Total Posts:86|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Chomsky: The Hypocrite

wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2013 9:57:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Chomsky is on CIA payroll, IMHO.

He's an information gatekeeper meant to control the left by preventing them from acting in ways harmful to the state.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2013 10:09:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/24/2013 9:57:51 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
Chomsky is on CIA payroll, IMHO.

He's an information gatekeeper meant to control the left by preventing them from acting in ways harmful to the state.

LOL
Thank you for voting!
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2013 10:09:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/24/2013 10:09:12 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 8/24/2013 9:57:51 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
Chomsky is on CIA payroll, IMHO.

He's an information gatekeeper meant to control the left by preventing them from acting in ways harmful to the state.

LOL

I'm serious.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2013 10:12:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Explain to me why the CIA has been equivocating so much about whether or not they've been snooping on Chomsky? Explain why Chomsky's records with the CIA have allegedly been destroyed?

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com...
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2013 10:15:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/24/2013 8:31:05 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Great article by the Hoover Institute on Noam Chomsky, the Closet Capitalist.
http://www.hoover.org...

interesting .... so 2 million?
but this source claims he's worth 75 million .. http://www.econjobrumors.com...

and this one claims he's worth 96 million ...
http://en.mediamass.net...

so ... how much is he worth? ... hmm .....
Thank you for voting!
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2013 10:17:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/24/2013 10:12:05 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
Explain to me why the CIA has been equivocating so much about whether or not they've been snooping on Chomsky? Explain why Chomsky's records with the CIA have allegedly been destroyed?

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com...

....care to explain his death threats?
Your argument is unfalsifiable (weak because it can never be proven)
Thank you for voting!
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2013 10:18:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/24/2013 10:17:18 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 8/24/2013 10:12:05 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
Explain to me why the CIA has been equivocating so much about whether or not they've been snooping on Chomsky? Explain why Chomsky's records with the CIA have allegedly been destroyed?

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com...

....care to explain his death threats?
Your argument is unfalsifiable (weak because it can never be proven)

Care to substantiate death threats? (i.e. wtf are you talking about?)

My argument is not supposed to be taken as fact, but as reasonable suspicion.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2013 10:23:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/24/2013 10:18:36 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/24/2013 10:17:18 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 8/24/2013 10:12:05 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
Explain to me why the CIA has been equivocating so much about whether or not they've been snooping on Chomsky? Explain why Chomsky's records with the CIA have allegedly been destroyed?

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com...

....care to explain his death threats?
Your argument is unfalsifiable (weak because it can never be proven)

Care to substantiate death threats? (i.e. wtf are you talking about?)

His far-reaching criticisms of U.S. foreign policy and the legitimacy of U.S. power have raised controversy.[100][101] Chomsky has received death threats because of his criticisms of U.S. foreign policy.[102] He has often received undercover police protection at MIT and when speaking on the Middle East, although he has refused uniformed police protection.[103] The Electronic Intifada website claims that the Anti-Defamation League "spied on" Chomsky's appearances, and quotes Chomsky as being unsurprised at that discovery or the use of what Chomsky claims is "fantasy material" provided to Alan Dershowitz for debating him. Amused, Chomsky compares the ADL's reports to FBI files, and is sartorial on perceived defamation by the a group that was formed to counter it.[104]

-http://www.chomsky.info...
-http://electronicintifada.net...


My argument is not supposed to be taken as fact, but as reasonable suspicion.

Your claim to "reasonable suspicion" is fine. Though good-luck proving it.
Thank you for voting!
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2013 10:29:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/24/2013 8:31:05 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Great article by the Hoover Institute on Noam Chomsky, the Closet Capitalist.
http://www.hoover.org...

In fact .. now that I think of it ..

why would an anarchist disclose his net worth to ....anyone?!
Thank you for voting!
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2013 10:32:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/24/2013 10:23:53 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 8/24/2013 10:18:36 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/24/2013 10:17:18 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 8/24/2013 10:12:05 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
Explain to me why the CIA has been equivocating so much about whether or not they've been snooping on Chomsky? Explain why Chomsky's records with the CIA have allegedly been destroyed?

