Noam Chomsky on Obama and his Cabinet Selections

"His choices are like selecting Osama Bin Laden to run the war on terror"

This is why Norm is out of the mainstream of America. I fully agree that the so-called Wall Street "experts" who got us into this mess should not be allowed inside the Beltway let alone the White House. However, analogizing the likes of Henry Paulson to Osama bin Laden is extremist nonsense.
 
suck my dick. oh, never mind, im not 12.

what can I say.. Anguille's choice to support your pederasty came as a surprise. Suffice it to say, you got to see how the rest of us feel about your sick opinions, dude. and Ravi? She's easy like a lot lizard when it comes to anything I post. Good riddance.
 
Shogun you are aware that roughly ten percent of the slave holders in the South were themselves of African decent? That They were voting in elections in the south long before the civil war and that the first mixed race military unit in America Was the 1st Alabama -Florida Cavalry which contained at least one black officer and a few black enlisted men.

And serves With the CSA during the Civil War.

WHAT???

Are you insane?
 
This is why Norm is out of the mainstream of America. I fully agree that the so-called Wall Street "experts" who got us into this mess should not be allowed inside the Beltway let alone the White House. However, analogizing the likes of Henry Paulson to Osama bin Laden is extremist nonsense.

Then you don't understand analogy.
 
suck my dick. oh, never mind, im not 12.

what can I say.. Anguille's choice to support your pederasty came as a surprise. Suffice it to say, you got to see how the rest of us feel about your sick opinions, dude. and Ravi? She's easy like a lot lizard when it comes to anything I post. Good riddance.
Why would you tell a minor to suck your dick? :eusa_whistle:

Your paranoia about my opinions is very amusing, pervert.
 
Thoughts from another "self-hating" jew with whom I agree.

A Last Chance at Middle East Peace?

President-elect Obama will be the last American president who has a chance to save the two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict. If he does not achieve this goal during the first year of his presidency, the two-state "horizon" that George W. Bush pursued so ineptly is likely to disappear for good. But even a quick engagement by the new president will fare no better than previous US peace initiatives--all of which have gotten nowhere--if Obama and his advisers approach the task believing that some more "peace processing" or "confidence-building measures" will achieve the goal.

The Israel-Palestine conflict has defied US "facilitation" over these many years not because of procedural shortcomings or a paucity of ideas. The terms of a workable agreement--formulated in the so-called Clinton Parameters of December 2000 and elaborated in the Taba discussions that followed in January 2001--are well known and enjoy near-universal support. They call for minor rectifications in the 1949 armistice line (which served as Israel's pre-1967 border) in order to allow Israel to retain a cluster of nearby settlements based on an agreed equal exchange of territory on both sides of the border; a capital for the new Palestinian state in Arab East Jerusalem; a limited return of Palestinian refugees to their former homes in Israel in agreed numbers that do not significantly alter Israel's ethnic and religious balance; a nonmilitarized Palestinian state that addresses Israeli security concerns while respecting Palestinian sovereignty; and a US-led international force that would ensure security and assist with Palestinian nation-building for a transitional period.

What has been missing is the political will to get the parties to act on these parameters--a political and moral failure that has doomed all previous efforts. This failure has not been the result of ignorance but of cowardice--a willful disregard by Israel and successive American administrations, as well as by much of the international community, of certain unchanging fundamentals that underlie this conflict. Peace initiatives that ignore these fundamentals and seek an agreement on the cheap cannot succeed.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090112/siegman?rel=hp_currently

Who is this "self-hating" jew who must obviously want to see muslims dominating, torturing, and eating jewish people?

Henry Siegman, director of the U.S./Middle East Project in New York, is a visiting research professor at the Sir Joseph Hotung Middle East Program, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. He is a former national director of the American Jewish Congress and of the Synagogue Council of America.

It would be mindless to suggest this man is "self-hating" .. yet he recognizes the culpability of Israel and the United States in failed negotiations and he recognizes the role cowardice plays into the equation. I would not make the coalition "American led" but I agree and have stated many times that an international peace-keeping force in the ME is the way to peace in the region.

Unfortunately, Obama will not take this course.

Can one be considered "anti-semitic" if they really like "self-hating jews?"

Can I call jews who don't like "self-hating" jews anti-semitic?
 
Last edited:
I understand that analogizing the perpetrator of 9/11 - which has caused war, traumatized the nation, and has lead to the deaths of tens of thousands of people - to the financial melt-down is shrill hysteria and should be viewed upon as such.

Feel free to view it however you choose .. but there is nothing LITERAL intended with analogy.

"It's like the fox guarding the hen house" .. does not literally mean the person is a fox, nor that there is actually a hen house.

AND, Bin Laden did not kill tens of thousands of people .. we did .. make that, hundreds of thousands of people .. make that, hundreds of thousands of innocent people who didn't have shit to do with 9/11, Saddam's regime, or terrorism..
 
Feel free to view it however you choose .. but there is nothing LITERAL intended with analogy.

