This is what happens when a Paulbot runs over to a liberal event hoping to get some dissatisfied democrats on board the “Revolution” Express. He gets a dose of reality.
Ron Paul is anything but an anti-establishment candidate. If corporatism is the problem then Ron Paul and his neoliberal libertarian agenda is nothing more than a concerted effort to make young naive voters beggars to their own demise.
.
Advertisement
Filed under: Election 2012, noam Chomsky, Ron Paul
In my opionion Chomsky said nothing here, except what he thought Ron Paul said,,,,”or something like that” the way I take it it sounds like Chomsky is for big government and regulation and against Paul’s ideas of a lesser government. Who on the democratic side has any better ideas than Ron Paul? No one.
ah yes, the dreaded “big guberment’ argument.
Isn’t it surprising how people can still manage to parrot that particular rhetoric after removing Glass-Steagall allowed the banksters and their crony politicians to demo the economy? After Worldcom? After Tyco? After Enron and Lehman Brothers? After the no-bid contracts of Northrup Gruman and Halliburton and Exxon Mobil?… after the BP oil spill? After the nuclear reactor mishap in Japan? After seeing what deregulation of the housing industry did to Haiti? After deregulation and free markets decimated that nation long before the tsunami came to town.
You know who’s a big proponent of “smaller government” Clayton? He wrote a book about it back in 93 when he used to proudly proclaim that he was a neoliberal. Now he backs away from that claim because in the rest of the world, the people are educated enough to know what that term means.
You will be proud to know Clayton that your hero Ron Paul shares the exact same socio-economic theories as Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the Secretary General of NATO and the book he wrote back in ’93 was called “From Social State to Minimal State”
You should read it. You would find that you have a lot in common with the former Prime Minister of Denmark. He was a close friend of Tony Blair and George Bush and was one of the few who actually sent troops to help the “Coalition of the Willing” bomb the shit out of Iraq. He also just recently bombed the shit out of Libya and is waiting till he can bomb the shit out of Syria as well.
That’s how he helps them bring the blessings of free market and small guberment “liberty” to areas around the world.
But unfortunately for you, back in 2005 he had to backtrack on his “small guberment” rhetoric because by then the voters in his country knew exactly what that meant. He says he now belongs to a “third way” type economic party… kinda like the Libertarian Party, don’t ya know?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Fogh_Rasmussen
And by the way, Chomsky accurately quoted Congressman Paul.
Chomsky is a tool and should get his facts straight.
And what point are you trying desperately to make?
“That’s what freedom is all about, taking your own risks” (crowd applauds loudly)
“But congressman, are you saying that society should just let him die?” “uh, … no but…” (crowd screams “YEAH”)
This coming from a man who has the best healthcare in the country paid for BY TAX PAYERS and then he made damn sure that his son gets his seat at the big table as well and he too will have “big guberment” healthcare for the rest of his life.
this video of RP on on the 30-year-old without insurance is cut off before he clears up his response about “the churches handled it” by stating that in the 60s they never turned people away, the church/cathlic hospitals never turned anyone away. This is true.
no fan of chomsky, i have to admit he succinctly nails it here on ron paul. i like that chomsky at least said, “sometimes i agree with him, you know, like I think we gotta end the war in afghanistan.” paul, being what he is, at least opens up this important issue (i.e. WAR, and others, e.g., the fed) for debate, and i think it’s preferable to at least acknowledge that than to dismiss him outright. see the article by glenn greenwald (of whom i also am no big fan) who nails it re ron paul getting obamanoids to have to face up to what they really are, here: http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progressives_and_the_ron_paul_fallacies/
still a fan of yours, willy…keep up the great work!
I remember Obama being against wars also while he was running for President pre-2008….. he was for “change”… Ron Paul talks like Obama.
I just tried 5 times to post my coment and it failed every time.
What the fuck
i’m looking for them, give me a sec
Weird. Those comments work but my comments about Chomksy repeatedly do not.
found it. (them)
Thanks.
Chomsky is arguably a bigger tool than Ron Paul. I certainly dont give Paul a pass for being a failure on the subject of 9/11 but of all people, Chomksy should be intelligent enough to see 9/11 for what it is. No excuse.