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com...

....care to explain his death threats?
Your argument is unfalsifiable (weak because it can never be proven)

Care to substantiate death threats? (i.e. wtf are you talking about?)

His far-reaching criticisms of U.S. foreign policy and the legitimacy of U.S. power have raised controversy.[100][101] Chomsky has received death threats because of his criticisms of U.S. foreign policy.[102] He has often received undercover police protection at MIT and when speaking on the Middle East, although he has refused uniformed police protection.[103] The Electronic Intifada website claims that the Anti-Defamation League "spied on" Chomsky's appearances, and quotes Chomsky as being unsurprised at that discovery or the use of what Chomsky claims is "fantasy material" provided to Alan Dershowitz for debating him. Amused, Chomsky compares the ADL's reports to FBI files, and is sartorial on perceived defamation by the a group that was formed to counter it.[104]


-http://www.chomsky.info...
-http://electronicintifada.net...

He's good at what he does? Why would anyone trust him to be sincere on his position if he was not harangued over it?

He builds credibility with the left via such actions, and then manipulates the left's position by having the left adhere to an agenda that is benign to the state, i.e. no second Vietnam-type reaction (i.e. riots) after 9/11.
http://www.amazon.com...

"This new edition of 9-11, published on the tenth anniversary of the attacks and featuring a new preface by Chomsky, reminds us that today, just as much as ten years ago, information and clarity remain our most valuable tools in the struggle to prevent future violence against the innocent, both at home and abroad."

My argument is not supposed to be taken as fact, but as reasonable suspicion.

Your claim to "reasonable suspicion" is fine. Though good-luck proving it.

Yeah, I'm guessing it'll take 30 years and a FOIA disclosure...=)
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2013 10:46:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/24/2013 10:32:16 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/24/2013 10:23:53 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 8/24/2013 10:18:36 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/24/2013 10:17:18 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 8/24/2013 10:12:05 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
Explain to me why the CIA has been equivocating so much about whether or not they've been snooping on Chomsky? Explain why Chomsky's records with the CIA have allegedly been destroyed?

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com...

....care to explain his death threats?
Your argument is unfalsifiable (weak because it can never be proven)

Care to substantiate death threats? (i.e. wtf are you talking about?)

His far-reaching criticisms of U.S. foreign policy and the legitimacy of U.S. power have raised controversy.[100][101] Chomsky has received death threats because of his criticisms of U.S. foreign policy.[102] He has often received undercover police protection at MIT and when speaking on the Middle East, although he has refused uniformed police protection.[103] The Electronic Intifada website claims that the Anti-Defamation League "spied on" Chomsky's appearances, and quotes Chomsky as being unsurprised at that discovery or the use of what Chomsky claims is "fantasy material" provided to Alan Dershowitz for debating him. Amused, Chomsky compares the ADL's reports to FBI files, and is sartorial on perceived defamation by the a group that was formed to counter it.[104]


-http://www.chomsky.info...
-http://electronicintifada.net...

He's good at what he does? Why would anyone trust him to be sincere on his position if he was not harangued over it?

Wat?

All I'm saying is that chances are if your still doing speeches when your being told "I'm gonna kill you" chances are you probably believe in the stuff your sayin' to take that risk.


He builds credibility with the left via such actions, and then manipulates the left's position by having the left adhere to an agenda that is benign to the state, i.e. no second Vietnam-type reaction (i.e. riots) after 9/11.
http://www.amazon.com...

First of all what does this have to do with OP's topic?
Secondly what does this have to do with him supposibly being in the CIA or for that matter getting death threats?
Thirdly, you realize he's critical of "the left" as well right?
Fourthly ... dude .. the guys an anarchist. And, if I'm reading this correctly your charging him with being a statist? What?

"This new edition of 9-11, published on the tenth anniversary of the attacks and featuring a new preface by Chomsky, reminds us that today, just as much as ten years ago, information and clarity remain our most valuable tools in the struggle to prevent future violence against the innocent, both at home and abroad."

