From a recent interview

Both political parties and the media are far to the right of the general population on a whole host of issues. And the population is just disorganized, atomized... And that's why the media and campaigns keep away from (political) issues. They know that on issues, they're going to lose people. So therefore you have... George Bush... this pampered kid who came from a rich family and went to prep school and an elite university. And you have to present him as an ordinary guy who makes grammatical errors, which I'm sure he's trained to make--he didn't talk that way at Yale--and a fake Texas twang, and he's off to his ranch to cut brush or something. It's like a toothpaste ad. And I think a lot of people know it.

Link! (http://nooneslistening.libsyn.org/index.php?post_id=38974)

Forget about the first part. You stupid fucks can't properly discuss who's left and who's right, so ignore that and look at the rest. So Bush's Texas twang is affected? That's gotta be the funniest thing I've heard in like, well, a long fucking time.

If he didn't do it in college, it would almost have to be affected. People don't get that way naturally, unless they grew up like that. I think his handlers did it to him to make him seem like less of a threat to Democrats, or to help him get votes when he ran for the governorship of Texas.

Come to think of it, the Bush family is one of the richest families in politics. His dad doesn't talk like that, and since he probably went to private schools, it's highly unlikely that he would pick that up in school.

And since I already exposed most of you righties as having more or less disapproved of him, don't sit there and be like, "Like no Democrats talk like idiots!!!1" because I know that's what Trav will end up saying, or something equally stupid.

so what, bush is a phony, they are all phonys, you think you are some kind of genius for pointing that out?

Let's just hope y'all heed Choamsky's message ....and .........keep heading left ....*L*.

Not only will the socialista Democratic party be relegated to a regional party .....but ..it will no longer have any relevency.


Slim

Eugene McCarthy took them down a blind alley and they've been lost since. The McCarthyite wing cannot win an election by itself but democrats also know that they can't win without them. Thus they remain splintered and irrelevant. A shame for a party with such a great history and great contributions.

No, Trav, I was just having a bit of fun, something that obviously went right over your head.

Originally posted by waldo
Eugene McCarthy took them down a blind alley and they've been lost since. The McCarthyite wing cannot win an election by itself but democrats also know that they can't win without them. Thus they remain splintered and irrelevant. A shame for a party with such a great history and great contributions. The same can be said of the evangelicals and the republicans. Both parties are held hostage by their extremes. BTW, I wonder if it would have occurred to you to make this observation had McCarthy not been in the news lately. History will judge him kindly because he was right to oppose the war in Vietnam.

Originally posted by slim
Let's just hope y'all heed Choamsky's message ....and .........keep heading left ...

Pretty familiar with 'Choamsky's' writings, are you?

Originally posted by Freethinker
Pretty familiar with 'Choamsky's' writings, are you?
No more so than Nappy if we're going to question the validity of his argument based on the misspelling of Chomsky's name.

I did, however, find this fairly interesting.

http://human-brain.org/chomsky.html

No more so than Nappy if we're going to question the validity of his argument based on the misspelling of Chomsky's name.

I didn't really make any arguments here, just a little free-associating for fun.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
And you have to present him as an ordinary guy who makes grammatical errors, which I'm sure he's trained to make--he didn't talk that way at Yale--and a fake Texas twang,
I'm pleading ignorance on Noam Chomsky. Who's the fan here 500 or Free?

Is he serious with this, or is this satire?

As a political commentator, Noam Chomsky is a pretty good professor of linguistics. As a professor of linguistics he is a piss poor political commentator.

Both. Chomsky is a respected philosopher who invented most of the model by which lefties like FT think. His politics are considered on the extreme left according to the American political system. He himself doesn't like political labels, and lets his views speak for themselves. His accomplishments in the field of linguistics and psychology are well-noted, and they provided much of the direction for further advancements in the twentieth century. However, he's best known for his political ideas, which are some of the most radical that a person can get.

He is a man that is very hard to marginalise, though the American right tries very hard to. And he is serious, well, as serious as I get when I discuss politics.

If "both" was the answer to my question, is there anyone else out there.......

I like his ideas, and I think he has a much needed place in the emerging global order. He's smarter than me, so I am not really capable of making judgements about him.

"He is a man that is very hard to marginalise"\


I disagree with you Nappy. Chomsky is pretty much marginalized already. You are participating in a chat room with a bunch of political junkies. Of course we know who Noam Chomsky is. Go out on the street and ask who he is and you will get blank stares. Hell, go to an average college campus and ask who he is and you will probably get just as many blank stares.

Are you kidding? Ask the same kids to point Syria out on a map, and you'll probably get the same blank stares.