Not to mention Chomsky has a habit of trying to insinuate that the US controls Israels every move, which is obviously bullshit. Its a not so subtle way of basically giving Israel a pass and Chomksy does it often.
That said his point about Pauls economic plans leading to more corporate tyranny is right on.
On a semi related note I wonder if Noam still thinks it doesnt matter who killed JFK? Rest assured when another major false flag or political assassination occurs Mr. Chomsky will be there to run cover for the real perps and attack those who call bullshit on the official lies. Its his M.O.
You and I both know, we have been around the dissent movement long enough to know for a fact that Paul wasn’t a failure on the subject of 9/11, he was and IS a turncoat. He milked it for what he could get out of it, having his Paulbots show up at every Truth chatroom and forum trying to align that movement with his own personal desire to stay in power. But as soon as an interviewer on a national spot asked him the question, he stabbed us in the back.
I’m not going to argue Chomsky’s position on 9/11 anymore as that I have already spent tons of virtual ink on the subject as it is.
Do you have any idea how many false flags Chomsky has exposed over the decades that he has been advocating truth? The guy was exposing CIA black ops in SOUTH Vietnam before Kennedy was sworn in and he kept it up for over a decade. You have any idea how dangerous that was for him? Ask yourself what got MLK shot.
Once again, here we are, the thread is turned to suit Ron Paul by making it a Chomsky bashing session. Who does that serve, Chris?
Chomsky makes a great point about Ron Paul and it just so happens it’s the exact same point I have been making for years.
You do know the weakest form of debate is to attack the messenger right?
Who cares about what Chomsky said last week? Last year? Last decade? He’s 100% right about Paul’s underlying principles being a call for corporate tyranny and them being “pure savagery”
That’s what this thread is about.
Here we go again. My extrememly lengthy reply to you is not showing up, similar to my initial comments about Chomsky. Am I the only one having this issue?
I care what Chomsky said in the past because its what he will say in the future. Hes shown a pattern when it comes to “big events” that change the geopolitical equations. Barry Zwicker made a great point when relaying what his Chomsky fan friend said-”if Chomsky doesnt question 9/11 then there is nothing to question”. He has that kind of sway over a large portion of the anti-war movement in this country. He defangs them. Thats how I see it.
Paul did in fact betray the 9/11 truth movement, I agree. Calling him a turncoat is fair. He never explicitly questioned 9/11 but as you point out he didnt start distancing himself until it became politically expedient for him to do so. A total bitch move.
I know you’re a fan of Chomsky, and hell so am I to a large degree. Which is why I can never give him a pass. I expect better. And 9/11 is still important to me. I don’t know if Chomsky is actual “controlled opposition” but in ignoring the warmongers biggest crimes he operates as that.
And while exposing war crimes in Vietnam was important, its just not on the level of calling bullshit on the assassination of a President or a false flag on the magnitude of 9/11. Its just not. Americans, sadly, expect that the US will commit war crimes in foreign countries. They don’t expect the US and “allies” such as Israel to attack Americans on American soil. That would be truly shocking to most of them.
To me it was cred building(his exposing false flags in Vietnam and other foreign countries) if anything. He didn’t stop the war. His supposed “brave positions” didn’t stop shit. And I’m not saying if Chomsky called bullshit on 9/11 it would have stopped the wars but it still would have been the right thing to do. Hes a smart guy. Hes either lying about 9/11 or hes being a major coward. I won’t let it go. And after the next false flag, when Chomsky no doubt advances the governments “official story”, I won’t let that go either
As the countries “foremost leftist intellectual” its up to people like us to hold them to higher standards. I will continue to do so even if others make excuses for him.
Oh, and I agree MLK was killed because of his anti-war views but he was obviously a little more well known in the public sphere than Chomsky so it was “worth it” to them to kill MLK based on the fear of his potential reach. Chomsky, as a “leftist intellectual” is expected to take those positions. Its not nearly as brave. What made MLK so dangerous was the fact that he would be reaching people that were either pro-war or didn’t think much about war at all. MLK stuck his neck out by being openly anti-war. Chomsky did the exact opposite on both the JFK/RFK hits(not to mention MLK’s assassination which I’m reasonably sure Chomsky never questioned) and 9/11 by advancing the official lies.
