Total Posts:10|Showing Posts:1-10
Jump to topic:

Chomsky vs Buckley

Lukas
Posts: 110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2010 12:07:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I'm almost certain that must have been posted before, so please forgive my laziness to check. For me this is hands down my favorite debate of all time. Heavy Weight business. Chomsky is on top form in this one and Buckley, while I admire his intellect, is shown for the slimy, right-wing, smug bastard that he is. He appears to be receiving oral gratification from some invisible entity throughout either that or he just really loves the smell of his own farts. But less of the childishness. This is a seminal debate.
dogparktom
Posts: 112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2010 2:27:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I see that both of you are socialists. I can see why you dislike the late Mr. Buckley.

I probably watched 99% percent of his Firing Line shows. He treated his guests with respect. He was an intellectual and a gentleman.

What you should do is read the RIP articles when he died published by his ideological opponents. You will find that they all respected him and would never describe him as you have.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2010 2:36:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/6/2010 2:27:57 PM, dogparktom wrote:
I see that both of you are socialists. I can see why you dislike the late Mr. Buckley.

I probably watched 99% percent of his Firing Line shows. He treated his guests with respect. He was an intellectual and a gentleman.

What you should do is read the RIP articles when he died published by his ideological opponents. You will find that they all respected him and would never describe him as you have.

Respect where respect is due, regardless of their Alive or not status.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2010 6:19:35 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/6/2010 2:27:57 PM, dogparktom wrote:
I see that both of you are socialists. I can see why you dislike the late Mr. Buckley.

I probably watched 99% percent of his Firing Line shows. He treated his guests with respect. He was an intellectual and a gentleman.

What you should do is read the RIP articles when he died published by his ideological opponents. You will find that they all respected him and would never describe him as you have.

I said nothing about the man and Lukas made a point of praising his intellect.

What do you think of Mr Chomsky? I have heard far worse said about him.
dogparktom
Posts: 112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2010 6:19:52 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/7/2010 6:19:35 AM, feverish wrote:
At 2/6/2010 2:27:57 PM, dogparktom wrote:
I see that both of you are socialists. I can see why you dislike the late Mr. Buckley.

I probably watched 99% percent of his Firing Line shows. He treated his guests with respect. He was an intellectual and a gentleman.

What you should do is read the RIP articles when he died published by his ideological opponents. You will find that they all respected him and would never describe him as you have.

I said nothing about the man and Lukas made a point of praising his intellect.

What do you think of Mr Chomsky? I have heard far worse said about him.

I highly respect Professor Chomsky as a brilliant linguist. I must plead ignorance regarding his politics. However, even if I was familiar with his left-wing political writings with which I would probably disagree, I would never denigrate him as Lukas denigrates Mr. Buckley. See this post for my position. http://www.debate.org...
dogparktom
Posts: 112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2010 1:11:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/5/2010 12:07:03 PM, Lukas wrote:
I'm almost certain that must have been posted before, so please forgive my laziness to check. For me this is hands down my favorite debate of all time. Heavy Weight business. Chomsky is on top form in this one and Buckley, while I admire his intellect, is shown for the slimy, right-wing, smug bastard that he is. He appears to be receiving oral gratification from some invisible entity throughout either that or he just really loves the smell of his own farts. But less of the childishness. This is a seminal debate.





_________________________________________

"In other cases prominent Jews endorse Holocaust Deniers while carefully tiptoeing around explicitly endorsing Holocaust Denial itself. The best known of these is Noam Chomsky, an extremist anti-American and anti-Israel professor of linguistics at MIT.

Son of a Hebrew teacher at Gratz College in Philadelphia, Chomsky despises Israel almost as deeply as he hates America. He considers both countries worse than Nazi Germany. Chomsky has campaigned on behalf of the French Holocaust Denier Robert Faurisson and other European Neo-Nazis. He has said in his own defense that he only wants this hate to be protected under laws guaranteeing freedom of speech, but as Professor Werner Cohn has proven, Chomsky also endorses the contents of their speech: "But in fact we saw that [in addition to justifying] …Faurisson's Holocaust-denial, we found Chomsky publishing his own books with neo-Nazi publishers, we saw him writing for a neo-Nazi journal, we saw that the neo-Nazis promote Chomsky's books and tapes together with the works of Joseph Goebbels. It is this complex of anti-Semitic activities and neo-Nazi associations, not his professed ideas alone, that constitutes the Chomsky phenomenon."

http://frontpagemag.com...