My argument is not supposed to be taken as fact, but as reasonable suspicion.

Your claim to "reasonable suspicion" is fine. Though good-luck proving it.

Yeah, I'm guessing it'll take 30 years and a FOIA disclosure...=)
Thank you for voting!
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2013 10:56:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/24/2013 10:46:24 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 8/24/2013 10:32:16 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

He's good at what he does? Why would anyone trust him to be sincere on his position if he was not harangued over it?

Wat?

All I'm saying is that chances are if your still doing speeches when your being told "I'm gonna kill you" chances are you probably believe in the stuff your sayin' to take that risk.

Do you truly believe public figures believe what they say in public? Or do you believe there is a high likelihood that people will say whatever to get famous?

He builds credibility with the left via such actions, and then manipulates the left's position by having the left adhere to an agenda that is benign to the state, i.e. no second Vietnam-type reaction (i.e. riots) after 9/11.
http://www.amazon.com...

First of all what does this have to do with OP's topic?

OP is saying that Chomsky is hypocritical...I am agreeing with that assertion for different reasons.

Secondly what does this have to do with him supposibly being in the CIA or for that matter getting death threats?

I am describing a hypothetical relationship between Chomsky and the CIA.

Thirdly, you realize he's critical of "the left" as well right?

http://nation.foxnews.com...

Fourthly ... dude .. the guys an anarchist. And, if I'm reading this correctly your charging him with being a statist? What?

What better "anarchist" could there be for the state than one that everyone believes to be an anarchist, but is really a shill for the state?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2013 11:03:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/24/2013 10:56:07 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/24/2013 10:46:24 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 8/24/2013 10:32:16 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

He's good at what he does? Why would anyone trust him to be sincere on his position if he was not harangued over it?

Wat?

All I'm saying is that chances are if your still doing speeches when your being told "I'm gonna kill you" chances are you probably believe in the stuff your sayin' to take that risk.

Do you truly believe public figures believe what they say in public? Or do you believe there is a high likelihood that people will say whatever to get famous?

Nah, doing this for as long as he has? I'm guessing he believes in it. Besides, he got persecuted for it when showing his displeasure at the Vietnam War, and furthermore, the claims he is making are not far-fetched, well researched, backed up, etc...

If he doesn't believe in the stuff he preaches, he's got me fooled.

He builds credibility with the left via such actions, and then manipulates the left's position by having the left adhere to an agenda that is benign to the state, i.e. no second Vietnam-type reaction (i.e. riots) after 9/11.
http://www.amazon.com...

First of all what does this have to do with OP's topic?

OP is saying that Chomsky is hypocritical...I am agreeing with that assertion for different reasons.

Fair enough. Though appeal to hypocrisy.

Secondly what does this have to do with him supposibly being in the CIA or for that matter getting death threats?

I am describing a hypothetical relationship between Chomsky and the CIA.

Fair enough, but still unfalsifiable.

Thirdly, you realize he's critical of "the left" as well right?

http://nation.foxnews.com...

cool

Fourthly ... dude .. the guys an anarchist. And, if I'm reading this correctly your charging him with being a statist? What?

What better "anarchist" could there be for the state than one that everyone believes to be an anarchist, but is really a shill for the state?

Okay, sure, but what proof do you have and for that matter, you realize this claim is again unfalsifiable right?
Thank you for voting!
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2013 11:08:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/24/2013 11:03:33 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 8/24/2013 10:56:07 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/24/2013 10:46:24 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 8/24/2013 10:32:16 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

He's good at what he does? Why would anyone trust him to be sincere on his position if he was not harangued over it?

Wat?

All I'm saying is that chances are if your still doing speeches when your being told "I'm gonna kill you" chances are you probably believe in the stuff your sayin' to take that risk.

Do you truly believe public figures believe what they say in public? Or do you believe there is a high likelihood that people will say whatever to get famous?

Nah, doing this for as long as he has? I'm guessing he believes in it. Besides, he got persecuted for it when showing his displeasure at the Vietnam War, and furthermore, the claims he is making are not far-fetched, well researched, backed up, etc...