Blaming Chomsky for 9/11 Truth not being effective (which is what the Zwicker quote was trying to imply) is a bit like blaming Nader for the stolen elections of 2000 and 2004. And that makes sense when you think about Barry Zwicker and his video supporting the Pentagon created “Fly Over Theory”.
When you have someone you want to marginalize, someone who’s writings are dangerous to certain elements of the institutional control that a certain class of people and corporations have on a populous, then what you want to do is to set him (her) up in a no-win scenario.
Take for instance Cynthia McKinney. She’s right about 9/11 and she comes out and says it. She’s gone from congress and no credible media outlet will touch her with a ten foot pole. But what is worse, much worse, is even when she is DEAD ON RIGHT about a current issue, like what was happening in Libya, then she is automatically WRONG and her position is tainted with the stigma of her “crack pot theories” about 9/11.
Now, that is NOT why Chomsky takes the position he does on 9/11, which by the way has certainly changed a bit over the years as he is showing signs of outwardly claiming that 9/11 was more state sponsored terror. But, here me out.
What people do when they want to marginalize a person and their work in a targeted segment of the community is they get someone to ask them a question, in public, in front of a video camera, a question that they already know how that person is going to respond. That person responds, and then they take the video and run around posting it up on every dissident site they can every time that person is mentioned. Regardless of HOW or in what CONTEXT that person is mentioned… even if that person is mentioned IN PASSING or in a comment, it doesn’t matter…
… the ad hominum attack is the important thing.
… distance the dissidents from a person who can help them explain the thing it is they are against.
In this case, globalization, Global Free Market Wars, imperialism, and the complicity of BOTH the right and the left in this decades long project.
While Chomsky was being marginalized over the years, dickheads like Alex Jones were telling “truthers” it was lizard people and baby raping secret bloodlines.
THAT is WHY some people, like the sellout Zwicker demonize and marginalize people like Chomsky (and for that matter Cynthia McKinney and now David Ray Griffin as well)
So stop doing their work for them by constantly repeating the dogma against Chomsky.
Let me ask you a question: What do you think the percentage of Americans are that KNOW that there was a conspiracy to kill JFK? Last I heard it was over 80% though they don’t take those polls much anymore.
With that large a majority of people knowing that JFK was whacked as the result of a conspiracy (ever see Oliver Stone’s movie? Do you think you are the only one to see it?) tell me… what has happened? What does it matter? Do you think it would matter if everyone knew that the Bush administration lied to get us to go to war and fabricated evidence and tortured people to get “confessions about 9/11″?
Everyone does know.
And where are we?
You want to put more pressure on them? help me get some debris dust from Ground Zero and test it for high explosive residues. That’ll give them the hard scientific evidence people like Chomsky need to draw attention to it. But I will tell you right now, even with that, even faced with the OBVIOUS TRUTH (as they already are) what are we actually DOING about it?
5% of the population wanted to break from the British before the revolution. 5%
So Chomsky is right, in a way… though I don’t agree with the sentiment… but what difference would it make if the other 20% of the country knew JFK was murdered by an inside conspiracy? I have a hard time looking at current and recent events thinking that it would make a hill of beans difference.
And when he says that focusing on the murder of one man rather than the 3 million murdered in Indochina is a bit out of touch with the notion of human rights and equality, I have to agree with that as well.
Yes, he was a president. But one man compared to 3 million? The people who killed JFK should be facing charges of mass murder, genocide, and crimes against humanity but they aren’t. Where is the indignation for that? Where are the hundreds of books and Oliver Stone movies about that? Chomsky finds that offensive…
… and so do I.