What was that saying... "War is America's way of teaching its citizens geography"?

Now that's funny! :D

I never new you can't make judgements about a person .......if they are smarter than oneself .......hmmmmmm ......that is where I must have gone wrong in life ......*L*.

I am just glad I don't live by that rule.


Slim

Physically speaking, a person is incapable of modeling the thoughts of a person that is vastly more intelligent than they are, thus making all judgement suspect.

The world wouldn't function correctly if this was observed, of course, but it doesn't make it any less true. For one, most people are incapable of truly admitting that somebody else can be smarter than they are, the ego gets in the way. For another, most of the ones that can, make silly and self-defeating decisions when dealing with others of differing intelligence levels, whether higher or lower.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
Both. Chomsky is a respected philosopher who invented most of the model by which lefties like FT think.

True with a capital **T**.

Chomsky is one of the greatest political thinkers of this or any other time.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
His politics are considered on the extreme left according to the American political system.

Well, yes.

But then, in the current political milieu, Barry Goldwater would be considered a raging leftist.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
He himself doesn't like political labels, and lets his views speak for themselves. His accomplishments in the field of linguistics and psychology are well-noted, and they provided much of the direction for further advancements in the twentieth century.

Just the facts.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
However, he's best known for his political ideas, which are some of the most radical that a person can get.

"Radical".....?!?!?!

They are only *radical* when viewed in comparison to the dominant ConservaFascist ideology that currently holds sway in the United States.

By any objective rationale, his political ideas are well reasoned, fair and just.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
He is a man that is very hard to marginalise, though the American right tries very hard to.

I disagree entirely.

Not only is Chomsky *easy to marginalize*, he has BEEN as thoroughly marginalized and as ignored and as villified (as a political voice of reason) as it is possible for a person of his intellectual genius to BE marginalized.

As another poster points out a bit farther down the page, Chomsky has been SO marginalized that only a tiny percentage of the populace are aware who he is.

Likewise, unbelievably perceptive and intelligent political thinkers like Zinn and Herman and Parenti and Vidal are systematically marginalized and villified by the dominant Rightwing power structure and Corporate-controlled mainstream Media.

Why am I not surprised that you would consider four of the furthest left political thinkers, Zinn, Herman, Parenti and Vidal to be unbelievably intellligent and perceptive.

"Radical".....?!?!?!

Radical does not really mean extreme. It means getting to the base of an issue. What makes religious fundamentalism radical is just that, because many Americans don't consider it terribly extreme. That is what a radical does in mathematics, by the way.

Not only is Chomsky *easy to marginalize*, he has BEEN as thoroughly marginalized and as ignored and as villified (as a political voice of reason) as it is possible for a person of his intellectual genius to BE marginalized.

Maybe in America, but all over the world, Chomsky is a well-known and respected name and a force for the people's rights. Many leaders listen to him. He simply gets no press in America.

But what I truly meant by that phrase was that it is hard to honestly dismiss his political views as extreme, due to his scientific accomplishments. When was the last time you made significant advancements in something as important to politics as linguistics and psychology?

Likewise, unbelievably perceptive and intelligent political thinkers like Zinn and Herman and Parenti and Vidal are systematically marginalized and villified by the dominant Rightwing power structure and Corporate-controlled mainstream Media.

This statement would be far more effective if you left "Rightwing" out of it. Americans are incapable of discussing political leanings rationally, due to the corporate controlled mainstream media you speak of. Most people don't even know what the terms mean, they just identify with whatever sounds better to them, and the other side is just that. American "political" discussions usually sound like a gaggle of chimpanzees hollering, jumping up and down, and flinging their shit, even (especially!) the discussions at allForums.

Not only is Chomsky *easy to marginalize*, he has BEEN as thoroughly marginalized and as ignored and as villified (as a political voice of reason) as it is possible for a person of his intellectual genius to BE marginalized. .......Chomsky has been SO marginalized that only a tiny percentage of the populace are aware who he is.


Originally posted by Napsterbater
Maybe in America, but all over the world, Chomsky is a well-known and respected name and a force for the people's rights. Many leaders listen to him. He simply gets no press in America.

True.

Which serves only to highlight how much the Corporate State in America despises and fears having the herd exposed to critical thinkers and to people who promote a more populist brand of politics.


Originally posted by Napsterbater
But what I truly meant by that phrase was that it is hard to honestly dismiss his political views as extreme, due to his scientific accomplishments.

I agree 100% !!!

The key word here is **honestly**.

No one can *honestly* dismiss Chomsky's views.

His solidly reasoned views are very difficult to refute or challenge.