If he doesn't believe in the stuff he preaches, he's got me fooled.

Again, he's good at what he does. I mean, seriously, a LINGUIST?

Fair enough. Though appeal to hypocrisy.

Aim that at the OP, then.

Secondly what does this have to do with him supposibly being in the CIA or for that matter getting death threats?

I am describing a hypothetical relationship between Chomsky and the CIA.

Fair enough, but still unfalsifiable.

Why do you keep focusing on its falsifiability? Do you think any assertion about facts that can't be known are automatically invalid?

Fourthly ... dude .. the guys an anarchist. And, if I'm reading this correctly your charging him with being a statist? What?

What better "anarchist" could there be for the state than one that everyone believes to be an anarchist, but is really a shill for the state?

Okay, sure, but what proof do you have and for that matter, you realize this claim is again unfalsifiable right?

Your focus upon this one word makes it impossible for you to make an assertion. For example, it would be impossible for anyone to say anything about anyone on this website, since nothing can be verified. It's nothing more than an appeal to nihilism, IMHO.

The question is, is the reasoning sound? Why wouldn't it be sound?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2013 11:19:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/24/2013 11:08:58 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/24/2013 11:03:33 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 8/24/2013 10:56:07 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/24/2013 10:46:24 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 8/24/2013 10:32:16 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

He's good at what he does? Why would anyone trust him to be sincere on his position if he was not harangued over it?

Wat?

All I'm saying is that chances are if your still doing speeches when your being told "I'm gonna kill you" chances are you probably believe in the stuff your sayin' to take that risk.

Do you truly believe public figures believe what they say in public? Or do you believe there is a high likelihood that people will say whatever to get famous?

Nah, doing this for as long as he has? I'm guessing he believes in it. Besides, he got persecuted for it when showing his displeasure at the Vietnam War, and furthermore, the claims he is making are not far-fetched, well researched, backed up, etc...

If he doesn't believe in the stuff he preaches, he's got me fooled.

Again, he's good at what he does. I mean, seriously, a LINGUIST?


Fair enough. Though appeal to hypocrisy.

Aim that at the OP, then.

Secondly what does this have to do with him supposibly being in the CIA or for that matter getting death threats?

I am describing a hypothetical relationship between Chomsky and the CIA.

Fair enough, but still unfalsifiable.

Why do you keep focusing on its falsifiability? Do you think any assertion about facts that can't be known are automatically invalid?

Fourthly ... dude .. the guys an anarchist. And, if I'm reading this correctly your charging him with being a statist? What?

What better "anarchist" could there be for the state than one that everyone believes to be an anarchist, but is really a shill for the state?

Okay, sure, but what proof do you have and for that matter, you realize this claim is again unfalsifiable right?

Your focus upon this one word makes it impossible for you to make an assertion. For example, it would be impossible for anyone to say anything about anyone on this website, since nothing can be verified. It's nothing more than an appeal to nihilism, IMHO.

The question is, is the reasoning sound? Why wouldn't it be sound?

I don't understand how you could argue Chomsky is somehow helping the CIA or government.

Have you actually read his stuff on the academic left? He wants more political activity from the left. If he just critiqued stuff and was fine with that, it's one thing.

But it's just stupid to argue the man's entire life was devoted to helping the CIA because a PROFESSOR wanted... what? Did he throw his entire academic career away so he could get money from the CIA? Do you think his books would be less popular or his work less influential if he was working for the CIA?

Did he destroy right-wingers on public television for their support of various CIA-driven wars/crusades? Quite so.

If you said Buckley was on a CIA payroll, I could see that.

But it's nonsense to say Chomsky centered his career around getting paid by the CIA.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2013 11:20:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/24/2013 10:12:05 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
Explain to me why the CIA has been equivocating so much about whether or not they've been snooping on Chomsky? Explain why Chomsky's records with the CIA have allegedly been destroyed?

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com...