So I have to agree with him on that note as well. There’s an arrogance in dwelling on JFK’s murder while so many still go unnoticed. To those 3 million you can add El Salvadorians, Chileans, Equadorians, Iraqis, Afghanis, Pakistanis, Iranians, Libyans, Mexicans, Cubans, Russians, East Temorians, Indians, Panamanians, Argentinians, Costa Ricans, Yeminis, ect. ect. ect…
http://www.911conspiracy.tv/Noam_Chomsky_vs_Barrie_Zwicker.html
and right on time we have Clayton James, a proponent of the Ron Paul style of neoliberalism (“liberty”) trying to attack the messenger with that old standby clip of Chomsky talking about 9/11. Chomsky has been speaking out against this kind of savage capitalism his entire adult life, this is the same thing that Clayton, knowingly or not, supports via his Ron Paul advocacy. So, dust off the old video as if it has anything to do with this chat and post it up, not once but twice. This is the kind of mentality that Paulbots (and any other zealots) have been doing for some time now.
let me go get it. I don’t see any other people’s comments in the spam bin. I don’t know what is causing this. There is no length limit on comments and obviously people can use the name of Chomsky in their comments.
give me a sec
willy,
very interesting analysis re cynthia mckinney, etc.
re: “but what difference would it make if the other 20% of the country knew JFK was murdered by an inside conspiracy? I have a hard time looking at current and recent events thinking that it would make a hill of beans difference.”
true, but couldn’t we substitute any issue for the jfk issue (9/11, bush lied to get us into war, rigged-voting, all the other political assassinations, the latest ongoing and upcoming wars in the middle east, etc. etc.) and argue the same? for example, chomsky has been screaming about the palestinians for how long? has it made a hill of beans of difference?
seemingly it ALL gets us nowhere, and the beat goes on and on and on. but somewhere in my gut i feel it does matter, that having the truth aired does some good even in the present, if only to keep that many more people from falling that much deeper into the matrix.
and in the long run, generations from now perhaps, the seeds of truth planted now will flower and grow, and things will turn around. that is my hope, at least, and my belief.
meanwhile, it’s important to keep all truth alive, and one of the gravest political truths is that the jfk assassination and attendant coverup was THE turning point in current american history. unlike chomsky, i’d not poo-poo the importance of that fact. we should never lose sight of the importance of the jfk event, no matter how intensely we may need to focus elsewhere when dealing with the most current issues.
actually across the span of his career, he has effected quite a bit of change with regard to the Palestinian situation. Change in the rest of the world that is. Here.. yeah, nothing much. Well, aside from a good number of people who know something about Palestine who would know nothing if it weren’t for people like Chomsky and Finklestein dedicating much of their lives to the effort.
We do make a difference. I think. It’s just that they are pushing back. They have been for a while.
Yes, JFK was a major turning point. So was the murder of his brother and MLK and Malcolm X. Once they understood that they could really get away with tremendously flawed executions of public figures, it emboldened them. it emboldened the terrorists here at home. So I certainly agree that accountability is critical, but also the accountability for the vast number of murders that have happened elsewhere. Those deaths need to be answered for as well.
Its really weird how my comments about my comments not showing up always seem to show up but my initial comments never do. I’m pretty stupid when it comes to computers so I’m sure its just some routine glitch but still weird nonetheless.
Are you double clicking the send button? That might explain it. Aside from that, I have no idea. Your IP is the same as the ones that are getting sent to pending status.
I found them and posted the most recent. Glad you are copying them to make sure.
No, I’m clicking the same way I always have when posting here. I think I’ll let that last lengthy comment be my last word on this for today though(you’re welcome,lol). My blood pressure is bad enough as is.
Sorry to “derail” another Chomksy thread. I have tried to keep it to minimum as I know it annoys you. I just cant help myself sometimes though. I feel strongly about this subject in part because I respect most of Chomskys views and respect most of the people who value him as an intellectual. His 9/11 denial clearly hasn’t worked on you but it does work on many. That must change.
I never said Paul was my hero, I was simply saying he never said let them die! And when asked the question “would you let them die” Paul said “no” .
Paul doesn’t live off the publics money but Chomsky does working for the government funded MIT!
By the way Scott how do you have so much time to do so much research? Retired? Unemployed? Do you have people helping you?
going on 5 years of doing this site. the only people who help me are the people leaving the comments and giving me head’s up on story ideas and links.
curious how you immediately suggest something nefarious simply because I don’t share your enthusiasm for Ron Paul’s savage definition of “liberty”
If you think this country is fucked by corporatism now, just wait until all that “liberty” is unleashed by the likes of Ron Paul. Kinda like all that lovely CHANGE we got from Obama… same thing.