Originally posted by Napsterbater
This statement would be far more effective if you left "Rightwing" out of it.

Possibly. But I think people tend to forget or ignore or to not even be aware of the fact that America is a nation with an overall extremely conservative viewpoint, with even that group (the Democrats) that is viewed as being quite "liberal" being far to the RIGHT of the vast majority of the people in other developed nations.

Possibly. But I think people tend to forget or ignore or to not even be aware of the fact that America is a nation with an overall extremely conservative viewpoint, with even that group (the Democrats) that is viewed as being quite "liberal" being far to the RIGHT of the vast majority of the people in other developed nations.

Arguing that is well and fine and good and all, but Americans don't really have the capability of looking past their own doorstep. If politics don't affect them directly, they don't pay attention. When they say liberal and conservative, they don't stop to think that left and right mean something completely different in England. They don't bother to take a larger view of issues, again due to the corporate controlled media. Even using the terms polarizes peoples viewpoints and makes them unable to see anything other than "right" or "conservative". So if you want to raise that issue, you have to do it explicitly.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
Arguing that is well and fine and good and all, but Americans don't really have the capability of looking past their own doorstep. If politics don't affect them directly, they don't pay attention. When they say liberal and conservative, they don't stop to think that left and right mean something completely different in England. They don't bother to take a larger view of issues, again due to the corporate controlled media. Even using the terms polarizes peoples viewpoints and makes them unable to see anything other than "right" or "conservative". So if you want to raise that issue, you have to do it explicitly.

Point taken.

Good post.

Prae - I did, however, find this fairly interesting.
http://human-brain.org/chomsky.html
Interesting? Retarded and unfulfilling. It opens with the claim that it'll dismiss Chomsky as nonsense(in a downright terribly executed introduction, writing-wise), but instead offers absolutely nothing of substance to counter Chomsky's statements. In fact, just by bolding his arguments, the logic in those sentences vastly overpowers anything that follows afterwards. Instead of actually reading and comprehending what Chomsky said and without extrapolation on ideas that, arguably mistakenly, any intelligent man such as Chomsky would assume anybody would be able to follow suit with, the writer of this peice dismisses face value the statements. All that article shows is the writer's lack of analytic comprehension and it would probably be best not to take anything he states as wise without thoroughly checking it.



Why am I not surprised that you would consider four of the furthest left political thinkers, Zinn, Herman, Parenti and Vidal to be unbelievably intellligent and perceptive.
I believe that was a list of people he considers vilefied and marginalized that also happen to be intelligent. Not a list of intelligent people that he then broke down into correctly categorized and inccorectly vilefied.



Arguing that is well and fine and good and all, but Americans don't really have the capability of looking past their own doorstep. If politics don't affect them directly, they don't pay attention. When they say liberal and conservative, they don't stop to think that left and right mean something completely different in England. They don't bother to take a larger view of issues, again due to the corporate controlled media. Even using the terms polarizes peoples viewpoints and makes them unable to see anything other than "right" or "conservative". So if you want to raise that issue, you have to do it explicitly.
Arguably, within the United States they do such correctly. Frankly, those considered Left and those considered Right tout such party lined ideals that there hardly is any wiggle room at all. When speaking of "The Right", never are people such as Libertarians included. Likewise, when speaking of "The Left", we rarely include the Green party. However, when speaking of libertarians, or speaking of the green party, they are categorized as right and left. This is a partial fault in thinking, however both of those statements categorize their leanings correctly.

Originally posted by Blibblob
Prae - I did, however, find this fairly interesting.
http://human-brain.org/chomsky.html
Interesting? Retarded and unfulfilling. It opens with the claim that it'll dismiss Chomsky as nonsense(in a downright terribly executed introduction, writing-wise), but instead offers absolutely nothing of substance to counter Chomsky's statements. In fact, just by bolding his arguments, the logic in those sentences vastly overpowers anything that follows afterwards. Instead of actually reading and comprehending what Chomsky said and without extrapolation on ideas that, arguably mistakenly, any intelligent man such as Chomsky would assume anybody would be able to follow suit with, the writer of this peice dismisses face value the statements. All that article shows is the writer's lack of analytic comprehension and it would probably be best not to take anything he states as wise without thoroughly checking it.
I didn't say it was groundbreaking, Blib - I said it was fairly interesting. Big difference. It was written by a grad student at UCSD, not an "authority" on psycholinguistics.

Thanks for your feedback though...

I didn't say it was groundbreaking, Blib - I said it was fairly interesting. Big difference. It was written by a grad student at UCSD, not an "authority" on psycholinguistics.
Usually "interesting" indicates something worth reading and containing substance. For that, I'd call it "funny", within a context I'm sure you understand.