"It's like the fox guarding the hen house" .. does not literally mean the person is a fox, nor that there is actually a hen house.

AND, Bin Laden did not kill tens of thousands of people .. we did .. make that, hundreds of thousands of people .. make that, hundreds of thousands of innocent people who didn't have shit to do with 9/11, Saddam's regime, or terrorism..

I never said bin Laden killed tens of thousands of people. Rather, that is what it has lead to.

As a linguist, I have to imagine Chomsky understands the symbolism of language. Words in context have different meanings. Arguing that an analogy comparing a man that triggered a war in which America is currently engaged and has killed tens of thousands of innocent people is not meant to be taken literally, i.e. "fox and the henhouse," fails to understand the context in which is set. Or it demonstrates loathing, self or otherwise.
 
I never said bin Laden killed tens of thousands of people. Rather, that is what it has lead to.

As a linguist, I have to imagine Chomsky understands the symbolism of language. Words in context have different meanings. Arguing that an analogy comparing a man that triggered a war in which America is currently engaged and has killed tens of thousands of innocent people is not meant to be taken literally, i.e. "fox and the henhouse," fails to understand the context in which is set. Or it demonstrates loathing, self or otherwise.

Give me a fucking break .. more "self-loathing?"

He disagrees that putting people in charge of Treasury who helped ceate the mess we now see makes any sense somehow means that he loathes himself .. and possibly hates all jews and wants to see them eaten by arabs.

Absolutely ridiculous.

If you're a linguist then surely you undertand that analogy IS symbolism ..in fact, that's all it is.

The bolden part of my comment is of course exaggeration, but it is meant to highlight the incredible ignorance of claiming Chomsky is "self-loathing" .. thus it is symbolism, not literal. As a linguist, I assume you know this ... but I articulated it just in case you don't.
 
On Tuesday, the New York Times reported that Hillary Clinton and the president-elect had settled on two deputy secretaries of state to serve under the former first lady. Jim Steinberg, a seasoned foreign policy hand who worked in the Clinton administration and was an adviser to Obama during the general election, will presumably play the role of policy hand. Jacob Lew, Director of the Office of Management and Budget under Bill Clinton, will help secure and structure Foggy Bottom's budget.
Pentagon Problems: Obama Runs Into Delays Staffing Defense Team

Welcome to the United States of Israel .. now totally in charge of our State Department and Treasury.
 
Give me a fucking break .. more "self-loathing?"

He disagrees that putting people in charge of Treasury who helped ceate the mess we now see makes any sense somehow means that he loathes himself .. and possibly hates all jews and wants to see them eaten by arabs.

Absolutely ridiculous.

If you're a linguist then surely you undertand that analogy IS symbolism ..in fact, that's all it is.

The bolden part of my comment is of course exaggeration, but it is meant to highlight the incredible ignorance of claiming Chomsky is "self-loathing" .. thus it is symbolism, not literal. As a linguist, I assume you know this ... but I articulated it just in case you don't.

I have no particular opinion about Israel and have no affinity for the Jews any more than I have for Muslims, other than to say that at least Israel is a democracy and an ally. When I referenced loathing, it was loathing of the American system, not Judaism or himself. And as I stated earlier, I don't think anyone associated with the financial melt-down should be placed in any position of power, which means I essentially agree with Chomsky, even though Chomsky has demonstrated his ignorance of finance and economics repeatedly.

But its as ridiculous to analogize the likes of Henry Paulson and Ben Bernanke with Osama bin Laden as it is to analogize Martin Luther King or even Malcolm X with Charles Taylor, and demonstrates yet again why Chomsky and his followers sit on the extremist fringe of American society.
 
Why would you tell a minor to suck your dick? :eusa_whistle:

Your paranoia about my opinions is very amusing, pervert.

then take your concern to a fucking mod, bitch. And block my posts while you are at it if the things I post rubs your pussy the wrong way.
 
The mods won't ban you, though I don't know why they don't.

gather some support and make your case. Here, let me make it easy for you and list a few people you can pm RIGHT NOW:

Del, Agnapostate, Andrew2382, Charles Bass, Ghook93 and PubliusInfinitum.


There, enjoy. May the force be with you.

:thup:
 
Shogun you are aware that roughly ten percent of the slave holders in the South were themselves of African decent? That They were voting in elections in the south long before the civil war and that the first mixed race military unit in America Was the 1st Alabama -Florida Cavalry which contained at least one black officer and a few black enlisted men.

And serves With the CSA during the Civil War.

So the fuck what?
 
No one least of all me is claiming that the fact that Blacks were slave owners as well as slaves in this country validates the fact That slavery was practiced in this country for the first 60 odd years of it's two hundred years of existence. I am merely pointing out that Free blacks did indeed enjoy the same rights as everyone else in this country at least surprisingly enough in the slave holding south.

Lucky them.
 
When did PubliusInfinitum get banned, and for what?

he didn't, as far as im aware. Im giving ravir a list of people who would leap on her bandwagon to have me banned.
 

Forum List

Back
Top