Because it looks horrifically politically motivated if the CIA tries to argue they are tracking terrorists by spying on the West's most reknowned liberal nut.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2013 11:29:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
lol, this is a much better response. =)

At 8/24/2013 11:19:08 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/24/2013 11:08:58 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

The question is, is the reasoning sound? Why wouldn't it be sound?

I don't understand how you could argue Chomsky is somehow helping the CIA or government.

Have you actually read his stuff on the academic left? He wants more political activity from the left. If he just critiqued stuff and was fine with that, it's one thing.

I don't understand how this would disqualify him. If anything, it would solidify his reputation amongst the left, and help him attain some measure of control over what is perceived as credible leftist material.

But it's just stupid to argue the man's entire life was devoted to helping the CIA because a PROFESSOR wanted... what? Did he throw his entire academic career away so he could get money from the CIA? Do you think his books would be less popular or his work less influential if he was working for the CIA?

Maybe by working with the CIA, a LINGUIST attains credibility and fame by looking prescient on left-wing affairs...courtesy of a CIA information feed. I'm certain the CIA is an informational treasure trove for advocating any perceivable political position.

Did he destroy right-wingers on public television for their support of various CIA-driven wars/crusades? Quite so.

Yes, a great left-winger, indeed.

If you said Buckley was on a CIA payroll, I could see that.

You're going to have to explain why Buckley makes sense and Chomsky does not.

But it's nonsense to say Chomsky centered his career around getting paid by the CIA.

IMHO it's possible. Establish a good rep as a strong left-winger via information from CIA databases, get famous, sell books, collude with CIA agenda.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2013 11:30:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/24/2013 11:20:16 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/24/2013 10:12:05 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
Explain to me why the CIA has been equivocating so much about whether or not they've been snooping on Chomsky? Explain why Chomsky's records with the CIA have allegedly been destroyed?

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com...

Because it looks horrifically politically motivated if the CIA tries to argue they are tracking terrorists by spying on the West's most reknowned liberal nut.

But it would be honest. No one would suspect a thing if Noam Chomsky was under tight surveillance by the CIA. But, to have no file on him? To have his records being mysteriously erased? You don't think this raises even MORE suspicion?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2013 3:04:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/24/2013 11:30:59 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
But it would be honest. No one would suspect a thing if Noam Chomsky was under tight surveillance by the CIA. But, to have no file on him? To have his records being mysteriously erased? You don't think this raises even MORE suspicion?

CONSPURUHSEE
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2013 4:01:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/25/2013 3:04:00 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 8/24/2013 11:30:59 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
But it would be honest. No one would suspect a thing if Noam Chomsky was under tight surveillance by the CIA. But, to have no file on him? To have his records being mysteriously erased? You don't think this raises even MORE suspicion?

CONSPURUHSEE

Thanks, dumb@ss. Your comments are always consistent, I'll give you that much.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
proglib
Posts: 391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2013 7:09:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/25/2013 4:01:28 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/25/2013 3:04:00 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 8/24/2013 11:30:59 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
But it would be honest. No one would suspect a thing if Noam Chomsky was under tight surveillance by the CIA. But, to have no file on him? To have his records being mysteriously erased? You don't think this raises even MORE suspicion?

CONSPURUHSEE

Thanks, dumb@ss. Your comments are always consistent, I'll give you that much.

WSA is a great sh!t disturber. When he wants to be serious [perhaps that doesn't happen often:D] his comments can be quite on target. IMHO
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.* And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." Barry Goldwater
*Except in a democracy it might lose you an election.

http://unitedwegovern.org...
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2013 9:09:38 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Was really not a very good article, grasping at straws and really reminded me of the left bashing Ron Paul for getting federal money for his district.
I don't agree with Chombsky's economics but I'm not going to fault him for working within the system.
Most everything in the article feels extremely dishonest.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2013 8:00:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/24/2013 11:30:59 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/24/2013 11:20:16 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/24/2013 10:12:05 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
Explain to me why the CIA has been equivocating so much about whether or not they've been snooping on Chomsky? Explain why Chomsky's records with the CIA have allegedly been destroyed?

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com...