Likewise, when speaking of "The Left", we rarely include the Green party.

I dunno, The way I hear people talking of "The Left", you would think that anyone who doesn't eat hot dogs would qualify as a French-lovin', America-hatin', big government tree-hugger who doesn't take any personal responsibility, and would just let "the terrorists" waltz right in and blow up anything they want.

Interesting? Retarded and unfulfilling. It opens with the claim that it'll dismiss Chomsky as nonsense(in a downright terribly executed introduction, writing-wise),

My thoughts exactly when I read the article. I'm no authority on classical linguistics, but even I could tell that the arguments were specuous and unconvincing.

"Specuous"??? Do you mean specious?

Originally posted by Blibblob
I believe that was a list of people he considers vilefied and marginalized that also happen to be intelligent. Not a list of intelligent people that he then broke down into correctly categorized and inccorectly vilefied.

If you've never been vilefied you're in for a treat. :D

BTW, I've never incorrectly vilefied anyone in my life.

;)

No not him .....I think he meant what he said ...specuos............

Where is Karnak "The Spellchecker" ..........when you need him ...after all .....he is napping masturbator's little buddy.


Slim

"Specuous"??? Do you mean specious?

Whoops, you caught me in one of my rare moments of weakness, a typo! Usually my post comment editing catches these, but, as you can see, I didn't bother with the last one. Well, I did spell Chomsky wrong in the title of the thread, have my standards really slipped that much?

Who the fuck is Karnak?

Originally posted by Napsterbater
Whoops, you caught me in one of my rare moments of weakness, a typo! Usually my post comment editing catches these, but, as you can see, I didn't bother with the last one.

yea... in napsters world you only have to have proper grammer in order to be seen as intelligent... you can say anything with proper spelling and its truth...

give me a freakin break

In your warped world, spelling and grammer are bad things, things to be avoided at all costs! You'd probably fly to another country to avoid an apostrophe!

Originally posted by Napsterbater
In your warped world, spelling and grammer are bad things, things to be avoided at all costs! You'd probably fly to another country to avoid an apostrophe!

Nah... i respect proper grammer.. but i don't let it influence my opinion of what the idea is.

I just type in the style i am most comfortable with... i know its wrong, but its what i use... isn't that what *most* liberals are all about?

We all have our little quirks, don't we?

"And you have to present him as an ordinary guy who makes grammatical errors, which I'm sure he's trained to make--he didn't talk that way at Yale--and a fake Texas twang"

*********************************************

Now that Free is back, I have to know. Is this serious or supposed to be funny.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
In your warped world, spelling and grammer are bad things, things to be avoided at all costs! It's 'grammar' not 'grammer'.

Doh!

There's your little buddy .....Karnak "The Spellchecker" .............*L*.


Slim

Originally posted by Napsterbater
Who the fuck is Karnak?
OMG, you're young, and yes, apparently 7 years DOES make a difference. Karnak was a character on the tonight show played by the one and only Johnny Carson. He'd wear this crazy hat...

http://www.papineaufamily.com/paul/Holidays/Egypt/EgyptImages/karnak2.jpg

...and answer questions that were yet to be asked.

For example, as Karnak, he'd read unopened envelopes telepathically by holding them to his head while answering the questions contained within. He'd then proceed to open it and read the real question. Here are some priceless gems of the late '80's:

A: Zippo Marx.
Q: What do you get when something gets caught in your Zippo?

A: Touchback.
Q: What's the smart thing to do if a Dallas Cowgirl touches you?

A: Big Ben, Joe Namath and a candidate's campaign promises.
Q: What is a clock, a jock and a crock.

Johnny: "It was so cold outside..."

Audience: "How cold was it?"

Johnny: "It was so cold, the politicians had their hands in their own pockets."

A. "Knickerbocker"
Q. "What do you want to avoid doing when you shave her bocker?"

Silly shit, but at the time, it was really funny. :)

slim started calling me Karnak when I praised his psychic abilities. He knows what other people are going to say before they know it themselves. Of course, he should be calling himself Karnak, but that's just slim.

Originally posted by sedan
slim started calling me Karnak when I praised his psychic abilities. He knows what other people are going to say before they know it themselves. Of course, he should be calling himself Karnak, but that's just slim.
I thought the exact same thing.

How's this for a segue: he can form his own school of psycholinguistics based on slimbolic logic.

Originally posted by sedan
How's this for a segue: he can form his own school of psycholinguistics based on slimbolic logic.
"Slimbolic logic"??? LOL.