I have been perplexed by incidents of apparent Jewish anti-Semitism. I've noticed that some Jewish critics of Isreal will go out of their way to indicate to their audience that they are "secular Jews."
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2010 10:00:53 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
"He has campaigned on behalf of the French Holocaust Denier Robert Faurisson and other European Neo-Nazis. He has said in his own defense that he only wants this hate to be protected under laws guaranteeing freedom of speech, but as Professor Werner Cohn has proven, Chomsky also endorses the contents of their speech: "But in fact we saw that [in addition to justifying] …Faurisson's Holocaust-denial, we found Chomsky publishing his own books with neo-Nazi publishers, we saw him writing for a neo-Nazi journal, we saw that the neo-Nazis promote Chomsky's books and tapes together with the works of Joseph Goebbels. It is this complex of anti-Semitic activities and neo-Nazi associations, not his professed ideas alone, that constitutes the Chomsky phenomenon."

It is funny the things you read about Noam Chomsky. Here is what Noam Chomsky had to say himself about the affair:

Faurisson's conclusions are diametrically opposed to views I hold and have frequently expressed in print (for example, in my book Peace in the Middle East, where I describe the Holocaust as "the most fantastic outburst of collective insanity in human history"). But it is elementary that freedom of expression (including academic freedom) is not to be restricted to views of which one approves, and that it is precisely in the case of views that are almost universally despised and condemned that this right must be most vigorously defended. It is easy enough to defend those who need no defense or to join in unanimous (and often justified) condemnation of a violation of civil rights by some official enemy.

And brilliantly put:

"It seems to me something of a scandal that it is even necessary to debate these issues two centuries after Voltaire defended the right of free expression for views he detested. It is a poor service to the memory of the victims of the Holocaust to adopt a central doctrine of their murderers."

That doesn't quite sound like what you read and what Mr. Chomsky state agree with each other. I suspect one of those is propaganda not based in fact. I will let you do some more research to determine which is which.

I would also like to point out that: "we saw that the neo-Nazis promote Chomsky's books and tapes together with the works of Joseph Goebbels" is completely meaningless. Neo-Nazis also promote the Bible, the Constitution, etc. There is a difference in a hateful group promoting something and something promoting a hateful group. This point seems lost on the author of the article you read.
PhreedomPhan
Posts: 30
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2010 9:22:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/5/2010 12:07:03 PM, Lukas wrote:
I'm almost certain that must have been posted before, so please forgive my laziness to check. For me this is hands down my favorite debate of all time. Heavy Weight business. Chomsky is on top form in this one and Buckley, while I admire his intellect, is shown for the slimy, right-wing, smug bastard that he is. He appears to be receiving oral gratification from some invisible entity throughout either that or he just really loves the smell of his own farts. But less of the childishness. This is a seminal debate.

Lukas, if you were impressed by this, you must love professional wrestling.

Many years ago, before I realized that the left/right "conflict" was nothing more than the Hegelian Dialectic in action, I considered myself a "conservative." A fellow I played ball with said to me, "If you're a conservative, you'll love Bill Buckley on The Firing Line."

I watched him the next Sunday, (at least I think it was on Sundays). For 45 minutes he tore some "liberal" professor to ribbons. Most of the kids in the live audience were "liberal." You could see their faces sinking to the floor as their golden idol was reduced to stone, then clay, and finally dust. But in the last 15 minutes, Buckley acted obnoxious as you say. As a result, the golden idol was restored to his place on the pedestal. The kids could see that "conservatives" were just a bunch of elitist snobs.

I said to myself, "Damn, Bill, you had them but you lost them. Oh, well, you'll get them next week. The next week was a repeat performance, and I use "performance" literally. I thought, "Jesus, Bill, you did it again." When the same thing happened the third week, I thought, "You bastard! You're no "conservative." You've destroyed all legitimate conservative arguments in the eyes of these kids. From now on, whenever a legitimate conservative uses the arguments to sway one of them, they'll just say, "Oh! You sound just like Bill Buckley."

About 8 or 10 years later we were discussing Buckley as a phony "conservative" in a meeting of the county executive committee of our small third party . Someone pulled the real clincher by announcing Buckley had joined the Council on Foreign Relations, anathema to real conservatives. In the press, Buckley tried to ward off those who may have seen through him for the first time by saying he'd joined to "spy" on the enemy. The CFR is by invitation only. They don't invite spies.

Only within the last ten years did I learn that Buckley was a member of Skull and Bones like his Bones Brothers Bush and Kerry. You might find the information on the Roosevelt New Deal "liberal" Bonesmen who brought about the merger of Brown Brothers and Harriman and Company interesting. These were the guys who financed both the Soviet heavy industry and the Wehrmacht in preparation for WWII. You'll find it in the "America's Ruling Party" post in my americasenemies blog.

If you think all of that elitist membership proves Billy boy is a "right-winger," I suggest you do some digging into who has financed both the "left" and the "right." Brown Brothers - Harriman was no fluke. Socialism, Communism, Fascism, or any other "ism" gets nowhere without piles of cash to spread the propaganda and to buy politicians, bureaucrats, media, and academics.