way, I will buy you a stack of pancakes.