How on god’s green earth can you possibly suggest that Ron Paul isn’t suckling at the “big guberment” teet? He has been getting a paycheck from the congress since, what 1976 with only a couple years off? Now his son is cashing the “big guberment” checks and his other son is planning to run for office in the House in 2012. Are you kidding me? Their homes are BOUGHT with government cash and every year or so his flunky Alex Jones is pushing some new “money bomb” to buy him a Leer Jet or something.
You have no argument so you stoop to the lowest form of discourse, you attack the messenger with your implication that I am paid to do this.
Getting harder and harder to defend him outside the safe confines of the Ron Paul echo chambers, huh?
Well, at least you got that in common with the old Bushites and the Obamanoids.
Your out of your mind, i guess I watched a different video than everyone else? Your never wrong anyway so what’s the point?
Here Scott, a friend sent this to maybe when you have time from bashing Ron Paul you can read the truth about your hero Chomsky.
http://www.911conspiracy.tv/Noam_Chomsky_vs_Barrie_Zwicker.html
Sorry, but Noam Chomsky’s refusal to address in any kind of significant matter the two events of JFK’s assassination and 9/11 makes him lacking in any kind of credibility and a suspect for being a shill …
Ha. The Chomsky yeah. First he came up with generative grammar, which sucked mightily. Then X-bar theory, which I took some courses in. For maybe five years he has been pushing minimalist grammar, which is just goofy. Nobody in Europe pays it any mind.Some professors at the local university persuaded me to send him some stuff about the linguistics theory I have worked on for 14 years. He sent a return email of such condescension and dismissiveness that I cannot post it here.
Some unnamed faculty still lets me use time on their computers (my stuff is in Gambit Scheme, if anyone wants to help). So I am no big fan of Chomsky.
Be that as it may, he was telling us twenty years ago what we all know today. It would have been extra nice if people were screaming about NAFTA, or even TARP (I did instantly, and was quickly banned from the big blogs for doing so).
Chomsky is just this strange dude with some wisdom, plus some odd baggage. He was twenty years ahead of his time. Or more accurately, we were twenty years behind ours.
Hey Scott, you said twice I posted a video about Chomsky, I knew you didn’t open it and read the truth because it’s an article ( a bit lengthy) not a video! Your just like your hero,,,a liar.
Well Clayton, there is a video in it. Scott never indicated he had any “heroes.” Ron Paul flips and flops with the best of them. You seem to despise anyone who has misgivings about your dear Ron Paul. Or is it just that you don’t like this site? Where’s the beef?
blues, that is such a perfect answer to clayton !
You did post that Chomsky video up twice. Remember? The one where someone asks him about 9/11 and JFK?
You posted that video up twice. If you would like I can link to the places you put them.
On the 15th of this month (just a few days ago actually) you left two comments, one at 12:56 pm and one just two minutes later at 12:58 pm. They were links to the same video.
here and here
What I said about the GNN article you posted a link to was this:
And I had to read the entire thing, otherwise how would I have known it was from GNN (they don’t mention that little gem until the end of the article because MOST people recognize GNN as a bullshit propaganda site)
But actually I also read that Zwicker book and I also read Zwicker’s endorsement of the Pentagon created “fly over theory”…
… so to be honest that has no credibility with me or with many others in the dissident movements. GNN and Zwicker have been exposed long ago.
Here is Barry Zwicker’s endorsement of CIT’s disinfo, the “fly over theory”, which was created by “interviewing” 13 Pentagon and Department of the Army employees.
And here you can find a pretty good article on GNN and the various connections of their owners to US intel programs and foreign governments like the Likud Party of Israel.
I don’t believe a thing Zwicker says anymore and word got round pretty quickly that GNN was disinfo back in 2009. They finally closed up their little propaganda shop in 2010.
So basically you post a link to an article published on a disinfo site featuring the “truth telling’ of a disinfo agent and then come along and call me a “liar” for saying you put up to links to a video, which you did?
And all this time, one ad hominem attack after the other. either me or Chomsky, back and forth, and you never once attempt to defend the neoliberal policies of Ron Paul which is what this thread was about.