Because it looks horrifically politically motivated if the CIA tries to argue they are tracking terrorists by spying on the West's most reknowned liberal nut.

But it would be honest. No one would suspect a thing if Noam Chomsky was under tight surveillance by the CIA. But, to have no file on him? To have his records being mysteriously erased? You don't think this raises even MORE suspicion?

So...the CIA WANTS people to think Chomsky is their asset? Because that seems to be your argument.

That or that the CIA was incompetent when saying they had no file.
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2013 11:13:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/24/2013 11:20:16 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/24/2013 10:12:05 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
Explain to me why the CIA has been equivocating so much about whether or not they've been snooping on Chomsky? Explain why Chomsky's records with the CIA have allegedly been destroyed?

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com...

Because it looks horrifically politically motivated if the CIA tries to argue they are tracking terrorists by spying on the West's most reknowned liberal nut.

Aren't you a Chomsky fan? You praised his historical work, or something.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2013 12:02:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/25/2013 4:01:28 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/25/2013 3:04:00 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 8/24/2013 11:30:59 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
But it would be honest. No one would suspect a thing if Noam Chomsky was under tight surveillance by the CIA. But, to have no file on him? To have his records being mysteriously erased? You don't think this raises even MORE suspicion?

CONSPURUHSEE

Thanks, dumb@ss. Your comments are always consistent, I'll give you that much.

Show me the evidence, brah
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2013 12:47:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/25/2013 8:00:55 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/24/2013 11:30:59 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/24/2013 11:20:16 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/24/2013 10:12:05 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
Explain to me why the CIA has been equivocating so much about whether or not they've been snooping on Chomsky? Explain why Chomsky's records with the CIA have allegedly been destroyed?

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com...

Because it looks horrifically politically motivated if the CIA tries to argue they are tracking terrorists by spying on the West's most reknowned liberal nut.

But it would be honest. No one would suspect a thing if Noam Chomsky was under tight surveillance by the CIA. But, to have no file on him? To have his records being mysteriously erased? You don't think this raises even MORE suspicion?

So...the CIA WANTS people to think Chomsky is their asset? Because that seems to be your argument.

That or that the CIA was incompetent when saying they had no file.

The idea is incompetence in how they've handled a supposed Chomsky file. The idea is that if Chomsky was not a CIA asset, they'd have no problems with full disclosure, caveating whatever they've chosen to keep secret. However, the theory goes that because Chomsky IS a CIA asset, they don't know what to hide, so they take years dragging their feet over this just to say that Chomsky doesn't have a file, only for the FBI to inadvertently disclose that the CIA at one time did have a file on Chomsky, but for whatever reason had it scrubbed from CIA databases.

The whole thing stinks to high hell of incompetence in hiding a Chomsky-CIA connection.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2013 3:11:47 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/26/2013 12:47:26 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/25/2013 8:00:55 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/24/2013 11:30:59 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/24/2013 11:20:16 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/24/2013 10:12:05 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
Explain to me why the CIA has been equivocating so much about whether or not they've been snooping on Chomsky? Explain why Chomsky's records with the CIA have allegedly been destroyed?

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com...

Because it looks horrifically politically motivated if the CIA tries to argue they are tracking terrorists by spying on the West's most reknowned liberal nut.

But it would be honest. No one would suspect a thing if Noam Chomsky was under tight surveillance by the CIA. But, to have no file on him? To have his records being mysteriously erased? You don't think this raises even MORE suspicion?

So...the CIA WANTS people to think Chomsky is their asset? Because that seems to be your argument.

That or that the CIA was incompetent when saying they had no file.

The idea is incompetence in how they've handled a supposed Chomsky file. The idea is that if Chomsky was not a CIA asset, they'd have no problems with full disclosure, caveating whatever they've chosen to keep secret. However, the theory goes that because Chomsky IS a CIA asset, they don't know what to hide, so they take years dragging their feet over this just to say that Chomsky doesn't have a file, only for the FBI to inadvertently disclose that the CIA at one time did have a file on Chomsky, but for whatever reason had it scrubbed from CIA databases.

The whole thing stinks to high hell of incompetence in hiding a Chomsky-CIA connection.

But if they had outright started by saying they were spying on him, how would that not constitute evidence for your conspiracy as much as the fact that they first said they weren't?

No matter what happens, you attribute it to the conspiracy, either the brilliance or incompetence of the FBI/CIA.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2013 3:12:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/25/2013 11:13:28 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 8/24/2013 11:20:16 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/24/2013 10:12:05 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
Explain to me why the CIA has been equivocating so much about whether or not they've been snooping on Chomsky? Explain why Chomsky's records with the CIA have allegedly been destroyed?

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com...

Because it looks horrifically politically motivated if the CIA tries to argue they are tracking terrorists by spying on the West's most reknowned liberal nut.

Aren't you a Chomsky fan? You praised his historical work, or something.

I am. I like quite a bit of his historical work.

But when it comes to policy, like his anarchy cr@p, I don't defend him.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2013 7:42:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/26/2013 3:11:47 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/26/2013 12:47:26 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/25/2013 8:00:55 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/24/2013 11:30:59 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/24/2013 11:20:16 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/24/2013 10:12:05 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
Explain to me why the CIA has been equivocating so much about whether or not they've been snooping on Chomsky? Explain why Chomsky's records with the CIA have allegedly been destroyed?

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com...

Because it looks horrifically politically motivated if the CIA tries to argue they are tracking terrorists by spying on the West's most reknowned liberal nut.

But it would be honest. No one would suspect a thing if Noam Chomsky was under tight surveillance by the CIA. But, to have no file on him? To have his records being mysteriously erased? You don't think this raises even MORE suspicion?

So...the CIA WANTS people to think Chomsky is their asset? Because that seems to be your argument.

That or that the CIA was incompetent when saying they had no file.

The idea is incompetence in how they've handled a supposed Chomsky file. The idea is that if Chomsky was not a CIA asset, they'd have no problems with full disclosure, caveating whatever they've chosen to keep secret. However, the theory goes that because Chomsky IS a CIA asset, they don't know what to hide, so they take years dragging their feet over this just to say that Chomsky doesn't have a file, only for the FBI to inadvertently disclose that the CIA at one time did have a file on Chomsky, but for whatever reason had it scrubbed from CIA databases.

The whole thing stinks to high hell of incompetence in hiding a Chomsky-CIA connection.

But if they had outright started by saying they were spying on him, how would that not constitute evidence for your conspiracy as much as the fact that they first said they weren't?

I think you are misunderstanding the chain of events.

1) The CIA outright started by saying they were NOT spying on him.
2) This was exposed as a lie by a biographer who by happenstance came across FBI data that the CIA was indeed spying on him. However, whatever file the CIA had on Chomsky no longer exists, according to the CIA. The CIA has yet to resolve this contradiction. That's currently where the foreignpolicy research/digging on this matter stands.

No matter what happens, you attribute it to the conspiracy, either the brilliance or incompetence of the FBI/CIA.

How else can you interpret this scenario? I'm using deduction here to eliminate other alternatives, and this is the only list I can come up with, either total incompetence or a real attempt to hide data about Chomsky and CIA collusion.

The argument for real collusion is strong, IMHO. Chomsky is a product of the Vietnam era, which involved what I perceive to be a cataclysmic failure by the government to prevent mass media from interpreting government events (Vietnam, civil rights movement, etc) in an extremely negative light, primarily stemming from a strong extreme-left movement towards either anarchism or communism. Chomsky-as-CIA-gatekeeper would then be an active attempt to co-opt the left movement in America in order to control the discourse, thereby preventing another spiraling out of control a la Vietnam.

This is how I interpret the Tillman assassination. Someone like that, with that amount of celebrity, with that amount of charisma, and with that strong an anti-war stance, got offed the moment he began to collude with Chomsky about a possible far-left public advocacy involving Iraq. The evidence there is very strong that it was an outright assassination, and the causes for such an act would stem from this reasoning. This final part (the causes of the Tillman assassination) is more inductive reasoning.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?